He was hoping to sway the story away from what he already knew was being written. He made the phone call to Sonka unscheduled and had never called before. In fact, it was a surprise because most of Sonka's work was not complimentary. Having the governor who was against news media (Trumpian) give a friendly call was very strange.
> Yes, extremist bigots do tend to favor deplatforming: they just want to deplatform a different group.
> Surely we can behave better than the bigots?
In a vacuum, I'd agree. As in, in the real world, I would agree. If this were a true human contact based forum, the voice of many regular, busy people will always trump the voice of a few raging bigots. Culturally, we've moved past that; at least in urban centres where this sort of discussion could actually happen.
On the internet, it is different. Posting on the internet is gamified. The rules are simple. To get more influence, you need to be upvoted/favorited/hearted. If your opinion sucks, you are downvoated/blocked/etc.
It's simple, right? But it's also very easily gamed via astroturfing/botting/upvote-downvote farming/influence manipulation. Case in point, any political subreddit prior to the general election in 2016.
Because of this fact, any attempt at good faith discussions in popular forums simply do not exist anymore. Just take a look at how many garbage posts are at the top of any popular subreddit vs actually insightful posts.
Politicians who use these to gain grassroots support have learned to game the system. And enterprising individuals from all over the world are flocking to them. There is big business in upvote/downvote farms, botnets, and influence manipulation via social engineering. Clearly none of these is done in good faith.
Places that have been deplatformed are not always simply people who harbor alternative opinions from the norm. They are places or groups of people who wilfully try debase discussion via the aforementioned methods.
There are bad actors on all sides of any discussion, but it seems to me like organized bad faith is always at the core of the most toxic, polarized places on the internet.
To fix polarization, we must fix the gaming mechanics of these places. More moderation for cheaters is priority number 1.
I think you are right to identify gamification of social media as part of the problem, but I think we need to be careful not to lump in every opinion we disagree with, with people who are using astroturfing/botting/farming/etc. Manipulation of the gamification systems is clearly not in good faith, but there are plenty of real people with odious opinions that they hold due to fear and/or ignorance, but hold in good faith.
I'd argue that in this case, it deplatforming absolutely worked in the way intended. There are 2 factors at play here. People who are willing to argue in good faith, and people who are simply trying to put forth an agenda regardless of what anyone says.
Those who likely moved to Gab and Voat and 4/8chan are likely persons that fit the latter description. There is no need to even have discussions with people like these on the internet. The best is for them to be deplatformed and continue their self flagellation. They are simply too far gone. If anything, these sites will probably radicalize, but it will also be easier for authorities to keep tabs on particularly dangerous accounts.
The concept of deplatforming is to protect the integrity of good faith discussion. The key idea there is "good faith". Persons like the aforementioned Milo clearly do not engage in any concept of good faith discussion. IMO there is no need for any discussion base like reddit or facebook to protect these types.
Deplatforming can't work- otherwise the world would now be as white-bread homophobic and misogynistic as it was in the 50's when blacks, gays, and women were deplatformed.
That kind of implies those social groups all had full participation on the social platform and were then kicked off it, no? I don't think you've thought this analogy through fully.
Please tell me you recognize the irony of your comment.
Your last sentence is essentially indistinguishable from the position held 50 years ago by people who also felt they were "morally right" in deplatforming.
> People who are willing to argue in good faith, and people who are simply trying to put forth an agenda regardless of what anyone says.
I think that it would be wise to doubt one's own ability to differentiate between these two groups.
I also think that the purpose of public debate is not to persuade the person you are debating with: that's almost never possible. It's to persuade the audience. Bad faith arguments, if they really are bad faith arguments, are usually pretty easy to shoot down, so I don't think that we have anything to fear from bad-faith arguers.
In fact, deplatforming benefits bad-faith arguers because their bad-faith arguments look more reasonable when nobody confronts them.
