Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Facebook, Twitter Proposing CentOS Hyperscale SIG With Newer Packages + Other Changes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    btw, wait a second, does it mean that there are no veteran unix admin employed by fb, twitter or verizon?
    Huh? I don't follow.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by coder View Post
      Huh? I don't follow.
      "One example of a package they are looking to update more timely for CentOS is the systemd components"

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by coder View Post
        That's a mis-characterization. Those companies' legal protections don't protect them from allowing their platforms to be used for illegal content. And incitement & conspiracy to commit violent or seditious acts are very much illegal.

        So, to the extent they're legally obligated to do anything, they are obligated to remove that content.

        This is not about banning groups and opinions they simply dislike or find socially corrosive, or there would have been a lot more bans going on for a lot longer.
        And I'm not trying to defend the right. Frankly, I think the worst thoughts imaginable about people in red hats because of the past four years. It doesn't change that what those companies are doing is just knee-jerk, after-the-fact, fascist censorship. They had rules. Those rules were broke. They didn't enforce them because money. Now they are because political pressure. That's fascism in action.

        And the bans have been going on for the past few years and they're ramping up more and more. Anything deemed "extremist" or "immoral" risks a ban. And you have to remember that it used to not be that way. Providers weren't responsible for what was posted. Phoronix wasn't responsible or legally culpable for me and my actions. They used child diddlers and music pirates to get that changed and now they're using those laws to enforce acceptable speech. First they came for the pedos, and no one said a word because they're pedos. Then they came for the pirates and only the EFF said a thing because "they're thieves" even though distributing a game from an out-of-business company isn't necessarily thievery so now I can't even download Linux isos over bit torrent because my ISP blocks torrent traffic. No shit. And now they're coming for "extremists" and "terrorists" and no one wants to say a word because you look like a MAGA Coup Tard due to the current political climate.

        The problem is one person's terrorist is another person's hero. Take the shot heard round the world. Half the world heard a terrorist and the other half heard a freedom fighter. We won so the freedom fighter story is the one we tell.

        One person's extremist is another person's realist. Take medicinal marijuana. That was extremist talk in the past. Ever hear of the Red Scare? Lots of people became "extremists" and put on lists simply because they had views that were disagreeable to the norm.

        I love how MAGA folks storm the Capitol, in a literal coup-attempt, and it's somehow the fault of the left. This is the sort of insane reality-twisting that right-wing extremists use to turn everything into a grievance, which makes them feel justified in perpetrating such outlandish acts.
        That's clearly the fault of the right and I don't think I've ever said otherwise.

        The fault of the left is their after-the-fact censorship. Can't wait to see what starts getting banned in the future as the dominoes start falling as Silicon Valley is given the ability to decide what is and isn't acceptable speech.

        I'd have respected them a lot more if they'd have censored Trump and the MAGA folks years ago. They were clearly breaking established rules of the platform, but they were also driving clicks and ad revenue so they were written off as conspiracy theory idiots and given a free pass. But doing it like this: after-the-fact, knee-jerk reaction; that's just bullshit and I fear the ramifications that presents. Long-term, it isn't a good precedent to set in what is supposed to be a freedom-based society.

        Something pissed off society? Time to drop the ban hammer. Shitty precedent to set when there were clear and obvious violations to begin with. A precedent of "Damn the rules until there's a problem because we're making good money" is, well, just as immoral and ignorant as the actions and tweets of the people in the coup.

        And how many millions were slaughtered under the rainbow flag? Oh, none? Well, then maybe that's a bad analogy.

        I'm not even trying to defend The Left, as there's stuff I don't like, either. But you need a sense of proportionality, here.
        Give it time. We're only on the precipice of change. That's why my image was 12 years into the future. It would be like someone in 1920s Germany going "And how many millions have been slaughtered under the Nazi flag?" to win a debate about how the Nazis are better for Germany's future than the other parties. Oh, none, because the Nazis weren't in full control yet. It wasn't until the Nazis were able to start doing censorship on the equivalent level in their times did they start getting away with murder, so give it time.

        My post might have been censored, and I'm not sure why, but at least Michael straight up deleted it from the start versus letting things go on for years before all hell breaks loose and then doing something about it. I posted something disagreeable, someone flagged it, the platform deleted it. Trump or MAGA Idiot tweets something disagreeable, someone flagged it, the platform promotes it. There's a big difference in those two scenarios if y'all wanna call hypocrisy on my stance. I'm for proactive; I'm against reactive.

