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

  • #31
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
    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.
    Agreed, in principle. The Big Tech players of today are the Robber Barrons of the industrial revolution. They need to be reined in, hard.

    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
    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.
    Your example is a poor one however. All summer long, every BLM get together devolved into wide-scale looting, vandalism, and arson. Spoiled white middle class kids burning down black-owned businesses in the name of BLM social justice. The insurance estimate is now over $1 Billion in damage caused by BLM rioters and looters. The Capitol-wall-climbing dumb dumbs aside, MAGA gatherings have always been peaceful events, devoid of the kind of violence and destruction we saw from BLM over the past year. The official BLM Chicago response to over $100 Million in damage caused by BLM rioters? "This is what reparations looks like".

    Comment


    • #32
      If the site has a “block” function then who cares what anyone posts? If it is an illegal call to violence or a real threat, pedo stuff or other illegal activity, then turn it over to the police or feds, else just block them and move on..
      too many drama queens on “anti” social media.. nobody is forced to use Twitter, Facebook, mewe , gab or Parler .
      If you don’t like the service, then don’t use it..
      agitating to have a business closed because you don’t like what they are doing ... naw.. just don’t use them or use the tools provided to not see what you are uncomfortable seeing.
      But yes, collusion by big tech to de platform their competition for subject matter that they themselves allow on their platform is offensive... Twitter is a big case in point... violent, and calls to violence tweets, litter that platform.. but Twitter has no problem with it (nor apparently does aws or apple) as long as those calls for violence come from their approved political ideology.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
        All summer long, every BLM get together devolved into wide-scale looting, vandalism, and arson.
        Not "every BLM get together" by a long shot.

        It's the standard reporting bias where any time there's burning and looting, the news helicopters will be filming it and that footage gets looped over and over for days. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of protests were peaceful and got virtually no news coverage.

        Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
        MAGA gatherings have always been peaceful events,
        Yes, because they're organized like rock concerts or music festivals, rather than being in the middle of wherever people happen to live. Also, the people attending them are just there to celebrate Trump and not really advocating for anything other than his re-election -- so, not an angry crowd you'd expect to get up to a lot of mischief, and not somewhere with a lot of stuff to break.

        The Capitol riot was different. In that case, much more like BLM. The people in attendance were angry and feeling wronged. Furthermore, they were there with an agenda of at least intimidating members of Congress not to certify the vote. That was the whole reason it was held on the 6th, and the explicit reason Trump sent them to the Capitol. And that in itself is bad enough, much less the fairly predictable and dismal events we saw play out.

        Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
        The official BLM Chicago response to over $100 Million in damage caused by BLM rioters? "This is what reparations looks like".
        I don't know about that, because the organized BLM protests aren't where the violence and looting happened. That stuff would go down at night, after the official protests ended and most of the daytime folks left. By-and-large, if not universally, BLM tried to keep their gatherings peaceful.


        Finally, I think we should consider that being cooped up in their homes, with stress about money, employment, etc. was an accelerate that inflamed both BLM and probably a lot of the Trump followers. I really doubt the damage done by BLM and perhaps even the MAGA mob would have been on the same scale, in a normal year. This awful pandemic has been hard on just about everyone.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Radtraveller View Post
          If the site has a “block” function then who cares what anyone posts? If it is an illegal call to violence or a real threat, pedo stuff or other illegal activity, then turn it over to the police or feds, else just block them and move on..
          We were talking about why the MAGA folks got purged, and I was pointing out that the internet platform companies are legally obligated not to let their platforms get used for illegal purposes.

          Originally posted by Radtraveller View Post
          But yes, collusion by big tech to de platform their competition for subject matter that they themselves allow on their platform is offensive...
          I don't believe it's collusion. A line was crossed on Jan 6 that obligated all the platform companies to move, because they could no longer treat the seditious rhetoric as idle grumbling. Once such content was shown to be viable, the platforms were legally obligated to remove the content, groups, etc.

          Originally posted by Radtraveller View Post
          Twitter is a big case in point... violent, and calls to violence tweets, litter that platform.. but Twitter has no problem with it (nor apparently does aws or apple) as long as those calls for violence come from their approved political ideology.
          A point I made in my long reply to skeevy420 was that it's easy to look back at Twitter's content moderation policies and think the pattern you see was entirely the result of a deliberate policy decision. To some extent, I do think they tried to take a more hands-off approach of protecting speech, which is understandable as it aligns both with their financial interests and the political leanings of its founders.