At another level, deplatforming is a bad faith argument, by your own definition. Aren't you trying to put forth your agenda, regardless of what anyone says, by deplatforming people? Your agenda may be good, but that doesn't justify bad faith actions to support it.
In Toronto they got in a spat with the city over street parking and pulled out about a year ago. Really unfortunate as it was a great service, and seemed successful in terms of adoption. There's a new one in its place called Commune Auto, but lacks the visibility, as those little Car2Go smart cars with their branding really stood out.
At least in Calgary, Uber was 2-3x the price of Car2Go. You could get halfway across town in 15 minutes, and pay ~$7 for the trip if you got one of the smart cars. It was great. Last time I checked Uber, it was $18 for the same trip.
Assuming now that we are past the point of no return and the world has gone mad voting in people who will do the opposite of what is necessary, what is left to do?
Do we all simply wait for the inevitable like frogs in a slowly boiling pot? I guess I could practice survival skills but I'd rather die than live in what I expect will be absolute hell come 20 - 30 years.
Rebel against the majority? Because the government doesn't act because the majority doesn't want it to, despite vague propositions. Want to tax your own fuel and heating? Want to stop flying? Want to put millions out of business in your country because the cost of energy and materials went through the roof? This is what we're talking about. Of course it's very satisfying to not want these things and spend the time blaming politicians for their inaction.
It may not seem like it, but poll after poll shows that the majority is concerned about climate change and supports government actions to tackle it. Worldwide. Just a few examples [0][1].
Also, you don't need to wait for the majority to rebel [2]
As I said, the majority "is concerned", but at the same time doesn't really want to take actions. Because being concerned is free, taking initiatives can be very, very expensive.
Just look at what happened in France when the government decided to increase taxes on fuels.
Please contact me, a friend, or family member - my contact info is in my profile. If you're struggling with some pretty hard & depressing subjects, that is ok, just please don't become suicidal.
The problem that is going to affect most people most directly is not raising sea levels or being too hot outside, it's the disruption of just in time food production chains that have centralized in fewer and fewer places. Alaska might benefit by turning into a good production powerhouse in the long term, but in the meantime things aren't going to be pretty because very little change is needed for crops to be unviable in the locales they're currently grown.
But imprisoning people for extended periods of time in unsanitary conditions, without a fair trial[1] and entrapping legally-resident students into violating their visa conditions by setting up a fake university[2] is not a legitimate nor ethical method of immigration enforcement. Being against ICE and their actions is not the same as being against the concept of immigration enforcement.
[1]: The tribunal hearings are effectively a kangaroo court -- there are cases of pre-teen children being asked to make a legal defense without an attorney or their parents.
Entrapment is usually a horrible thing to do, but it is unfortunately standard practice with local police as well as the FBI. Would you agree that those agencies should not have technical services provided to them?
Entrapment as defined by the law is illegal. However, what a lot of these agencies do is not strictly entrapment as defined by the law, and as such is very legal (unfortunately). I'm betting the majority of terrorism cases in the US since 9/11 involved what looks like entrapment, and I believe pretty much all of them have held up in court.
So my question remains. When all of these agencies are practising legal entrapment, would you agree never to provide services to them?
>But imprisoning people for extended periods of time in unsanitary conditions
Trump has asked for additional funding for supplies including beds and toothbrushes. Trump as the head of the executive branch is in charge of ICE. So ICE has effectively asked for additional supplies. Congress hasn't done anything about that. It is not ICE's fault.
>entrapping legally-resident students into violating their visa conditions by setting up a fake university
This was started under Obama. Surely if this was a big issue then Github shouldn't have gotten into the contract in the first place.
> Trump has asked for additional funding for supplies including beds and toothbrushes. Trump as the head of the executive branch is in charge of ICE.
Was that before or after the public outcry over it? Also, there's the separation of parents and children which he definitely hasn't done anything about.
>Was that before or after the public outcry over it?