        I feel like the tech companies are playing stupid about leaving so much objectionable content up for so long:


        I honestly feel like they're George Costanza pulling a "Was That Wrong?". Yes it was, but the money it brought in was so good that they didn't care until there were actual real world consequences to their actions and that they're only doing something now because of political pressure...that's fascism. What the majority of Trump and those people were saying were both illegal and against the platform and no one did a damn thing until after the fact because it was good for business.

        I fear that the platforms are about to become very, very proactive in response. I'm in a weird spot about all of this. It's hard position being accepting of agreed-to censorship while fearing extreme fascism levels of censorship like China provides.

        Also, I find it very, very ironic that we're discussing censorship that originated from a quoted censored post.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by 9Strike View Post
          Wtf is wrong here today?
          just in case you did not know the connection between holocaust and IBM:
          https://www.amazon.de/IBM-Holocaust-...0519972&sr=8-3


          Originally posted by ThoreauHD View Post
          I'd rather not get involved in krystalnacht corporations. And judging by their stock price drops, others aren't fond of it either.
          and you... IBM and the germans and the zionist jews just followed this agreement:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement
          Last edited by Qaridarium; 13 January 2021, 02:44 AM.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
            And I'm not trying to defend the right. Frankly, I think the worst thoughts imaginable about people in red hats because of the past four years. It doesn't change that what those companies are doing is just knee-jerk, after-the-fact, fascist censorship. They had rules. Those rules were broke. They didn't enforce them because money. Now they are because political pressure. That's fascism in action.
            Maybe the lag in enforcement is due to political pressure, but maybe it's because they can no longer pretend that the offending content is harmless. It seems to me that you're looking at this with an agenda in mind. Also, it just proves that these companies are in a no-win situation, given that you're now using their prior tolerance and clumsiness against them.

            Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
            Providers weren't responsible for what was posted.
            And they still aren't, if it's not illegal. That's different than saying they're disinterested, of course, so they exercise some discretion and have been cracking down on an increasing amount of cases where their platforms are being abused.

            Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
            Phoronix wasn't responsible or legally culpable for me and my actions.
            It is, if you do something illegal and Phoronix makes no effort to police it.

            And what's this past-tense business? The law hasn't changed since 1996.

            Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
            The problem is one person's terrorist is another person's hero. Take the shot heard round the world. Half the world heard a terrorist and the other half heard a freedom fighter. We won so the freedom fighter story is the one we tell.
            Cut the moral relativism, please. We're talking about breaking laws and hurting people.

            Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
            The fault of the left is their after-the-fact censorship.
            That's premature. This isn't yet "after". There are still numerous viable threats leading up to and including the inauguration.

            Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
            Can't wait to see what starts getting banned in the future as the dominoes start falling as Silicon Valley is given the ability to decide what is and isn't acceptable speech.
            I believe they really don't want that responsibility, precisely because it's a no-win situation for them. Many people are always going to be upset that they're censoring too much or too little. I'm sure they'd rather shift that blame onto the government, if they could.

            Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
            I'd have respected them a lot more if they'd have censored Trump and the MAGA folks years ago.
            Really? I don't think people should be censored just for having distasteful views or being nasty.

            Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
            Something pissed off society?
            I'm curious what you consider this "something" that "pissed off society". Please tell me, in your own words, exactly what brought this about.

            Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
            Time to drop the ban hammer. Shitty precedent to set when there were clear and obvious violations to begin with. A precedent of "Damn the rules until there's a problem because we're making good money" is, well, just as immoral and ignorant as the actions and tweets of the people in the coup.
            So even though policing a platform with hundreds of millions or billions of users is hard and there are many tough calls, you think that they should never censor or ban someone who had prior violations that weren't punished? No matter what that person or group goes on to do? Please help me understand your position.

            Also, you equate banning people they hadn't banned before as "just as immoral and ignorant as the actions and tweets of the people in the coup". Really??? So, that's as bad as killing and injuring people, looting and destroying federal property, and threatening our democracy? Wow, you and I have extremely different value systems.

            Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
            Give it time. We're only on the precipice of change. That's why my image was 12 years into the future.
            It's like you're worried about buying earthquake insurance, while your house is still on fire. And you don't even know if there's a big fault, nearby!

            How about we try to deal with the current crisis? Maybe there will be some mistakes, but this is a first (like 9/11). As and when a new threat becomes clear, then we can try to deal with it. But the idea that social media platforms can't ban insurrectionists because the bans could go too far and cause some collateral damage just strikes me as misplaced priorities.