          However, it's also dealing with an absolute torrent of traffic, and (aside for Trump, who definitely got special treatment) it's difficult and very expensive to police all of it -- especially in earlier years, when AI wasn't nearly as capable and most moderation had to be done by humans.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by coder View Post
            We were talking about why the MAGA folks got purged, and I was pointing out that the internet platform companies are legally obligated not to let their platforms get used for illegal purposes.

            Like antifa using Twitter organizing their “get together” to riot, loot, burn and assault people? Show up at people’s private homes and terrorize them?

            I don't believe it's collusion. A line was crossed on Jan 6 that obligated all the platform companies to move, because they could no longer treat the seditious rhetoric as idle grumbling. Once such content was shown to be viable, the platforms were legally obligated to remove the content, groups, etc.

            Really? Twitter starts hemorrhaging users going to parler and apple/aws come to twitter’s rescue ?
            ”if you don’t like our service start your own... but if you don’t follow our censorship policies, then we will have our partners kick you off the internet”.


            A point I made in my long reply to skeevy420 was that it's easy to look back at Twitter's content moderation policies and think the pattern you see was entirely the result of a deliberate policy decision. To some extent, I do think they tried to take a more hands-off approach of protecting speech, which is understandable as it aligns both with their financial interests and the political leanings of its founders.

            However, it's also dealing with an absolute torrent of traffic, and (aside for Trump, who definitely got special treatment) it's difficult and very expensive to police all of it -- especially in earlier years, when AI wasn't nearly as capable and most moderation had to be done by humans.
            replace Twitter with parler in your statement in the last 2 paragraphs.. replace Trump with any of the democrats calling for more riots and protests, calling for their followers to harass anyone they disagree with if they see them in public...

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
              For all our sakes I won't quote that.
              just in case if you did not notice that i wrote you a post and it was instandly deleted by forum admin.

              it is very simple there is the overtone window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
              if you tell people something what is outside of the Overton Window then it will be zensored or ignored or people declare personal war on you.

              and this is not only if something is clearly wrong what you said it is same mechanism for stuff what is 100% scientifically correct and the truth.

              i know many of these examples even if you can proof in court that it is truth what you tell all will declare war on you because of this even if it is true.

              i give you one example the political left claim all are created equal and women for example has the same intelligence/Education than men...

              nothing of this is true. if you search for honest IQ tests without artificial middling women score to men score you will find that women has 2-3IQ points lower IQ in average
              https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/sexdifferences.aspx
              if you check at 18 years women has better formal education on paper because of massive pro-women manipulation in school stuff like girls get better grades in math than boys for the same results!!!... but if you test the education skill (for example at university) men always outperform women and universities use 2 seperat merotocratic lists one for women and one for men... because if they only use 1 list for men and women then no only a very small amount of women get place in university. also if you check at the end of the lifetime at 80 years for example men always outperform women in the formel education degrees!!!

              if you do not believe it... google it.

              but if you write something like this like i did now the Overtone Window hit you and you are the biggest criminal in the history of human kind and all will fight you.

              do you want to talk about race and intelligence ?... Overtone Window will for sure kill you...

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post

                I have a feeling the window will be closed on the original quote
                What's funny is one of my favorite responses to "All people are created equally" is "No there not. But they all deserve equal protection under the law." If we're all equal then why are there genders, colors, hair types, heights, etc?

                A lot of things in society are really biased for men. Even a lot of modern medicine goes in assuming that women are men with vaginas and that if it isn't sex related then most all treatments are 1:1 the same between men and women. That's just very recently started to change. I have to assume that a lot of the IQ tests were made by men and may not be considering the possibility that men and women may fundamentally think differently and would score higher or lower depending on the format and style of test. Keep in mind that 2004 was the year of the newest research used in their cited texts; the rest was from the same guy in the 80s.

                Fact is, though, different genders and races and whatnot being better in one area or another is relatively moot. Aside from the genetic specimens of a person, the extreme outliers that form the basis of stereotypes, the Arnold Schwarzenegger's, Usain Bolt's, and Stephen Hawking's of the world, we're all basically capable of the same things.

                Like universities and their charts for intelligence, the military uses two separate charts and regulations for men and women's fitness. If you check at the end of the lifetime women always outperform men because they live longer.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by coder View Post
                  We were talking about why the MAGA folks got purged, and I was pointing out that the internet platform companies are legally obligated not to let their platforms get used for illegal purposes.