Trump advocated additional funding for ICE while he was still a candidate. As far as I know he did not specifically mention beds, toothbrushes, soap, etc until he was in office. Since practically nobody cared about the poor conditions of ICE detention centers while Obama was in office Trump may not have even know that they did not have enough supplies. I am unsure if Trump would have advocated for additional supplies if he had known.
>Also, there's the separation of parents and children which he definitely hasn't done anything about.
What is he supposed to do? There are 5 different things he can do and none of them are good.
1. Release parents and children into the US regardless of legal status.
2. Keep children in jail with their parents.
3. Separate children by sending them back to their country.
4. Separate children by placing them somewhere in the US (either with family or social services).
5. Send the entire family back to their country they came from.
A lot of the who make your point say to release them into the US. The problem is it would put a large strain on the welfare system. Even Bernie Sanders and others like him have explicitly said that it is not practical with the current system.
So what would you do with the children?
>How is that a defense? It's still unethical.
I am saying if setting up fake universities and entrapping people was a big deal then the deal between Github and ICE never should have been entered into. Github did not start the deal under Trump. They started it under Obama. Almost nobody seemed to care when Obama did the same thing Trump is doing. The media wasn't talking about it multiple times a day. People were not making speeches while crying about how awful it was. It feels like people only care now that Trump is in power. It was well known what was happening with ICE (and INS before them). It feels so political. That is all I was trying to convey.
> This government agency is actively committing numerous crimes and human rights violations, in contravention of both US and international law. ICE conducts random violent raids throughout the United States, invades communities and workplaces with military equipment, detains busses and trains, and arrests people solely on the basis of their perceived nationality, skin color, or native language. Their agents lurk outside of schools in order to abduct the children of immigrants and force their families to surrender themselves into custody. ICE imprisons people in deplorable and unsanitary conditions and denies them medical care. They separate the children they imprison from their families and offer them for adoption by others via agencies with shady histories. ICE agents subject both the adults and children they imprison to horrific physical, psychological, and sexual abuse. They continue to commit these heinous acts in defiance of multiple judgments issued by US courts and condemnations by humanitarian organizations. Many people, including children, have now died in their custody.
I understand some people just don't like immigrants for many reasons outside of racism/bigotry/xenophobia. Economics and culture being two of many reasonable reasons to dislike immigration.
But having a wing of government acting like the taliban does nothing but empower actual racist/xenophobic/bigoted individuals to enact their deepest sadistic fantasies on these people. This is clearly not simply immigration enforcement.
I support immigration enforcement. I do not support ICE. Supporting ICE is supporting and empowering racism and xenophobia full stop.
Can you state what immigration enforcement you support? The level of hyperbole in your response indicates that you see all immigration enforcement as cruel and unusual.
The most obvious one and one which I believe would systematically kill illegal immigration is simply penalizing businesses which employ illegal immigrants. Either with harsh fines or even possibly jail time.
ICE is simply trying to pull weeds when what you need to do is kill the root. Illegal immigrants come because of many reasons, but primary is to cheat the system that legal immigrants use to find a better life.
If you make the job opportunities sparse, you kill the desire at the root. Open borders is a problem, especially in today's climate change world but it exists because people are willing to employ illegals for below market rates. It's the worst of all worlds for all, except the employer who gets off with cheap labour.
If we do this, we'll finally see if the xenophobes put their money where their mouth is and take back the jobs illegal immigrants have "stolen" from them.
If you took time to read the summary in that README, you'd get all the citations you could want.
In the face of all the horrific reports coming from those jail cells, tell me how actively supporting ICE is not. Hell, name even one government facility where numerous children have died because of neglect and abuse at the hands of government officials.
And again, I can guarantee that illegal immigration will not stop because of ICE's shock tactics. It's just another hoop to jump through. Some of these people escaped the clutches of cartels, for chrissake. You underestimate the resolve of people who find no hope in their current situations.
I said in another comment the way to stop illegal immigration is via jailing business owners that hire illegal immigrants. This is just the war on drugs all over again. You're jailing the users, not the pushers.