            With that being said, I'm not a fan of the big social networks. I don't use them and I think the idea of regulation needs to be revisited and carefully considered.

            Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
            I honestly feel like they're George Costanza pulling a "Was That Wrong?". Yes it was, but the money it brought in was so good that they didn't care until there were actual real world consequences to their actions and that they're only doing something now because of political pressure...
            Just to circle back -- that's the only rationale you can imagine? Not that it's a big, expensive, and difficult job and maybe that they wanted to err on the side of less censorship? It's not just a big job, but also a minefield of borderline cases, tough calls, and politically sensitive issues that are virtually guaranteed to piss of one person/group or another, either way. I agree that the financial bottom line was definitely a factor, but I think it's a fantasy to imagine that any poor decisions or inconsistencies in their past moderation were all the result of deliberate policy decisions. I'm not inclined to have a lot of sympathy for these social networks, but I sure wouldn't want the responsibility of crafting and tying to implement their content moderation policies.

            Comment


            • #26
              coder For all our sakes I won't quote that.

              My problem is there were clear and obvious violations of all the different platforms from high level individuals and they did nothing to stop them or moderate them until this. What's the point of rules if they don't matter for those in power and those that generate clicks?

              Sorry, I thought I had more time to respond but I have things to do. I'll get back to you later if you want.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
                [
                My problem is there were clear and obvious violations of all the different platforms from high level individuals and they did nothing to stop them or moderate them until this. What's the point of rules if they don't matter for those in power and those that generate clicks?
                Social media has been a cesspool since its inception. You can find personal attacks and calls to violence on literally any platform on the internet today. Twitter freely allows Louis Farrakhan to send tweets comparing Jews to cockroaches, very similar style propaganda as Germany 1939. Twitter is OK with this. Twitter, AWS, etc. all have terms of service that include "offensive content" as an offense that can get you banned. What is "offensive content"? It means literally anything they want - it's not an objective standard. When the rules are applied selectively to target certain populations, that's where the trouble arises. If the speed limit is 55, everyone is speeding, but only black people are issued tickets, you would find that problematic, no? This is no different, other than that its a corporation instead of the government. In the case of Big Tech however, they have near monopoly positions on the market, so they're more akin to the phone company or the electric company, and as such should be more heavily regulated to avoid this kind of blatant discrimination. As I said earlier, anyone who believes in a free and open internet should be terrified by the Orwellian shutdown tactics we just witnessed.
                Last edited by torsionbar28; 13 January 2021, 01:39 PM.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by coder View Post
                  Those companies' legal protections don't protect them from allowing their platforms to be used for illegal content. And incitement & conspiracy to commit violent or seditious acts are very much illegal.

                  So, to the extent they're legally obligated to do anything, they are obligated to remove that content.
                  And yet they allow Antifa to use their platforms, even after violent attacks against police stations and federal courthouses, even after "occupied zones" where people get murdered and emergency workers are not permitted to enter. I agree with the quoted text above, but the rules are being applied very inconsistently, and are heavily skewed along political lines. Not good.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
                    anyone who believes in a free and open internet should be terrified by the Orwellian shutdown tactics we just witnessed.
                    My belief in a free and open internet is why I don't use those platforms.

                    The irony of your statement is that the only way to prevent this sort of censorship is to have more regulation of the internet -- not less. At a superficial level, this would seem to be antithetical to a free and open internet, but I don't really see another way.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by coder View Post
                      My belief in a free and open internet is why I don't use those platforms.

                      The irony of your statement is that the only way to prevent this sort of censorship is to have more regulation of the internet -- not less. At a superficial level, this would seem to be antithetical to a free and open internet, but I don't really see another way.
                      Same here. I used Facebook for a week to get some in-game currency for Real Racing 3 back in 2014 or 2015. That was the extent of my social network usage and I never got the in-game currency.

                      We do need more regulation. All this has shown is yet another example of how Capitalists don't follow their own rules if it has the potential to hurt their bottom line. For that matter, the pandemic itself has shown that American police selectively enforce laws. I can't count the number of news shows I've watched about random sheriff departments not enforcing COVID restrictions. Riot squads show up minutes into a BLM movement every time. No riot squads to be found during a MAGA Coup. This shows that we need more regulation on and off line.

                      Free and open is all and good, but how free and open should it really be? Should it be so free and open that it is full of illegal content? Should people be free to call each other names everywhere they post? Should we have to deal with assholes on every site? Should it be so regulated that things like Tor and Bit Torrent don't work? There has to be some sort of middle ground; free to live in peace laws and regulations.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X