police the platforms
No thanks. The beauty of social media is the unrestrained assholery. People just need to learn to cope & quit being fragile: skill issue. Education & civic campaigns to promote social good are better approaches respecting our inherent liberties to piss people off.
you don’t stop misogyny by just ignoring it you twats, and hot take, mainstream social media
Opinions aren’t stopped. They also don’t need to be. Trying to make individualism a put-down is pathetic.
We all have it in our power to ignore or use our voices to promote our messages with as much force as the messages we oppose. That provocative ragebait engages more effectively than constructive dialog reflects a human failing & a need to work on ourselves.
Social media doesn’t need to be good, and we don’t need to keep using it.
The beauty of social media is we can be totally irredeemable “twats”, victim-blame up the wazoo, and put out the most infuriating shit conceived until we realize it’s all expression lacking substance & none it matters.
It’s only when people start caring too much that we should be concerned for humanity.
They need to get a life or something, stop putting so much of themselves on words, images, & sounds on a screen.
collectively shaming participants
That should suffice. Laws/censorship are unnecessary. Stupid opinions on the internet or in society aren’t new.
Other tech CEOs, including Microsoft’s Bill Gates, Snap’s Evan Spiegel, and Tesla’s Elon Musk, have also spoken about limiting their children’s access to devices. Gates has said he did not give his children smartphones until age 14 and banned phones at the dinner table entirely. Snap CEO Evan Spiegel, in 2018, said he limits his child to the same 1.5 hours per week of screen time as Thiel.
Seems like these failures suing them & demanding government paternalism
Yet, as the trials against social media companies continue and country after country moves toward legislating what Silicon Valley’s billionaires have quietly practiced for years
don’t know how to effectively limit access/use parental controls as tech CEOs claim to do.
If the end user can arbitrarily sign code themselves that is bootable then it kind of defeats the purpose of secure boot.
They can & it doesn’t. They can change the platform key to become the platform owner & control the public keys they keep in the code signing databases. Secure Boot gives the platform owner control over authorized code signers of boot processes.
That’s true today, but there’s no guarantee it will be true in the future.
It’s in the specification.
The platform key establishes a trust relationship between the platform owner and the platform firmware. The platform owner enrolls the public half of the key (PKpub) into the platform firmware. The platform owner can later use the private half of the key (PKpriv) to change platform ownership or to enroll a Key Exchange Key. See “Enrolling The Platform Key” and “Clearing The Platform Key” for more information.
The platform owner clears the public half of the Platform Key (PKpub) by deleting the Platform Key variable using UEFI Runtime Service SetVariable(). The data buffer submitted to the SetVariable() must be signed with the current PKpriv - see Variable Services for details. The name and GUID of the Platform Key variable are specified in Globally Defined Variables. The platform key may also be cleared using a secure platform-specific method. When the platform key is cleared, the global variable SetupMode must also be updated to 1.
It’s a matter of clearing the platform key & enrolling your own platform key. I’ve done this before.
Typically, computers with Secure Boot let us clear the platform key from the boot menu. (You can choose to purchase only those that do.) Some computer vendors ship Secure Boot in setup mode or let the customer provide public keys to ship preloaded.
Secure Boot has always been for enabling the owner to enforce integrity of the boot process through cryptographic signatures. Linus Torvalds thought the feature makes sense.
Linus: I actually think secure boot makes a lot of sense. I think we should sign our modules. I think we should use the technology to do cryptographic signatures to add security; and at the same time inside the open source community this is so unpopular that people haven’t really worked on it.
It’s true that secure boot can be used for horribly, horribly bad things but using that as an argument against its existence at all is I think a bit naive and not necessarily right. Because if you do things right then it’s a really good thing. I would like my own machine to have the option to not boot any kernel, or boot loader, that is not signed by this signature.
Maybe read about the French revolutionary National Assembly & where political left came from?
Yes: crack open a history book.
Liberalism was the original leftism: see the French revolutionary National Assembly. It doesn’t intrinsically have anything to do with capitalism. In general, liberalism is neither left nor right. It promotes individualism. Historically, it progressed from humanism.
leftism begins at anti-capitalism
Not the political science definition.
General definitions & the historical development of liberalism are academic.
liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.
Some of the earliest liberal practices are found in the US Declaration of Independence, which predates the French revolution spreading the practice of liberal ideals throughout Europe. The US declaration pretty much rehashes core tenets of liberal philosophy
Note how capitalism isn’t mentioned anywhere: it’s nonessential. Capitalism predates & isn’t liberalism. Liberalism is moral & political philosophy, not an economic one.
