"where is this" - it would be, IMHO, a *bad thing* if random people on the internet could readily answer that ;)
As much as they're unlikeable, so long as they're not destroying the planet or the economy, their ignorant antics can be amusing. For example, I got a kick out of reading their failed seasteading attempt on a cruise ship:
www.theguardian.com/news/2021/se...
Understandable, though.
Reporting bias has always been a problem with Zoe, and it's only going to be worse now.
Can they just do that without compensation? Oil and gas leases are contracts.
ED: Did some searching. Can't say for sure with these seven, but the previous 2 that were cancelled, they refunded the holders. That makes sense.
For me, COVID led to me permanently retiring the phrase "avoid it like the plague". Because, apparently, people don't actually do that.
Except they did it again in Ethiopia, for the *exact same reason* (no incentive to hire enough local mods, moderating *vastly* more in countries that might regulate and fine them than in Ethiopia).
So apparently they DID need the government to tell them.
Yeah, and we're going to be "on" it until they stop trying to undermine western democracies.
www.state.gov/targeting-ru...
The United States remains committed to deterring and disrupting the Russian Federationโs repeated attempts to undermine the democratic processes in the United States and other countries. As part of ...
www.state.gov
And I want to stress that word:
GENOCIDE.
Insufficient moderation has led to GENOCIDE.
And it was *free market forces* and a *lack of government pressure* that led to said insufficient moderation.
The places where Facebook fueled genocide were where they had few to no moderators who spoke the local language(s). They have consistently underinvested in moderation in the developing world (where FB is huge), focusing only on moderation in places where scandals might lead to them being regulated.
Note that the West Bank hasn't done something similar?
Yes, anger and resentment *can fuel* extremist groups. But they do not *imply* extremist groups.
I think people need to keep in mind that Hamas oppresses *Palestinians* in Gaza, too.
Honestly, since they're talking about the pre-2018 period, I'd probably mostly agree with them.
Be you. :) Post what sparks joy for you. Engage other people in the threads they write that interest you. Interact in ways you enjoy! :)
Ukrainians would *themselves* be mad at their government for launching troll farms with the intent to destroy America if that were to happen. Get off your damned high horse.
Hell, it was Prigozhin himself who ran Russia's main troll farm, the "Internet Research Agency"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interne...
It's all been nationalized now, though.
Russia literally describes it as warfare *themselves*.
It's shocking how many people expect more good faith from corporate oligarchs than elected officials in a democracy.
Is the book peer-reviewed?
COVID disinfo was spread *overwhelmingly* on social media.
All the Q-Anon and Pizzagate BS was *almost exclusively* on social media.
The Russian disinfo campaigns have been *almost exclusively* on social media.
The genocide advocacy... you get the picture.
It most definitely does not.
bsky.app/profile/nafn...
All the people talking about how they learned about "how horrible the Rohingja" are on Facebook are a *direct result of a lack of moderation*.
To repeat - again:
If this were about "should the government take sides in culture war fights" - *we're both on the same side of that argument*
Where we differ is whether the government should ignore *literal attacks against it* and things like genocide promotion.
What is "nonsensical and dangerous" is deciding to do nothing when state actors have decided to try to subvert and destroy your country via online manipulation.
Furthermore, the conversation has continuously been:
Me: "Government should require social media to take action against
You: "You really want the government banning
#StrawMen
If Ukraine was deliberately surreptitiously putting out misinformation in to deliberately try to harm the US and destroy its democracy? *HELL YES.*
The fact that you think countries should just roll over and take hybrid warfare is honestly staggering.
* Brandenburg rules are not a right to platform.
* Any random thing spewed forth by a person is not politically-protected speech.
* Even in the US, the government has the right to limit the method and platform of protected speech so long as rules are content-neutral and serve a legitimate interest
The entire point of the thread is that it *should* be this. Social media now has far more power to spread misinformation than traditional broadcast.
Or "Should the government mandate removing content promoting genocide".
Or similar. If the discussion was "should the government mandate [only one side of the US culture war being seen]", we'd be on the same side of THAT issue.
The question is not "should the government mandate specific political views". It's "should the government mandate removing deliberate propaganda /misinformation created by hostile state actors to destabilize, manipulate, and destroy your democracy".
Facebook is a US company, not a Myanmar company, and you know this.
And yes, a government *elected by the people in a fair election* is a much better choice as to what rules should be in place than "random oligarchs, based on their political views and what makes them the most money".
Facebook has been tied to multiple genocides - literal genocides - because they put so little effort into stopping things with moderation, because there was no financial motive.
And Zuck isn't pro-genocide. Let alone the case where we have a platform head who actually likes extreme politics.
How well has self-regulation and "the invisible hand of the market" worked thusfar? I'd say "awfully".
Deplatforming works. Demonstrably. Supported by peer-reviewed research (linked yesterday).
Hopes and prayers that everything will just work out because of the free market... doesn't.
Exactly WHAT DO YOU THINK HAPPENS when you blockade food?
He's literally trying to fight a conflict that even the Palestinians don't want to fight. And redefining established terms to mean new things in the process. Just nuts.
THESE people are NOT settlers. They're residents of Israel proper.
You're misusing the term, and trying to relitigate a conflict (1948) that even few Palestinians want to relitigate. Palestinians are trying to get the *1967 borders* recognized.
You demean discussions of Israeli settlers when you apply the term it to people in Israel proper.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli...
If you ever find yourself on the side of trying to argue that it's okay to starve children en masse...
*** Stop And Reflect About What The Heck Is Wrong With You ***
Oh for GOD'S FUCKING SAKE.
Article 54 of Additional Protocol I, section 1: "Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited."
Do I have to cite EVERY international prohibition against it? It's been considered a war crime since the 1919 Report of the Commission on Responsibility.
Like, this part, as one example among many?
This is pretty basic stuff. You can't deliberately starve countries. For GOD'S SAKE.
Yeah....
It would be nice, Ursula, if what specific actions you consider immoral and worthy of condemnation didn't hinge on your view of the morality of the broader conflict.
#FuckHamas #FuckTerrorism #FuckColonialsm #FuckWarCrimes
Yes, works for me. It's a direct link to the pdf - here's the base link:
arxiv.org/abs/2310.02207
"Language Models Represent Space and Time"
Wes Gurnee, Max Tegmark
The capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have sparked debate over whether such systems just learn an enormous collection of superficial statistics or a coherent model of the data...
arxiv.org
How Large Language Models learn and map space and time:
arxiv.org/pdf/2310.022...
They actually develop a sort of "temporal lobe", with specific clusters of neurons dedicated to spatiotemporal tasks. The paper trained "probes" to predict time/coords from neuron activations to make the maps.