> As high profile as Musk is, something like that account is a real threat to his personal safety in my opinion.
People who want to actually harm Elon Musk don't need that Twitter account to do so. I don't see how it is a threat to his personal safety, when this data is easily available elsewhere.
> someone dares to say uncomfortable reality-based everyone-who-lives-outside-in-real-world heresies
How is that applicable here? The poster they responded to simply claims something they most likely cant prove (and neither can you), else they wouldn't have started their argument with "willing to bet" - which in turn means that their opinion is most likely based on bigotry, else they would have simply posted the source as an answer to the original article.
Additionally, if it really were a reality that we all observed, there would be no harm whatsoever in saying the quiet part out loud. This "trolling" is literally just interrogating the argument that's been presented. The only reason to fear it is that your conclusion won't hold up unless the reasoning that lead you to it is concealed.
Let's say that one really does have a point, that would stand on it's own if you were more explicit, and someone asks you to elaborate on why you came to that conclusion. What exactly do you lose by doing so? What rhetorical ground has your interlocutor gained? What is the proposed mechanism of this supposed bad faith tactic?
The only possible answer I can see is, "a moment of your time," which is pretty unconvincing. If you don't think the question is worth your time, fine, don't answer it. But there's no scenario where answering it harms your argument, but you still had a solid argument.
It's just that people disagree with you about what is supposedly self evident and real.
The main problem is that you compare the freedom of social media platforms to regulate the content they host, to outright government-controlled censorship of all media. If it was actually the government censoring the topic, you would not have been able to link to a nypost article talking about it, and Trump wouldn't be able to post on his own social media platform.
> Look up the list of topics bannable on YouTube. On Twitter you can’t even call someone by the name their parents gave them if they disagree. In schools near where I live you can get suspended for using proper pronouns, if someone disagrees.
Why are those topics bannable? Could it be that there is some kind of "code of conduct" that makes sure people are respectful to each other? Those people disagreeing are still free to host their own service, if they desperately want to deadname someone.
There’s a faction / ideology (across all party lines) in the west that is doing the same thing as China. For the same reasons “to be respectful to one another”.
Hey, great news! You can start your own site without censorship. The marketplace will determine whether your site succeeds or fails. Alex Jones makes a great living peddling his claptrap despite his claims otherwise- go forth and make your own fortune!
People (or NPCs/bots, like you call them) downvote you because not only is it a bad take and does have questionable grammar, it's also full of misinformation.
Let's take your first point for example. If I go on Fox News right now and search for articles about the 2020 election being stolen, I get plenty of articles and opinions talking about it. How exactly was it censored, and how is it comparable to censorship in China?
Besides, censorship is not inherently bad, and most stable democracies with a functioning legal system will have some form of censorship, to protect minors, for example.
That is censorship, because social media then bans (censors) those users and the discussion. Which was my exact point.
What do they do in China: “hey this snippet here looks like misinformation” then the company removes that snippet. They extend it to insults about the Chinese race, but don’t we do the same with gender pronouns?
How is it different materially?
My point was censorship is done universally, just in different ways and for different topics. It’s always the same reason though, to avoid some idea the people in power don’t want propagated. Could be a joke, could be “misinformation”, could be that there’s only one good race (no one dare make fun of), or you can have any gender. It’s all just power / politics.
The censored rarely take the time to learn what is being censored because they don’t think to know. You have to keep the idea from entering the mind of the opposition. That’s why you censor in the first place. You have to defame those who question the authority and call them “fascists” so no one listens to them. Self-censoring who you listen to and not telling others “hey this person has an interesting take!” It’s all the same game, a game to control the population.
> Besides, censorship is not inherently bad, and most stable democracies with a functioning legal system will have some form of censorship, to protect minors, for example.