                  I don't believe it's collusion. A line was crossed on Jan 6 that obligated all the platform companies to move, because they could no longer treat the seditious rhetoric as idle grumbling. Once such content was shown to be viable, the platforms were legally obligated to remove the content, groups, etc.


                  A point I made in my long reply to skeevy420 was that it's easy to look back at Twitter's content moderation policies and think the pattern you see was entirely the result of a deliberate policy decision. To some extent, I do think they tried to take a more hands-off approach of protecting speech, which is understandable as it aligns both with their financial interests and the political leanings of its founders.

                  However, it's also dealing with an absolute torrent of traffic, and (aside for Trump, who definitely got special treatment) it's difficult and very expensive to police all of it -- especially in earlier years, when AI wasn't nearly as capable and most moderation had to be done by humans.
                  I meant to bring this up earlier, but I wonder what sort of regulatory body this will start and/or will this be the start of a content moderation business boom. I'm wondering how long until all forums and public-facing social networks have to be moderated and if a moderator or a moderation service will be a requirement for all forums, reviews, comment sections, etc going forward.

                  Take Michael here at Phoronix. I don't think he could afford a full time forum moderator if it was a forced-on business expense, but he could probably afford a moderation service. And the reason I say that is that if he could afford a moderator we'd already have a 2nd author and person running benchmarks because Phoronix is a small business and small businesses hire multi-purpose roles.

                  But, yeah, the one thing we all agree on is that a line was crossed that forced people to accept that the ravings of upset people were more than the ravings of upset people and that something needs to be done to curtail all the vile and hostility spreading across the internet as well as that there needs to be a way of holding people accountable in the real world for what they say in the digital world.

                  My biggest fear is that we'll, meaning as a society, will go overboard and bring our future closer to 1984 than towards a peaceful Star Trek episode. The one thing I know about our society is that once they take a right and a freedom away from us, they don't want to give it back without a fight and that people will die if they want a new right or an old right back. Every time that's happened. And that's the white perspective on the matter; the black one is you'll die just to keep your rights. Death is the catalyst of change in America. Anybody who has read a history book should know that. I hope we don't start becoming as oppressed and suppressed as China.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
                    I have to assume that a lot of the IQ tests were made by men and may not be considering the possibility that men and women may fundamentally think differently and would score higher or lower depending on the format and style of test. Keep in mind that 2004 was the year of the newest research used in their cited texts; the rest was from the same guy in the 80s.
                    you just do not unterstand how IQ tests are build and work...
                    what you say is wrong! but why? it is simple they first check what can a men do better and then they check what can a women do better then they put both in the IQ test and give points to the tests that in the end both men and women get statistically the same points...

                    but even if you do this men are still 2-3IQ points better --- why ?

                    very simple: there are MORE men who are good in the women tasks and by this they get high points than women who are good in the men task by this mechnism women go down by 2-3IQ points.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
                      My biggest fear is that we'll, meaning as a society, will go overboard and bring our future closer to 1984 than towards a peaceful Star Trek episode. The one thing I know about our society is that once they take a right and a freedom away from us, they don't want to give it back without a fight and that people will die if they want a new right or an old right back. Every time that's happened. And that's the white perspective on the matter; the black one is you'll die just to keep your rights. Death is the catalyst of change in America. Anybody who has read a history book should know that. I hope we don't start becoming as oppressed and suppressed as China.
                      The US people have authoritarian Regime
                      and they do not even know it...

                      Any Regime who comes by force/violence/war is Authoritarian!!!!
                      And only a Regime who comes by consensus and not by force/violence/war is not Authoritarian.

                      also the only Legitime consenus based system is the Grassroot democratic Vote

                      The USA never did a grassroot Vote to introduce the Constitution!
                      and by this fact alone the US constitution has no Legitime basis but they use Force/violence to force you into this regime. the people did not give consensus by free will instead they where forced into the system by Violence.

                      It is Not a Regime of "WE the people" as the US Constitution Claims
                      It is the Regime of the 1% Elite and i will explain to you why this is 1% and not 100%

                      Only: Politicians and Soldiers and Police and government workers do a oath to the Constitution.
                      but all these people are just 1%
                      the 99% did not take a oath to the Constitution.

                      And this 1% elite stay in power because they use Soldiers/Police to shot anyone who does not Obey to their power.

                      This is how the 1776 "We The People" Constitution did come into power by Violence to shot anyone who does not agree to this.

