West
-
Posts
5,475 -
Joined
-
Days Won
31
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by West
-
-
1 hour ago, robosmith said:
It's ironic that you're saying ^this on a site over which big tech has NO CONTROL. Although, IF they were interested, they could probably buy out Greg for a song.
And they're ever more untrustworthy when you vote a pathological LIAR into the highest office like you're proposing.
You obviously care NOTHING about trust.
Is the US Supreme Court hearing a case against our beloved Greg's website?
-
6 hours ago, WestCanMan said:
That's the fault of the website. The gov't should stay out of it.
That's true to an extent but when you have children accessing your site there should be some regulation to keep grooming perverts from accessing to cause harm
2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:How about if people disagree with a proposed "woke" law but the algorithm decides that they don't want your post on the topic shared with too many people so it reduces the visibility of your post ?
You think you're using a platform to express your views but they're not going out in the way you think.
And this is the platform people are using to make up their minds on things.A point I've considered. Gates, Zuckerberg et al seem to have somewhat a monopoly on speech
-
5 hours ago, Hodad said:
Yep, that's a good example of a slam-dunk case for moderation. There are lots of ways for platforms to keep bots (and human creeps) off of the platform, and plenty of incentives to do so. But there are also perverse incentives not to do so. The revenue models are problematic.
I think I've recommended it here before, but Maria Ressa's work (Nobel Peace Prize)on the perverse incentives of social networks is worth a look.
I wonder if it has to do more with the logistics of policing a forum with a billion or so users over the profit. I can't imagine that allowing perverts to spam pages is good for their bottom line.
-
1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:
This has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with the control of narratives.
The big tech firms were all part of TNI before Elon Musk snatched Twitter away from them, now the left hates him.
TNI controlled the narratives of covid and the Biden laptop for the Demis and their Big Pharma pals, and hopefully the time has come for them to pay the piper.
A big comedian from back in the day, George Carlin iirc, once quipped that Big Pharma was pissed at all the money that they lost because of the vaccine that cured polio... They sure made all that back.
I'm a skeptic of big government as much as the next guy. There's certainly some things, such as not allowing weirdos to spam your buy and sell page with sex videos, and censorship because a beurocrat doesn't like the story.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Hodad said:
There are some ways the platforms should be regulated (user age, for example and certain established content types) but generally I think content should be regulated by the platform. They should moderate content, vs regulate content. There's no reason the government shouldn't be able to share a POV with the platforms though. Misinformation and disinformation are dangerous. Hate speech can be dangerous. Users can and should be able to flag that content for moderators. And so should the government and other entities.
I joined a buy and sell group awhile ago on Facebook. It's been overrun by porn bots now.
Facebook used to be about sharing photos of the grandkids. Now it's become a pretty vile place at times
-
3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
Analyst Peter Zeihan has pointed out that every new communication technology has required a new framework of legislation. This seems due.
I would say bots should be banned, as well as false claims that wouldn't be allowed on TV or security threats and hate speech already disallowed.
I didn't realize bots were actually a thing until just recently. I would agree there.
-
1
-
-
Very interesting time for tech censorship.
I'm starting to lean more toward some regulation necessary of these major platforms. However, many Americans are already deeply suspicious of any form of government.
Safety vs autonomy debate.
-
21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:
Everyone everywhere has a legitimate beef about something. There are jobs posted right now in canada that i can't apply for because of the colour of my skin. I hear about how white cis males are the source of all evil in the universe and we should be taking everything they own because they don't deserve it all the time. Neurodivergent people face a society that it's a severe struggle to live in and there's next to no sympathy. etc etc.
There comes a point where you have to look at it and set it aside and do what you can when you can and accept some people are bigoted asses.
So the problem is that some of these people want to say their beefs are the ONLY legitimate ones. Women have no rights, just them. etc etc. Who cares about your problems, i demand you address the issue of where i'm going to pee right now.
And until that changes, i just don't see how this can be anything but confrontational.