I would argue we don’t see stable “democracies”, we see oligarchies. Why is it ruling families in the UK still effectively rule? Politicians are always from a certain class. Similar in France, when’s the last commoner who speaks like the rural folk who’s held the prime minister seat? We all see how Trump was treated for speaking plainly… then again, he was a “threat to democracy”
The oligarchs control what you can think, through managing what information you can read / see. “Democracy” in the US is a code word, for the status quo.
Fantastic word salad you have there, managing to avoid the entire question posed to you. Shows that you have no cogent argument, just a bunch of grievances. I’m sorry to hear of your problems.
I don’t think you know what word salad is. If you do, way to use sly accusations of mental illness to discredit, supporting their point that you can’t win an argument without cheating.
Q: How exactly was it censored, and how is it comparable to censorship in China?
A: https://nypost.com/2021/07/15/white-house-flagging-posts-for... That is censorship, because social media then bans (censors) those users and the discussion. Which was my exact point. What do they do in China: “hey this snippet here looks like misinformation” then the company removes that snippet. They extend it to insults about the Chinese race, but don’t we do the same with gender pronouns? How is it different materially?
Maybe I should remind you of the actual words in the gp comment.
> Let's take your first point for example. If I go on Fox News right now and search for articles about the 2020 election being stolen, I get plenty of articles and opinions talking about it. How exactly was it censored, and how is it comparable to censorship in China?
You have conveniently pivoted to a straw man argument about Covid-19 which was not mentioned.
And there are plenty of people on Facebook talking all sorts of crap about vaccines. If it was so stringently “censored” as you claim, it would be hard for us to argue about - as I would have never heard the anti vaxxers arguments. But good lord, they never shut up- so I’m exceptionally aware of their opinions.
You are right that he conflated two types of censorship in the West. The first is as you say, eliminate it from mainstream media and let lunatics ramble about it on social media (vaccines, lab theory, etc.). This has an impact on the legitimacy of what's being said, and your exposure to these ideas. The second type of censorship is the outright ban of certain topics, such as the Hunter Biden laptop.
This piece is from 2022. I'm talking about the time when Twitter and Facebook banned publication of the original NY Post publication, which would have affected elections. We now know the FBI demanded this of Facebook.
Look, I’m just on my phone so I’m not going to dig up archive links showing the post article all over the web at the time, but really - what do you want? The emergency broadcast system activated to push the story to everyone’s phone like an amber alert?
I was there - and honestly the news about “suppressing” the ny post story just encouraged me to go read it more, ala the Streisand effect. Which is exactly what I did out of morbid curiosity. I encountered no issues finding the story, had no issues with authorities as a result of searching for it and reading it and took no precautions to protect my identity while doing so.
I'm not even sure what your point is here. I'm telling you that the FBI ordered two major social media platforms to suppress sharing of a truthful news story for political reasons. It's also a fact that most media outlets did the same. This is state censorship, and the fact that you could go to Breitbart or whatever fringe news site, or that you personally did so, doesn't change absolutely anything about that.
1. The primary discussion was around "how was censorship related to China" and the poster gave a random example from my arbitrary list. I responded with an arbitrary example, but still giving an example how censorship is comparable to China.
2. My position has never been the government has to be doing the censorship. People censor, some in media, some in social media, some on HN, some in government, etc.
3. Censorship doesn't mean you cannot reach data; it's a suppression of speech (which Zuckerberg, Dorsey, and Youtube admitted to censoring publicly). https://www.britannica.com/topic/censorship
> censorship, the changing or the suppression or prohibition of speech or writing that is deemed subversive of the common good. It occurs in all manifestations of authority to some degree, but in modern times it has been of special importance in its relation to government and the rule of law.
> Ahead of the election, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube promised to clamp down on election misinformation, including unsubstantiated charges of fraud and premature declarations of victory by candidates. And they mostly did just that — though not without a few hiccups.
They have been open about censoring since before the election. Now, if we want to get into government, the FBI interfered by (1) strongly suggesting social media to "limit" (censor) information; and ironically (2) accused of not investigating or sharing relevant information about the candidates (https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/services/files/7CD44E16-BF...)
