A lot of guessing and hunching and try to find one answer to a couple of problems where the question isn’t clear. So I don‘t know what point this article wants to make.
I think this is because of the "default" behaviour pattern. You can rightclick or do a context click on the most systems. Even on smartphones you can hold your finger on the file to get a context menue. This is not the case for cli. There is not global pattern like "context file" or "options file" that works on every cli. There are not a lot of easy common patterns in the cli world. Even for autocomplete you have to change the default shell on the popular systems.
You could link to the original web url and also do a print version of the web content as PDF. That's how i archive howtos and write-ups of interesting content. Print view and create a PDF version.
He doesn't need to display ads to make his point. But he does. There is also no "public denouncing" of anything here. (Maybe change the text after 1 hour or something)
He just said that because he don't want to be the bad guy in front of the reporter and his family.
It's funny to see the different variations. I used:
`var x = setInterval(() => { for (element of document.getElementsByTagName('a')) { element.click() } }, 1000);`
There is a cookie icon in the adressbar if 3rd party cookies are blocked. You can click it and go to show cookies or something (first blue link) and unblock the blocked.
It's not about left or right removal quantity. It's about hate. And there are a lot of easy cases on social media. I don't know what the do with not so easy cases. Maybe the same as before.
What he is saying though is that (there is at least a perception that) right wing hate is removed far more frequently than left-wing hate due to biases that cause those with their finger on the button to perceive it as somehow more justified.
I think there are cases that should be easy on both sides and I would hazard a guess that they simply aren't dealt with the same. Sure, hate being removed is objectively good, but if only one side of the hate is removed, it will cause friction.
It will cause friction and it doesn't matter what you are doing. Hate will produce friction. Counter speech is friction. Removing or blocking will cause friction.
This actions are made BECAUSE OF right-wing hate on facebook/twitter where people post that they should kill other people, politician, refugees. That's why they focus on this problem right now. Does this mean left-wing hate speech at the same level will not be deleted? I don't think so.
The New Black Panthers are vastly outnumbered by bigoted and racist readers of right-wing news sources such as the Drudge Report and Fox News. The objective truth is that hateful right-wing views are openly disseminated in the media, and that's going to result in a lot more right-wing hate being spread online. If this bothers you, then take it to the right-wing news sources that push these views and profit from them and make them so prevalent in the first place.
"The New Black Panthers" is not even close to what would come to mind for me when I think about left-wing hate. I specifically didn't mention any of the groups that do come to mind because I have no interest in getting in to a shouting match with someone who identifies with them.
Said groups could however be characterized by a mob mentality that leads to attacking peoples livelihood, harassing peoples families, sending death threats, etc, usually driven by social media, and hopefully something we could both agree is over the top, unacceptable, and indeed openly hateful.
My comment was ridiculously measured. I didn't even pick sides in the actual topic. I definitely didn't pick sides politically. You seem to have chosen one for me, although I regret to inform you you have assumed incorrectly.
Your comment was not measured. You made it impossible to have or continue a productive conversation. If I would have been the person you apparently think I am, you would not have won me over. You would have alienated me further. But I suspect that's part of it all. Some people don't care about productive conversation. They care about being "right" in front of other people who also want to be "right".
What if a black person says "To all my n*ggers out there, x,y,z" on twitter, vs. a white person saying the same thing. Will the white person's tweet be removed, or both?
Interesting point. How can anybody know? If I have a penis, under today's standards I can claim to be female. If I have caucasian ancestry, can I claim to be black? Why not?
Because all of these factors will necessarily have to be taken into account when we come up with our speech rules, don't you see?
Sure it's complex, convoluted, and controversial.. but as long as we put the right people in charge to make the decisions for us, it will all work out fairly.
"We", meaning the readership of this site probably doesn't (I hope?), but it is a common trope that what you are allowed to say (meaning: be accepted without immediate backlash) is based entirely on your identity.
I'll not go into that concept further for fear of igniting another tired flame war.
Don't forget that there's a vast number of African Americans who do not condone the use of the n word freely and for fun as it happens these days. I believe their main objection is that it takes away from the meaning and history associated with it. If we consider another N word (Nazi), then it's also use popularly but only to mean something very negative and not in the sense of "my buddy".
The meaning of speech depends on context, always. If I say something by myself, in the privacy of my home, it's much different than if I say the same thing with a microphone to an angry mob. Yelling "fire" when a building is on fire is different than yelling it in a crowded theater where there is none (a classic example from law).
Similarly, if a white person publicly says something discriminatory against black people, it's a much different context than if a black person says the same thing. As an simple example, imagine a two black people in a room of 40 white nationalists: If one black person says to another, "hey n-!", that's much different for the person hearing it than if one of the white nationalists says the same thing.
There's a lot more to that word, including black people taking power for themselves and away from racists by using it (really a brilliant, innovative way to push back), but that's too much to write here and now.
