What actually happened (feel free to look it up), is that Tim got into a series of disagreements with people who wrote things like:
'''
Our current board has a majority of people from the Global South or otherwise marginalized groups. That is encouraging and an extremely positive thing. As long as people who are demographically similar to me do not again have a majority, I have the utmost faith in the Board.
As far as I’ve seen, the entire support of this amendment comes from people who look and speak a whole lot like me. People like me should not be trusted.
'''
I think that such people have embarrassed themselves sufficiently over the past few years, and that Tim would not have wanted us to use his obituary to embarrass them further. I say this as a person whose family comes from the Northern hemisphere portion of the Global South.
I did not know the detail, although my instinct was that it would be much the same as what you say.
What I do not understand is why people are interpreting what I say as supporting those people. I was very careful to just state facts to avoid taking a stance without full knowledge. Is that somehow not acceptable?
> I say this as a person whose family comes from the Northern hemisphere portion of the Global South.
As am I, at least in where I was born and my nationality at birth. I regard "Global South" as horrible, patronising term - although not as bad as "Global Majority" which is worse, if not downright racist IMO.
I think you may be misunderstanding the post. He is not saying that Meta is prohibited from censorship by the First Amendment.
He is saying that the US has free speech norms (not laws) where it is acceptable for people to get together and rant about X, Y, or Z. There are limits (e.g. calls for violence), but they are few. Anyone who does not like the speech can leave the room, try to argue with the speaker, or make their own speech in another room. It is not the social norm to shut down the speaker, make the speaker unemployable, trash or bankrupt the venue, etc. Those actions are contrary to the norm.
That is simply not true. One example is a hilarious skit by an Australian comedian (John Safran) going to salt lake city and knocking on doors asking if he could talk to people about atheism. The amount of violent threads he received is quite revealing.
In my personal experience having lived in the US and several other countries, I found officially people can say much more things (i.e. due to the strong freedom of expression laws), but in personal settings you are much more likely to be shut down, fired, threatened with violence, ostracized... for stating unpopular (in that social environment) opinions, in the US compared to the other countries.
Meta is a private organization[1]. It is not “the US.” In fact, most of its customers aren’t even in the US.
Private organizations dictate their own social constructs. It’s not acceptable to proposition sex at a book club, but it’s acceptable to do that at a swingers club.
This idea that private companies follow the social norms in the US is only partially true at best.
It’s socially normal for me to talk about how my company sucks and I hate my boss with 100% of my friends and family, but doing so at my place of employment isn’t okay. That’s one major example where my company doesn’t follow social norms.
If what you say is true then YouTube should allow hardcore pornography since over 90% of men watch pornography. It’s socially and legally acceptable, with numerous legal brick and mortar businesses specializing in that market. But they don’t allow that because they are a business that doesn’t want to engage in that business activity.
I think it’s easy to mistake the current state of private social media as “open” in the way you describe just because it looks open. To your point, not a lot of speech is banned outright, which seems parallel to US social norms, but whether or not something is banned or removed from social media is almost meaningless because promotion and multiplicative reach is the domain of the algorithm.
The algorithm doesn’t promote and multiply the reach of content based on whether that content is most aligned with social norms. It’s promoted based on whether it makes money or causes users to stay watching the platform.
In real life, you don’t hang out with your friends and family most who make you the most mad or generate the most shocking content. But that’s how social media works because social media isn’t real life.
This idea that today’s social media platforms are a neutral vessel for speech is flawed right from the start because of that algorithm.
[1] publicly traded, private as in “private property”
Facebook wants to get that speech in as many rooms as they can, because they figured out a way to profit off of the emotional reaction of the people who were already there. They offer free hosting for community groups of all sorts in order to bring people to the rooms they can profit from.
Not sure why this obvious fact is being down-voted. The comments above don't mention that the killer feature of private orgs is the ease of exit, and therefore, the enormous risk of failure. This remains the dominant feature of private orgs, even if we can argue about certain orgs on the margin. For every example of "users are locked into either the Apple or the Android phone platform", I can think of several crappy Google and Apple products which failed and were withdrawn from the market (e.g. Google Wave).
It is much easier to exit from or steer a private org. For example, it is very possible to run a company which caters to 10 percent of a consumer base by providing niche products which may be slightly more expensive. Those 10 percent will simply consume less of some other good. It is very difficult to do an analogous thing at the state level, because we generally don't get individual "ticket books" which we can "spend" on more of one state service vs. another. The democratic model is that you first get 50+ percent support and then your coalition decides how resources are allocated for almost everyone.
If English isn't your native language, that's okay - these are translated into every European language and you can select a translation here.
