Outside of bots and spam, third party Discord clients also often disable a lot of Electron's options that guard against XSS stuff escaping the sandbox, which is pretty dangerous. I wouldn't be surprised if Discord wanted to minimize the chance of some really big problem stemming from lots of users using these unsafe versions.
What you focus on and what you achieve are not inherently related.
AFA focus, the US military is actually focused on putting as much power as possible in the hands of its commander in chief for US interests. It is not allowed to determine those interests.
If Bezos wants to express the ideology behind his life choices then I think that is great. If he doesn't then he should be upfront about that. Acting like everyone can be rational and driven by incremental money is a pointless conversation.
Yes, and participating in blocking the Kyoto accord.
You can feel as good as you want that you save a few people after displacing millions and covering countries in spent Uranium.. Then your grandchildren will die from ecological mismanagement and/or water shortages..
The military writes its own studies on these facts of climate change, it just ignores it's giant size role in bringing them about.
Neither really, it's demonstrating that it's kind of dumb to consider a paid advertisement "speech" for the purposes of "free speech", considering there's inherently a restriction there on how much "speech" you get, because you have to pay for the ability to "speak".
Free speech isn't free in the same way that free beer is. The idea is to avoid restricting what messages are allowed as much as possible. It's not about giving any particular individual a platform so much as making sure that the platform is open to a variety of ideas.
A system without restrictions favours the rich, it favours the dishonest, and it favours those who wield the best weaponized psychology. (And it favours most those with all three.) Your passing reference to platforms being open to a "variety of ideas" is—and I'm sorry in advance for the snark—but it's just adorable.
While I am in fact adorable, you've misunderstood my comment. It's difficult to talk about Zuckerberg's defense of Facebook's policy without having an accurate definition of the principle of free speech. That isn't to say that unlimited free speech is necessarily good or bad. For example, while many people on HN lean towards holding that principle as an ideal, the community also discourages excessively snarky comments.
And a system with restrictions like you want favors the authoritarians, those with the best real world bullying/harassment operations, and those who are well connected.
I’m sorry but liberal democracy isn’t the best form of government because the people are smart (they never have been), it’s the best form of government because the alternative is recurring political violence.
I'm sorry but liberal democracy doesn't infer a strict libertarian view on political campaign messaging.
I don't want to assume you're American, but your fatalistic view of government sure does point towards that. I suggest you spend some time looking at how other liberal democracies handle this challenge. Online political advertising remains a challenge everywhere but usually the same legal and ethical frameworks apply—even if the frameworks still fail at the margins.
And to be clear, my objection isn't to all online advertising but specifically to Zuckerberg defending Facebook's stance by appealing to free speech. I don't think any Government should force Facebook's hand; I think they should seek to protect their social license and act independently as Jack Dorsey recently did.
So far as I can tell most other liberal democracies either handle the issue much the same way as the US does or they just flat out ban political parties that are too “fringe”.
I wouldn’t trust anyone who wanted to be the censor to be the censor.
There is always a restriction. The platform isn’t open to a variety of ideas but to the biggest spender.
Separately, while some politics revolves around untestable statements of preference (e.g. Purple team “freedom is more important than equality” vs. Teal team “equality is the best foundation upon which freedom can be built”), there are also statements of fact and it is dangerous to allow demonstrably false claims to spread (Antivaxxers are probably the least controversial example of a dangerously wrong meme on this forum, but others exist all the way back to ancient Greek democracy).
Democracy isn’t Magic: If Antivaxxers got 99.9% of the votes they would still be wrong, the only difference is they would cause more harm.
I am staunchly opposed to all the “free” offerings of our more progressive presidential candidates - free healthcare, free college, etc - but free beer could sway my vote.
Free speech, as a value, is a broader concept than mere lack of government restraint on speech. It can also pertain to the exchange of ideas in certain private forums.
And by the way, the First Amendment disallows not only prior restraint, but many other government restraints on speech as well. It's just that prior restraint is considered the most egregious and hence subject to the greatest judicial scrutiny.
Yeah, the SEC did. After the contempt hearing, they had to renegotiate what constitutes "material" information as a part of their settlement, and that was essentially Musk/Tesla's wake-up call of "Oh, we only just BARELY got out of that mess". So as a result, they've actually been following what the original spirit of the settlement was meant to enforce.
Of course, we're still seeing issues where Musk is getting sued for threatening workers on Twitter for unionizing, but that's a slightly different issue than lying about production predictions.
* FCC Improves Access to 911 and Timely Assistance from First Responders - This is more-or-less explicitly requiring that phones in hotels, campuses, office buildings, etc be able to directly dial 911 without having to do any sort of prefix, that could be unknown or confusing in an emergency.
* FCC Bans Malicious Spoofing of Text Messages & Foreign Robocalls - This makes it easier for the FCC to pursue action against scammers who spoof caller ID (previously there were loopholes so that they couldn't take action if it was a text, or if the call originated from outside the US, or if it's a one-way VOIP call.
* FCC Authorizes $121 Million In Rural Broadband Funding In 16 States - Pretty self-explanatory
* FCC Reaches $550,000 Cramming Settlement with CenturyLink - This was in response to CenturyLink placing "unauthorized third-party charges and fees onto consumers' bills"
* Chairman Pai Recommends Approving T-Mobile/Sprint Merger - This one's more controversial, but you can make a strong case that allowing T-Mobile/Sprint (two relatively small providers) to merge would allow for them to compete at a higher level against Verizon and AT&T, increasing consumer choice and competition for most Americans. It also requires for them to sell off Boost Mobile to address competition concerns at the lower level, and to also invest a lot into pushing 5G technology.
So, in short, the FCC has been focusing on the following to improve the consumer experience with communications in the US:
I don't really understand why they're trying to push 5g. 4g is pretty fast, and it's still not available everywhere. I'd much rather have more 4g than start another arms race for faster cell towers.
If the FCC pushes anything for wider access to fast internet, I think it should be in low orbit satellites, which offer alternatives for everyone instead of just people who live in cities (5g) or people who live in rural areas ($121M investment you talk about).
Are they doing anything related to satellite internet? I know SpaceX and OneWeb are developing tech in this space, and I would absolutely love an alternative to cellular networks for internet outside my house, and I think it's reasonable to invest in it in exchange for allowing ISP competition with a shared set of satellites.
It seems like the big distinction is going to be between "they didn't tell investors that they were a huge climate change contributor" and "they didn't tell investors how much money they'd lose out on from stricter environmental regulation".