                      And it was also a 1% elite who build this: It was the free measons and Jesuits and
                      Other elites

                      This means only this 1% means politicians and soldiers/Police have political representation
                      because only grassroot democratic vote is legitime "consensus" system and representative democratic vote is not. because representative democratic system is concentrate the powet to the 1% elite of politicians/soldiers/Police.

                      This means: no one cares about the people
                      all only care about the 1% elite.

                      How modern world government system did come into power:
                      Vatican/jesuit controlled pupped states like usa and others did make war against the german empire and After 1918 the war between the Vatican
                      and the German Empire endet and they
                      did make a peace Deal the Jesuits/Vatican get
                      the First 100years of political Power this startet in 1918 and it
                      endet in 27.11.2019. and now theoretically the german empire has the power (thats just theory because they will never give away the power without war)

                      The Constitutional Republic is in fact a
                      construct of the Vatican/Jesuits...
                      It is authoritarian Regime
                      and historically this happens because the Roman Empire was same 1% Elite system
                      and i will explain why.

                      This cartel of soldiers/Police/politicians comes historically down to: Roman Empire
                      2000 years ago
                      The Imperator of the Roman Empire Had
                      Always the Problem Spend government Money on the people or the soldiers/Army?
                      In the end they Always choose the soldiers over the people
                      but why?
                      very simple: the Imperator of the Roman Empire could always use the soldiers to kill the people.
                      This means: no one cares about the people
                      all only care about the 1% elite.

                      This means they only stay in Power because of
                      permanent war also the US in 240 years of US
                      History they where in war 235 years and had only 5 years of Peace
                      Not only they make war With Other Nations
                      but also zivil war Inside of the country.

                      They also did this to Germany:
                      The so called Constitution in
                      Germany never Had a grassroots Vote
                      With more than 2/3--> 67% of the voters consent.
                      How did this Regime come into Power?
                      Yes by world war 2 America and Russia
                      conquered Germany and impose the Occupation
                      zone legislation law by force Without
                      grassroots voting and they called it the
                      Constitution "Basic law/Grundgesetz"
                      This means Our Regime the so called republic is a authoritarian Regime.
                      Who is only in Power by violence force
                      and by ignoring the will of the Population!!! (no grassroot vote)
                      the people just did not give consent!!! (no grassroot vote)

                      Means they are not in Power by the free will
                      of the people instead they are in Power
                      because they have the weapons and they
                      shoot anyone who does contradict their
                      authoritarian Regime

                      Unlike England Who Had inherit monarchy.
                      we Germans Had Democratic Monarchy(most of the time in history)...
                      Historically Any Person(Men) Who carried weapons was allowed to Vote the king/Kaiser/Leader
                      (yes we also had some other time without democratic elected king)
                      Elect a King by democratic vote is the same representative democratic system than to elect politicians!!!! (what a irony that US politicians call a Democratic elected king a Authoritarian Tyranny)
                      But a elected Politician and a Elected King has the same basis.
                      in the end the king abuse his power but on the other side the politician also abuse his power.

                      The Democratic Vote in USA is a Farce
                      You can choose Biden or Trump
                      Both are the 1% elites Who agree to the
                      Constitution...

                      but you can not do a election Linke this;
                      You can Vote (Trump or Biden)The 1% Elite or Grassroot democratic system the 99% people..

                      If you do a election like this I am Sure Donald Trump and Biden lose
                      and the people want Grassroot democratic Vote system.

                      But why Not make a Constitution Who 99% people agree(Grassroot vote) and Not only the 1% Elite?

                      In my political Theory this authoritarian
                      Regime of USA is in a Status of constant
                      state of a molecular civil war in the inside and in the outside war to...
                      Because consense of the people is never asked for the 99%
                      (only Military and Police and politicians give oath to the Constitution)

                      I think they can only find Peace if they
                      start to make New Constitution elected by grassroot Vote
                      By this way all people give consensus
                      and Not only Police and Military and
                      politicians the 1% Elite.
                      By all people i mean The 2/3 majority (67+%)

                      Right now the US is a Regime of the 1% elites. (no grassroot vote)

                      Soon you will see Donald Trump is next
                      President and the left Marxists/AntiFA/BLM will be
                      crushed by the Army by violence force (of course because the Marxists/AntiFA/BLM attacked first)
                      I really do support to crush Marxists because they want Authoritarian regime.(no grassroot vote)
                      but the US people have to learn that any Regime who does not have Grassroot Vote is Authoritarian Regime.

                      All the people who come into Power by
                      violence and force and Not by grassroot
                      election is not a legitime leader/Regime.
                      Thats a bitter Fact!!!




                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X