5. I know many people banned from social media. They can't post on any accounts. I also followed many people I didn't know personally banned. If you ask questions / discuss certain topics you will be removed; typically for sharing particular pieces of content.
Then why do you get mad when China or the Middle East bans material they find objectionable? They simply have a different definition of what counts as objectionable, that's all, and it's well within their rights to enforce their different cultural values within their borders, just like you argue that a "democracy" has this right.
Also, when I go to Netflix and search for "LGBT", I see tons of material. So that must obviously mean censoring of LGBT is a pathetic lie, it's right there in one (very big, much bigger than Fox) media outlet so it's obviously not censored.
> Then why do you get mad when China or the Middle East bans material they find objectionable?
There is a difference between banning content that is objectively harmful (e.g. child porn) and banning content to control and suppress minorities. Just because they can doesn't mean it's good.
> So that must obviously mean censoring of LGBT is a pathetic lie
There is no such thing as "objectively harmful", all harm or good is decided through values, and those values differ. The exact same way you deal with paedophilia, is the way some countries deal with the LGBT.
It doesn't have to be governments only as well, the Middle East is majority Muslim after all, and muslims do get incredibly offended at LGBT stuff (a lot of Arabic insults are just variations on "gay"). So, according to you, those private citizens and corporations should be allowed to ban the LGBT, it's not censorship if the government isn't doing it right?
>I never argued this.
No, but you did argue for something indistinguishably similar, which is that because a news story is found on Fox then this news story is not actually censored. So, by that same unassailable logic, LGBT stuff is on Netflix and therefore LGBT stuff is not actually being censored. All objections you have against my satire argument is applicable to your real argument.
* The exchanges (and other ramps for getting useful money into the system and out of the system)
* The developers of the chain
* The developers of the smart contracts
* The developers of wallets
* The miners
* The internet providers
* The hardware manufacturers
* The government (yes, they could punish usage of cryptocurrencies hard if they wanted to)
> Your will that declares what assets go to your children. The deed to your home. The lease for your car. Certificates. Art. Tickets. Contracts. Money.
Which can all be lost or stolen easily without a central authority and a judicial system. Do not underestimate the power of phishing, especially if it is directed towards specific people.
> With cryptocurrencies, you need to trust: * The exchanges (and other ramps for getting useful money into the system and out of the system)
Decentralized Finance, Protocols and Apps do not require trust.
The frontend and backend of every protocol you are expected to use is open source. Things can only go wrong, without the fault of your own if you use something closed-source or custodial.
Cryptocurrency allows you to take responsibility.
> Which can all be lost or stolen easily without a central authority and a judicial system. Do not underestimate the power of phishing, especially if it is directed towards specific people.
Blockchain gives the world the ability to not rely on the local central authority. Your data will not be edited, removed, lost, stolen or damaged either.
You can write up a contract, leasing me your land for 99 years, on paper, with a witness and kept a copy with the local central authority. This can go well, until it goes wrong.
In 99 years, my estate may refuse to give the land back to you without proof of the paper it was written on. We could claim the paper is a fake. The local central authority can be bias, corrupt or dissolved. Which many authorities are.
If you used blockchain instead of paper. The contract remains unchanged, and ready to read at any time, until the very last computer on this planet is turned off.
> Decentralized Finance, Protocols and Apps do not require trust.
> The frontend and backend of every protocol you are expected to use is open source. Things can only go wrong, without the fault of your own if you use something closed-source or custodial.
Are you seriously claiming that something cannot have bugs because it's open source? That nobody will use an oracle or otherwise have outside dependencies?
In reality, these systems do require trust. Most people do not have the skills to audit everything they use — even if, as we've seen so many times in the cryptocurrency world, they incorrectly believe they do — and the people who do have those skills wouldn't have time to audit everything they touch if these systems ever see widespread adoption. Everyone using them is trusting other parties at multiple levels, and there's no way to avoid that for most transactions.