Article 25, clause 1:
> Providers of online platforms shall not design, organise or operate their online interfaces in a way that deceives or manipulates the recipients of their service or in a way that otherwise materially distorts or impairs the ability of the recipients of their service to make free and informed decisions.
These EU regulations tend to specify policies, not mechanisms to achieve them. Mechanisms to enforce the policy, however, are specified.
They are written like that precisely so you won't try to weasel your way around a requirement. If they had said "verified badges may not be sold" then you would try to say "this isn't a verified badge but a they-paid-us badge." By wording it vaguely, it cannot be weaseled.
And indeed, it is a they-paid-us badge... but it's designed to look identical to the verified badge, on purpose, because Elon knew verified badges were something people wanted, and people wanted them because they were a status symbol, and they were a status symbol because they indicated your account was in some sense more trustworthy than average. And Elon knew that.
I don't know whether people still see the badges that way today. Probably not, because all the sane people deleted their accounts and don't care. But it was the case, when the badges were introduced, that they were designed to trick people who didn't know they were now pay badges. You might think everyone knew that, but that's just because everyone in your bubble knew that because they're very online people. Would your grandmother know it?
>They are written like that precisely so you won't try to weasel your way around a requirement. If they had said "verified badges may not be sold" then you would try to say "this isn't a verified badge but a they-paid-us badge." By wording it vaguely, it cannot be weaseled.
It also means enterprising prosecutors and regulators can use it as a cudgel against their opponents. As others have mentioned, the checkmark already meant very little when it came to whether the poster was trustworthy or not. It's like fining Chrome and Firefox for accepting letsencrypt certificates, because previously there was a $10 cost to having a lock appear on your site, and letsencrypt making it free misleads users.
It does. I don't think this example is as good as you think, though. You used to have to give out your full legal name and address and have them verified to get an SSL certificate and the lock icon. When any random website could get the lock icon, this did indeed lead to more people typing their passwords into phishing sites, thinking they were real because they had the lock icon, and this was indeed a real problem.
They could have chosen to only show the lock for EV certificates, and show something else, or no icon, for DV certificates, but instead they made a choice that was misleading. Google probably should have been fined for that, but not very much, because it wasn't foreseen. I think Mozilla was still a non-profit at the time.
The distinction is not as clear nor as useful as some make it sound. For example, is my pickup truck "personal" or "private"? Or is it personal as long as I drive myself and my stuff around, but as soon as I offer to sell moving services to others, it becomes private? Or is it still personal as long as I don't scale the business to more trucks? What if my brother and I want to pool two trucks? What if I contribute the truck and he contributes the driving skill, but we are both part owners in the business? What if he doesn't want to take the risk of capital ownership and instead wants a steady wage? At what point does the truck stop being personal property?
My personal view of this is that Marxism doesn't really have much to say about organizations below a certain scale, and what it has to say about larger scale orgs is that they are icky/alienating. Everything else is more about trying to verbalize the ickyness than to explain anything substantial about the org mechanics.
I first heard about black owner appraisal discrimination almost a year ago, and I tried to find studies of this phenomenon. The closest thing I could find was this study by Brookings (https://www.brookings.edu/research/biased-appraisals-and-the...) which found that homes in black neighborhoods are appraised at lower values than structurally comparable homes in non-black neighborhoods. I have not seen a study of the situation described in this article, where the owner swaps family photos and asks a non-black friend to meet the appraiser.
Does anyone know of a study? I am interested in whether this effect is real and any attempts to quantify its magnitude.
There have been numerous articles like this one, but I fear that they suffer from publication bias (no one prints the article where the black owner received the same or higher appraisal), and the presented sample size is always small.
Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Matter_con...) thinks there are 10^80 atoms in the observable universe, which is approximately 2^240. If you only need to assign a unique ID to each atom, then you need a counter with approximately 240 bits.
But if you needed to store even one bit of information per atom (e.g. whether it is hydrogen or not), then don't you need 2^240 bits uncompressed?
MA specifically addresses his education in this interview. He says that he learned most of what he knows via independent reading, that his high school was not high quality (his computer class teacher being a lucky accident that he almost missed), and that he identifies as part of the Midwestern farmer/tinker culture (e.g. Bob Noyce).
''' Our current board has a majority of people from the Global South or otherwise marginalized groups. That is encouraging and an extremely positive thing. As long as people who are demographically similar to me do not again have a majority, I have the utmost faith in the Board.
As far as I’ve seen, the entire support of this amendment comes from people who look and speak a whole lot like me. People like me should not be trusted. '''
I think that such people have embarrassed themselves sufficiently over the past few years, and that Tim would not have wanted us to use his obituary to embarrass them further. I say this as a person whose family comes from the Northern hemisphere portion of the Global South.
reply