> They could simply say when an account is suspended or disabled or you are banned including a shadow ban that you must provide the specific details of what caused the ban and what specific provisions were violated in the terms of service.
I think you're misunderstanding why this happens. Banning without a clear explanation or shadow banning users is a feature, not a bug. It grants platforms the ability to arbitrarily make decisions about who can use their platform without having to apply a consistent standard that would be questioned and challenged.
Governments don't want to change this because it benefits them. It means when they're able to tell a platform to ban a user and that user can be banned for "violating the ToS", instead of telling the truth and saying the user was "banned on order of the government".
The reason why governments don't care about this issue is because no one with power would benefit from this transparency.
The best explanation I heard for the appeal of fascism was from someone on the far-right – that fascism is basically an immune response of a nation.
When enough people are hurting from the status quo voting for "sensible" policies of soft reform isn't going to cut it. At some point you need to blow up the existing system so you clear out the rot.
This immune response might be costly to the nation in the near-term but the hope is when it's over it will have also have destroyed the infection.
When it's put in these terms I can begin to relate more with the appeal of Trump, and while I'm not personally convinced he is a fascist, I do get why people say that. I can be nervous and unhappy with the result, but also acknowledge that the US needs significant change and voting in Biden or Harris was never realistically going to bring that.
There's clearly something wrong with democratic party. They're no longer appealing to the working class they claim to speak for and instead their primary supports now seem to be suburban white-women and the college educated metropolitan class. Today they're also supported by the media establishment, war-mongers like Dick Cheney, most billionaires, Hollywood celebs and pop-stars. Given this it's really no surprised we smart well off people on HN don't like Trump and quite like the sensible status-quo Harris promised.
I hope this immune response doesn't kill the host and I hope something positive comes out of all of this. We should take comfort in the fact that the US is the most resilient democratic nation on Earth and Trump probably won't be alive in another decade. Those who worry about an actual fascist up rising probably need to relax a little. The great risk over the next few years is probably just geopolitical stupidity and we've seen plenty of that in the last 4 anyway.
> The best explanation I heard for the appeal of fascism was from someone on the far-right – that fascism is basically an immune response of a nation.
This is some really low-tier fascist apologia, in my opinion. Fascism isn't an immune response, it's a cancer. Once active in the host, it tries to sap it of whatever resources it can to enrich itself. Rooting out fascism has, historically, come at great personal and political cost to the countries that manage it.
> abortion restrictions have resulted in women dying of preventable reasons because doctors are afraid to do anything which might be interpreted as an abortion, even if the pregnant woman is dying in front of them from sepsis due to an unviable pregnancy; add in the threat of removing non-fault divorces, and it's genuinely scary
I'm pro-choice, but this idea that pro-life opinions are not equally popular with women is just wrong and not support by polling on the subject. I'm more pro-choice than my GF.
Yeah exactly, it's a thought experiment about infinities... Is someone going to publish a study concluding that Hilbert's Hotel couldn't be built on Earth too?
Why are people even spending money on this research? What are they trying to prove/disprove?
It's funny that so many people are confused about why this was written. The monkeys argument was originally used against the theory of evolution; "what's the probability that a monkey banging on a typewriter will type out Hamlet? It'll never happen, and that's why evolution is impossible." Then, someone made the counter-argument that given enough time, the monkey will type out Shakespeare. This paper argues that as long as the time is finite on the order of the age of our universe, the monkey will not type out Shakespeare.
> Multinational governments should scare people far more than whatever Twitter is doing these days.
I will take potentially misguided trade/business regulations over a megaphone for spreading Nazi speech, thank you very much.
It'd be great if you expanded this argument though, just for the sake of making the conversation more interesting on what exactly you see that's scary.
I actively avoid friendships or getting too close to people or animals because loss is too hard. When you love lots of people and animals you're sad all the time because you're always losing and missing someone.
I'm a bit happier now I'm more alone, but I wish life wasn't like this. Why was I made to love so much if I must eventually lose everyone I love?
I struggle to understand how everyone isn't constantly feeling overwhelmed with grief to be honest.
You will always hurt sometimes. Either it's the pain of disconnection, or it's the pain of loss. The former is subtle and easy to ignore, but it's always there. At least it certainly was for me.
I've now simply decided to look pain in the eye and embrace it. It is inevitable and important in forming relationships. At least you have mostly fond memories to look back on at the end of it.
> At least you have mostly fond memories to look back on at the end of it.
This is the worst bit for me. I've never been able to look back without extreme pain. I always wish I did or said something different. Or just that I had more time or was more appreciative in the moment.
Trying to live in the moment works better for me. I try to make the most of now and keep change to a minimum so there's not too much to worry about losing and there isn't too much to miss.
I think your approach is more healthy, I just don't seem to be able to do it. I think it's something to with ASD. I seem to get very attached to people, animals, places and times. I hate change, especially when it's preeminent and out of my control.
You kinda accept life for what it is. People come and go, and nothing is permanent against time. Except perhaps concepts and ideas, things that aren't physical.
The thought of being unable to make deep connections seems sad and pessimistic to me. Focus on the good parts.
That's what I wondered. Presumably services implementing it will add info about using the button before starting the journey, but I'm surprised there's no design system guidance about this. Without that information the button is far less useful.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe the reason Amazon doesn't pay tax, and even now is only paying very little corporation tax is because corporation tax is a tax on profits which is something Amazon avoids like the plague. In fact, I believe in the UK Amazon's ecommerce operations operate at a loss and have done for years...
I thought that the UK introduced a digital revenue tax in 2020 to tackle this issue which should tax all revenues of large multinational companies like Amazon at 2%. So Amazon did £27b in sales then I'm surprised to see they're only paying £18.7m in tax...
So am I right in thinking that in addition to this corporation tax bil Amazon is also paying hundreds of millions in digital revenues taxes, and that the The Guardian is just spinning a narrative around the corporation tax Amazon pays? Or is Amazon not paying the new digital revenue tax somehow?
I think you're misunderstanding why this happens. Banning without a clear explanation or shadow banning users is a feature, not a bug. It grants platforms the ability to arbitrarily make decisions about who can use their platform without having to apply a consistent standard that would be questioned and challenged.
Governments don't want to change this because it benefits them. It means when they're able to tell a platform to ban a user and that user can be banned for "violating the ToS", instead of telling the truth and saying the user was "banned on order of the government".
The reason why governments don't care about this issue is because no one with power would benefit from this transparency.
reply