Yes and reasonable people understand this and don't need censorship. Who would hate a platform for not removing people for just honestly disagreeing and talking? Inciting violence and cheating the system is a different story and the obvious edge of free speech
The problem is "honest disagreement and talking" isn't. One person's honest disagreement is inciting violence, and with coded signals and dogwhistles, it's not a subject that everyone will agree on. Things that are clearly on one side or there other of the line aren't in question. It's more subtle stuff that can be argued either way, eg "When the looting starts, the shooting starts", where it gets more contentious.
Pretending it's all just honest disagreement is being naive.
> Who would hate a platform for not removing people for just honestly disagreeing and talking?
A lot of people. And if your goal is quantity, not quality, those people are important, because they are who the investors give you money to build a site for.
I'm responding because you and gp are talking about precise measurements.
I'm asking basic questions about if and how you can measure it and you respond like it's "injecting ideas"... What lol? Can you not be a baby or not handle a question? There's nothing to reread which alters this.
> you and gp are talking about precise measurements.
Measurements of things that have actually occurred in shared reality. Absolute precision is not necessary, but a reasonable amount of consistency with observable reality doesn't seem too much to ask about, is it?
> What if it's there and unobservable?
I would be interested in learning more about the nature of this sort of thing, in great detail. I actually think this relatively unexplored territory may be where society should be spending more time mutually exploring. I think we should be exploring all territory, including not only statistics, but literally everything than anyone considers important. I doubt every perspective is of equal importance, but that doesn't mean no importance.
> I'm asking basic questions about if and how you can measure it and you respond like it's "injecting ideas"
For injecting ideas, I refer to this:
> Why does it need to be observable?
Where did I say it needs to be observable? It sounds like (it is my perception that) you are characterizing my comment to be something along the lines of ~"if it can't be measured, it doesn't count". Have I misinterpreted you, or is that what you're actually suggesting I've said?
That's a ridiculous assumption to make. You have no idea what percent of any crowd is there to appease someone else and any claim otherwise is silly.
What if someone is there for more than one reason(Hint everyone)? Do they not count anymore?
Bad weather lowers attendance for all events you dullard that doesn't support anything you've said. You're just ascribing intention to thousands of people and it's really lazy thiking. You haven't even scratched the surface of why some people are there but go ahead and keep making your wild assumptions
I feel this is not a well thought out perspective.
They have ""bad karma" according to your subjective view of the world. What if that's how they view you? What if a human is the worst thing you could be?
I'm not telling you specifically who, obviously, but we have 3 clients that order a post from us about once a month for at least $1,000. The posts typically are:
- 2000 to 2500 words
- FAST (48 hour) turnaround
- ready to be published without more than a simple read through
- voice consistent with other posts that we may not have written for them
- well cited or referenced
The clients are
- b2b environment selling into the enterprise
- companies that generate b/w 10M and 100M in business
- tech companies that have a disproportionally small digital marketing team thus the need to outsource.
Example, in early March we wrote a series of 3 blogs posts about security challenges for transforming your organization to WFH. $2500 for a total of ~6000 words, ordered Monday morning and delivered Wednesday night.
As someone who has been thinking about doing some ghost writing for b2b/enterprises/startups as a nice side-income but never got to actuallly do it.
This is a great footprint for me to try and crack something to submit (monday) ideally.
I already applied to a great SaaS which I see an open call to write blogposts for in their newsletter. The CEO asked which topics I would like to write about and I submited 2-3 rough ideas, and he thought they were OK and asked for a draft.
I never followed through.
I don't have any blog although I think I could do it.
Would you mind emailing you for some more specific advice or editorial peer review in the moonshot case I finally get to write some shit?
2-2.5K for a blog post sounds excessive in length, specially for b2b companies that sounds like they post often.
I have quite a few blog posts and 1200-1600 is the sweet spot that I get pretty much 100% readership. Anything longer than that gets bookmarked but never read.
I'm glad that works for you. Long form posts (2k+) are most often deep product breakdown/review or how-to guides. My experience has been that such pieces perform very well across a variety of important metrics when the quality is high.
Facts and editorialism are not the same thing. I want my medical textbook (and the journalist reporting on it) to not lie to me. Whether I elect to choose the treatment after side effects are disclosed is up to me. I'd rather not have to make a medical judgement as to which of 10 pharmaceutical companies are making a false claim however.
Who is disagreeing with this? The issue is that people disagree on what the facts are, so when twitter does a fact check some people would disagree, what if it's a close call?
I'm not going to agree or disagree with their assessment I don't really care. I'm saying I don't give a shit what "twitter corp" thinks about X persons tweet. I want to read it and see for myself.
Don't turn to Twitter for a medical issue... Who would do that? If you're looking in a textbook as mentioned you will find well referenced established science, or speaking to a medical professional. That is not Twitter and was never it's strength
I'm concerned for someone who has so much wrongly placed anger... dude you're all worked up about Facebook for no reason, get real they aren't the enemy
I just threw an off the wall mention that I was out protesting and getting tear gas shot at me this weekend and you're commenting that my anger toward FB is misplaced?
Yeah me too because unless mark Zuckerberg shot tear gas at you I still don't get it. You just sound really mad at FB and silicon valley for no good reason
> You just sound really mad at FB and silicon valley for no good reason
As a reader of Hacker News, it'd be quite hard to imagine you don't have at least have an understanding of some reasons to dislike Facebook or Silicon Valley. Not agreement, but at least an understanding. Every week it seems there is something posted for both topics...
Of course I see comments and articles about it all the time, I do not understand it and think they are totally wrong. Like I said no good reason that I have seen
The funny thing is Twitter gets roasted for taking the opposite stance... There's no winning
Then you also know a good deal of people disagree with you, so what you see as wrong likely doesn't match the poster. So what's the point of going in this loop of useless comments?
The only person making useless posts here is you... I responded to this person directly to comment on their post and state my opinion, who TF are you? Did you actually just make a comment to say stop posting in aloop and add nothing to the convo? Do you see how ironically stupid that is?
Actually the abstract points out that this hypothesis is one going against the largely held scientific view of biological factors and gender differences...
A rebuttal a year later in the related section points out omissions from this paper and offers a deeper perspective on the differences