I see some of your point. I have pondered many of the same things. Political discussion by its nature is combative. The heated rhetoric isn't helping anyone at this point though
-
1 minute ago, CdnFox said:
That would be nice - but lets face it - as far as the trans and first nations are concerned we're the enemy. And an industry has grown up around that and now it's being exploited - that won't be put down easily.
Their beefs are legitimate, such as rampant abuse that still cycles on. I'm not convinced the answer is more money as we have never spent more on social programs throughout our history than we have at this point.
The solution is likely on a micro level now with folks learning to live in a place of common understanding.
-
1
-
-
In my opinion, you can only take on the weight of everyone's problems for so long before it takes a toll on you.
We need to get back to civilized discourse on all sides. Trans aren't the enemy. First Nations aren't the enemy. White Christians aren't the enemy. All are people with worth as human beings.
One could argue these groups now labelled as "woke" have had a history of oppression and statistics would likely confirm to some degree discrepancies in housing, jobs, etc. The solutions are debatable (equity vs equality debate).
There are some real world issues that require real solutions and understanding.
Just my two cents.
-
2
-
-
On 3/13/2024 at 4:20 AM, Michael Hardner said:
Some kind of digital currency replacement would do it. Do we have the resources to provide everyone with the basics?
We probably do.
Can we organize a political sphere where that could be managed ?
Eventually maybe?
Can we get there without totalitarianism, through allowing open communication and a liberal politics?
Well that hasn't been done.
Is it at all conceivable?
Well not even. People like you posting as you did, trying to imagine the end state.... That's as close as it gets right now.
The best futurists, I've heard always talk about the primacy of keeping the current system in place during a slow transition.
So I guess we're on the way right?
I'm a conservative so I believe in the institutions we have, however, the best institutions also look to reform each other. Runaway capitalism, huge monopolies in tech, politics for sale through lobbying and influencing, and especially the decline of the public sphere should be the first thing we pay attention to to fix the system we have.
Once our system, the one we've had and has worked in the past, is fixed. We can go to your Star wars future. 😜
With increased globalization, and decreased cooperation between various nation states, the issues have only become more complex and cannot possibly be solved at a local level.
-
Here's some articles that discuss the concerns over Canada's housing.
https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/november-2023/fix-housing-crisis/
This one discusses:
1. Effects of NIMBYism on getting appropriate permits for low income housing initiatives
2. Lack of incentives for low income developers and alternative models to financing development
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7088878
The impacts of immigration on housing supply and policy proposals to link immigration to available housing supply
Also discusses the impacts of building costs and interests rates on new home builds.
https://www.homelesshub.ca/about-homelessness/homelessness-101/how-many-people-are-homeless-canada
Info on homelessness. Between 150 and 300 thousand are homeless in Canada. This article discusses contributing factors
-
1 hour ago, Moonbox said:
I think it could have been broken up into different parts. The sexual assault, revenge porn etc stuff I doubt anyone would disagree with. The free speech and the criminalization of "hate speech" (whatever it means) is something that I think deserves more debate and clarification.
This is agree with.
1. Revenge porn/child exploitation/statements instructing a child to go and kill themselves etc should be off limits.
2. Misgendering I've seen classified as "hate speech"
Certainly has to be a balance between obvious malicious attempts to harm which should be discouraged, perhaps even outlawed, and allowing room to debate without fear of the government showing up at your doorstep.
-
4
-
-
This is being introduced today.
Free speech vs curtailed speech debate. What constitutes as "hate speech"?
After doing alot of reading of posts on X specifically related to sexual assault, I can see the benefit of such a bill so long as it's restrained
-
-
Trumps spin machine is off the charts. Basically has soothed folks into accepting it.
12 hours ago, CdnFox said:They tune it out. 7 years of "russian collusion! JAIL! Any day now!!!!" and honestly they think it's all crap.