When people say this, what exactly does this mean? If you break Google up into Gmail, Search, Calendar, etc... what stops those from within, who have intimate knowledge of the innerworkings and HR related matters within Alphabet as a whole, from simply secretly colluding and sharing resources off the books?
I’ve asked this question an bunch of times and never got a serious reply. There’s no strong anti-trust angle or end game to these things, it’s purely vindictive because it’s trendy to hate on SV.
Sometimes companies are shitty but it doesn’t justify such a strong hammer. If anything their search products or mobile products would themselves need to be broken up, (or FBs network and Instagram) not the whole company... but even then it’s not like they will go away.
So I don't necessarily support it, and I agree a lot of technical people just hate SV and have no idea what it'd mean, but as a developer I can see some benefits.
Here's an example from Apple:
Only Apple Maps can show you maps on a locked screen.
Until iOS 13 Siri tightly integrated with Apple Music ways no other app could.
Apple Pay is the only payment method that can work with a locked phone.
Only Apple's app store can install apps.
Only Apple's messaging apps can create new contacts.
All built-in apps only call other Apple apps for supporting functionality, for example Reminders will only open Apple Maps, Siri smart suggestions for ETA only work with Apple Maps as well.
All Apple apps get an immense head start of integrating with new APIs and OS features.
-
So if you create a competitor to one of those Apple apps, from day 1 you're at a disadvantage.
If they were broken up, all competitors would be on a much more even playing field with Apple's apps.
And Apple is just an easy example, Android is much more open than iOS, but Google Play Services is still a guillotine over anyone who dares to go against Google's wishes.
Imagine if Google services were separate companies so a claimed misdeed on one couldn't end what is the core of billions of people's online existence...
Perhaps, but the vast majority of the hate lands on those companies that are actively screwing over their users, so... I'm happy with vindictive against a billion dollar monolith that I have no hope of ever controlling.
The idea is that breaking up a company will reduce both their resources available to behave badly (cash, infrastructure, people etc.) as well as getting the people in the newly independent organizations to start thinking competitively with each other as well as other companies in the market. If done right, the newly formed entities wouldn't be viewed as the 'same old people under a new name' but rather an entity no longer working toward the same goals if not an outright competitor. (that's in a perfect world... it rarely is perfect) What would keep them from colluding would typically be government/regulatory oversight for some period of time after the breakup with civil and/or criminal penalties being the stick for doing what you describe.
Simply, that's an extremely difficult criminal enterprise to pull of especially on an ongoing basis and for what gains? I would only see to do so for spite and active defiance of the law. Is that worth hefty fines, investigations, possible charges and jail time?
A break up usually means many of these people are laid off or move on. Every separate company would have its own books that would either need to be public if they remain public entities or have audited financials that match expenses to revenue and investments. Not an easy thing to hide QTR over QTR. Furthermore, depending on how the companies are broken up, they will be acquired by other companies or PE rather than be stand-alone enterprises. Lastly, whistleblowers.
TL;DR
It's not worth it for spite and any significant gains or advantages that are imagined, are probably significant enough to be noticed by the government or some enterprising analyst.
Absolutely agreed. My current job is far and away the least technically challenging/complex/interesting work I've done in my 15 year career but it's the most monetarily successful because of stellar sales and marketing and support teams.
Unless you're audience is as technical as you are, the layperson on the street will not know the difference between 2 products given numerous similarities. They NEED to be told that one product is better and just want to talk to a real person to explain how the damned thing works.
Good UX is primary. Good code is secondary. When good UX and good code fail, good human interaction is what is the kicker.
Stickiness of brand also depends on the target audience. For brands who seek premium audiences, this is true, but for mass appeal lowest-cost persons, such as those who use all of the aforementioned listed, because of the lack of competition, brand is hardly a factor.
Given the complexity of building these services, and the lack of comparable competing options, you are left to begrudgingly accept what you're left with.