The philosophy is a natural progression of humanist philosophies from the Renaissance through the Protestant Reformation & the Enlightenment that stress the importance of individuality, secular reasoning, & tolerance over dogma & subservience to unaccountable authority. To address unaccountable authority based on dogma & traditions, English & French philosophers defined legitimate authority based on humanist morality pretty much as expressed in the US declaration. They argued that political systems thrive better with limits & duties on authority & an adversarial system of institutional competition whether in separation of powers, adversarial law system with habeas corpus & right to jury trial, competitive elections, dialogue, or economic competition.
1700s
When the liberals were the leftists?
If we rely on the logic of the German approach, we wouldn’t be able to call the thing a thing until its too late. The point being made is that if you wait long enough to be able to a full historical analysis, you’ve effectively become an apologist for genocide on the basis of a lack of evidence.
Untrue: it’s a matter of accurate wording. “The evidence so far indicates they’re potentially…” or “For all we know, they could be…” gets the same idea across without violating integrity concerning degree of certainty or knowledge.
Providing material support to Israel is no different from providing material support to Nazi Germany
Technically & literally false: they are different. A lawyer can challenge the falsehood.
Providing material support to Israel is bad for the same reasons providing material support to any genocidal state including Nazi Germany is bad
Providing material support to Israel is providing material support to a genocidal state
Providing material support to Israel is as bad as providing material support to a feebler Nazi Germany
All technically correct or opinion.
Claiming shit is true before we have the evidence to justify it is invalid & another way to state you’re claiming shit you don’t actually know: you’re spouting shit. Spouting shit is fine in cool countries that respect liberty. However, Germany is not one of them. Spouting the wrong shit in Germany is legally risky: apparently, the law parses words with autistic literalism.
By punishing verbal laziness, the law doesn’t necessarily “support genocide”. It is coercing you to stop being a slob & express yourself with (annoying?) accuracy.
Cool non-answer. What part of civility rules typical across lemmy such as dbzer0’s own
Don’t be shitty. i.e. telling people to kill themselves, or bad-jacketing is bannable.
allows exceptions for unhinged promotion of violence against commenters whom we unreasonably allege or “bad-jacket” as Zionist? Uncivil denunciations of Zionism are uncivil; therefore, moderators enforcing civility must prosecute. No evidence was given the moderators penalize civil denunciations of Zionism. Enforcing civility doesn’t imply Zionism.
This is basic logic. Denying basic logic implies staggering stupidity or dishonesty.
What part of science is guilt by association fallacy? Rash judgement is at odds with science. Did you know criminals can associate with noncriminals?
To flip this around, ostracizing others “out of safety” for associating with ex-convicts (who had been processed & released to society) is morally compromised & dishonest, ie, immoral. Talking to someone who did something wrong doesn’t imply you did something wrong. Neither does taking their money. Indulging fallacies is not a hallmark of scientific thought & is more consistent with the repressive, medieval thought scientists fought very hard to overcome.
Sages of major religions famously associated with undesirables: outcasts, untouchables, murderers, dangerous felons, etc. By the “logic” of that announcement, communities should have banned Buddha & Jesus (also mentioned in the Epstein files). Those that didn’t were “deplorable” for “not taking firm action to protect” members “in light of” blanket “allegations” that fail to specifically accuse them. If they were sanctimonious enough, they too could have done “more”.
Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative such as link:
Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.
he repeatedly used technicalities and weaseley language to refuse to admit it
see
Yet, Mosseri repeatedly said he was not an expert in addiction in response to Lanier’s questioning.
Even if a nonexpert claims something is clinical addiction, they’re a nonexpert & their word is meaningless. For a credible statement, they’ll need to admit relevant evidence instead of ask a nonexpert.
Imagine being asked for a medical diagnosis when you’re not a qualified physician. It’s perfectly fair to point out you’re not an expert on the matter & point out your awareness of distinctions between imprecise conventional language & precise, scientific definitions.
No one is obligated to volunteer dubious claims to antagonize themselves on the stand just because you want them to.
This is sensationalist BS and I dearly want this platform to be better than that.
This platform loves sensationalism. Same with other platforms.
It’s an atrocious, pointlessly complicated system resulting in convoluted project histories prone to confusion. Trunk-based development with sensible tags of releases & hotfixes achieves the same thing without the junk complexity. Git flow isn’t overkill, it’s just ill-conceived.
Do you have any analysis to substantiate your claims like the articles I linked?
The historical record of congressional party control shows that in the past 4 decades Democrats have rarely had enough control of both chambers to pass legislation without bipartisan support. Democrats (& independents caucusing with them) have had
Even with a majority, Democrats aren’t a monolith: they still have factions. Overcoming Senate filibuster requires 3/5 supermajority. Enacting legislation still requires presidential approval or veto override with 2/3 supermajority from both chambers. Veto overrides are rare & typically bipartisan, especially the last one, which was against Trump. Consequently, deliberation & compromise to broadly appeal to their own party & enough of the opposition is a practical necessity.