I'm sure most have heard there's something going on, they just get sick of the chicken little routine and the 'boy who cried trump' that the dems broadcast 24/7 and don't care.
That's going to be a REAL problem for the dems this year
This certainly doesn't help but Trump's PR machine helps to mask it as well.
-
28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
On the topic of Freedom of Speech, you need to drill down to what it meant when it was developed and what it means today.
No society exists with unhealthy information and falsehoods everywhere. No society exists without a common moral sphere.
For me it's the safety to explore new ideas. What we have, and I've certainly been guilty, is an unwillingness to change one's mind once confronted with new facts or ideas. But pursuing the truth and facts with a bit of humility.
Now we have a free flow of ideas which is a double edged sword.
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, Hodad said:
You're right. Huge, huge implications on the next generation. Huge implications for parenting. The good is amplified, the bad even moreso. We have to talk to kids--even before puberty--about sex and sexualized imagery and language. About bullying. About suicide. Like, that has to just be woven into the fabric of childhood now before kids even hit double digits.
A young girl from a family my family is close with was, essentially, bullied to death on social media a couple of years ago, and it's not a rare story. With that volume of negative input, it's very easy for young people to literally feel like the entire world is against them and would be better off without them. And the harm is done so easily and casually it probably doesn't even feel like a big deal to the bullies.
And all of it is made many times worse by platforms that deregulate. Twitter/X is a good example. The "free speech" ethos is all well and good until you end up with terrible, tragic real-world outcomes. That's when the ideology is tested against reality. And very quickly, like generations before, we can see that not everyone deserves or should have access to a megaphone. Not every flavor of speech is fit for the public square and not all of it is healthy for society. Maybe those standards were there for a reason.
^^Not even touching on disinformation here, which is a giant topic on its own. Maria Ressa won the Nobel Peace Prize a couple of years ago for her work teasing out the effects of disinformation on social media and how platform policies can make it better--or worse. Totally worth checking out her work.
The more I read the more I'm concerned about some of this.
For example, disinformation about where to turn to if you are suicidal can be a major issue and potentially have serious impacts as in the case of your friend.
While I wasn't a huge fan of the Facebook "disinformation" tags, the algorithms should be able to pick up on key words, provide factual crisis information, etc.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
That's how technology has always worked. I really recommend "The Medium is the Massage" by Marshall McLuhan and Quentin Fiore.
I will have to look it up. I'm definitely interested in learning more.
-
14 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:
You could write about this topic for pages upon pages and never come close to articulating its impact on the younger generation. They are exposed to so much more information ( than Gen X or those before ) ever were. Its not even close. At a certain point, the human brain can only process so much information let alone verify the quality/objectiveness of the information.
It's wild because the disinformation on Public platforms can very easily get somebody hurt. As more young people (and even older people) spend so much time on social media, its certainly difficult to tell fact from fiction.
It's a crisis that I'm sure will need to be addressed
-
3 minutes ago, Rebound said:
This, and Musk’s anti-Semitic rants, are why I don’t use Twitter at all. Canceled my account.
Nobody should rely on an information source which is certifiably fake.
Certainly seems like technology has grown at an exasperated rate and we are now just playing catch up.
-
Interesting article from the BBC of the impacts of social media specifically Twitter/X. Unreported SA cases, trolls targeting SA victims, etc.
As our kids now use social media more than ever, what are the implications of this on the next generation? Certainly public policy is behind in alot of ways
-
Interesting article from the BBC of the impacts of social media specifically Twitter/X. Unreported SA cases, trolls targeting SA victims, etc.
As our kids now use social media more than ever, what are the implications of this on the next generation? Certainly public policy is behind in alot of ways
-
I do not believe he's a good person. There's a strong judgment on public figures right now in the US.
US Supreme Court hears lawsuit about tech censorship
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted · Edited by West
The lawsuit alleges 67 government agencies worked with Twitter and Facebook to kill significant stories during a previous election cycle.
I see nothing about Greg's site in the article.