Moreover, Trump was impeached twice. They simply lacked the 2/3 supermajority in the Senate to convict due to insufficient bipartisan support.
The 1st impeachment split by party almost exactly:
The 2nd impeachment on 2021/1/13 was only days after the 2021/1/6 incitement of insurrection. Despite some Republican support, not enough were willing to defy Trump.
Failure to convict on 2021/2/13 imperiled chances of a federal criminal case against Trump’s actions during presidency. At that point, congressional Democrats had exhausted the extent of their powers to prosecute or avail Trump to prosecution. The congressional investigation afterward while lengthy posed no real chance of holding Trump legally accountable for inciting insurrection: it could only make findings & refer criminal charges to prosecutors. Any further action would need to be taken by federal prosecutors in the presidential administration.
While the DOJ investigation started late in 2022 November & failed to enter trial hearings (either due to a corrupt judge or appeals over presidential immunity) by the time Trump was reelected, that failure was entirely the Biden administration’s and not of the Democratic party, who had promptly impeached Trump & failed to obtain conviction, because the numbers weren’t in their favor.
Putting “wrenches in the spokes” goes both ways. Do you know how long congressional Republicans had tried to restrict abortion? They simply couldn’t: they had to circumvent US congress through the Supreme Court & state legislatures. Democrats haven’t been “enabling, aiding, or abetting” Republican fascism or authoritarianism: roll calls indicate the contrary. It’s just Congress operating as unsatisfactory & inefficient as should be expected when half represent crazed-out fascists.
Again, any concrete suggestions for how the “damn Democrats” could “stand up to Trump”?
How do you suggest they do that? They’re the minority in both chambers of congress & already overwhelmingly oppose the president’s party on legislation. From roll call analysis
polarization is at the highest in the last several decades
Democrats have lately voted with higher party unity than Republicans
In the House and the Senate, the average party conformity score was higher for Democrats than Republicans over the nearly 18,000 total votes taken. Democrats in the House voted with their party 90.4 percent of the time; Republicans in the House, 89.3 percent of the time. In the Senate, the gulf was wider: Democrats lined up 89.8 percent of the time while Republicans did so only 86.6 percent of the time.
Over the past 20 years, Democrats have, in fact, been more likely to stick together on votes than have Republicans.
non-cooperation between parties is the highest it’s been for at least 6 decades & increasing
They’re supporting protests against the president’s actions.
So, you’re already telling everyone you don’t understand the spoiler effect, basically advocating the opposition to assure their own loss.
Vote splitting is the most common cause of spoiler effects in FPP. In these systems, the presence of many ideologically-similar candidates causes their vote total to be split between them, placing these candidates at a disadvantage. This is most visible in elections where a minor candidate draws votes away from a major candidate with similar politics, thereby causing a strong opponent of both to win.
A spoiler campaign in the United States is often one that cannot realistically win but can still determine the outcome by pulling support from a more competitive candidate.
Any other bright ideas?
Bullshit genetic or reductio ad hitlerum fallacy. Carried to its logical conclusion, anything tainted by Nazis (eg, the universe) is a Nazi bar. Have you considered finding yourself another universe to inhabit, since this one is irredeemably tainted? While we may argue the universe is far too vast to be a “Nazi bar”, so is the internet or any “platform”.
Worse, censoring ideas gives them covert power. It doesn’t discredit them or strip them of power like challenging them in a public forum could. It’s also a disservice to better ideas
Censorship is incompetent advocacy: it mistakes suppressing the expression of bad ideas for effective advocacy that directly discredits bad ideas, develops intellectual growth, and steers toward better ideas.
The bogus social media version subverting the original message or the real one?
text alternative
The True Paradox of Tolerance
By philosopher Karl Popper[1]
You think you know the Popper Paradox thanks to this? (👉 comic from pictoline.com)
Karl Popper: I never said that!
Popper argued that society via its institutions should have a right to prohibit those who are intolerant.
Karl Popper: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.
For Popper, on what grounds may society suppress the intolerant? When they “are not prepared to meet on the level of rational argument” “they forbid their followers to listen to rational argument … & teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols”. The argument of the intolerably intolerant is force & violence.
We misconstrue this paradox at our peril … to the extent that one group could declare another group ‘intolerant’ just to prohibit their ideas, speech & other freedoms.
Grave sign: “The Intolerant” RIP
Underneath it lies a pile of symbols for Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Black power. A leg labeled tolerance kicks the Gay Pride symbol into the pile.
Muchas gracias a @lokijustice y asivaespana.com
Karl Popper opposed censorship/argued for free inquiry & open discourse.
Censorship (or willfully blinding ourselves to information) plays no part in suppressing authoritarianism.
Only cowards fear words. Words are not the danger. It’s the dangerous people whose words we fail to discredit.
Source: The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl R. Popper ↩︎