> Cryptocurrency allows you to take responsibility.
Less misleadingly, cryptocurrency requires you to take responsibility for everything. This is not a feature for the vast majority of people because it's a large amount of highly-skilled work which you're required to do constantly as things update and the failure mode is that you're now penniless.
> Blockchain gives the world the ability to not rely on the local central authority. Your data will not be edited, removed, lost, stolen or damaged either.
This is pure naivety. If the blockchain says I own a house and the men with guns say you do, guess who wins? If your government is corrupt, the blockchain won’t help. If your government is not corrupt, the extra cost and risk from using a blockchain aren’t buying you anything.
At most, this problem needs PKI to register claims but the current system works well and all of the failure modes are things which blockchains either don't help with or make worse (“Someone hacked grandpa's phone. Now they own his house and a bunch of nerds on the internet said it's his fault and there's nothing he can do.”).
Sure the contract remains unchanged, but who will enforce the contract? In 99 years, will there be any authority that recognizes the blockchain contract? The "biased, corrupt or dissolved" local central authority could choose not to recognize the blockchain contract and then your estate would still not give the land back.
Do you concede that inflation robs people of purchasing power? That's the most important point from that.
I can understand that the "for their own enrichment" part of that sentence is a bit debatable. It's true (as far as I know) that the central bankers are not personally building giant Scrooge McDuck money bins and siphoning cash directly from their monetary policy decisions in there for swimming purposes.
However, you can point out that the money and power they gain is due to their willingness to keep business as usual (inflation) churning. And let's not forget that the central bankers can manage to get high 6 figures speaking engagement fees, at least after they're out. I can't be sure what level of quid pro quo goes on with all of that, but they certainly do manage to enrich themselves by playing their part and continuing the generally policy of inflation.
>Do you concede that inflation robs people of purchasing power? That's the most important point from that.
And then people get cost of living raises - that's why almost all income groups have seen wage growth in inflation adjusted dollars since, well, 100+ years.
Here's what happens when central banking didn't target low inflation [1]. Read through it for a better understanding of why the current system is better than any that preceded it.
> Do you concede that inflation robs people of purchasing power?
Think this through. Whose purchasing power? If you have a billion dollars and I have nothing, and prices go up 2%, which of us lost purchasing power? Keeping in mind that inflation drives up wages too?
It's absolutely true that central bankers and other cartoon villain fatcats are trying to enrich themselves. But the way they do that is by investing their wealth in the economy, and then manipulating inflation to make the economy grow as fast as possible.
> Do you concede that inflation robs people of purchasing power? That's the most important point from that.
It's not supposed to. The policy rate is supposed to match the inflation rate on average. When the fed says 2% inflation target it also implies that the fed funds rate should be at 2%.
Most of the runaway inflation you're seeing today is because the *government* spent way, way too much money which put a massive strain on limited resources. Blame the CARES Act + American Rescue Plan. You want to see corruption and pork spending? Look at the $3 trillion in deficit spending across the Trump and Biden administrations.
PULSAR with just a tiny, tiny drop of SpaceTeam would be ideal, IMO. At least last time I played it, it was a little dry. Random stuff should happen in the bridge when you get hit (not full-wacky SpaceTeam stuff, just, like, piped shooting out of the wall) (I haven't played in a while so maybe I am out of date).
Barotrauma is a hoot. Beater submarine being piloted by a bunch of QWOP-level controlled smack addicts.
And almost everything has varying levels of complexity. Sure, there's a pretty deep medical system with dozens of medicines of varying side effects and effectiveness for whatever ails you. Or you can just stuff yourself full of morphine (leading to the aforementioned crew of opiate addicts). You can just set the boat's ~~on board barbeque~~ nuclear reactor to automatically scale turbine output and heat levels, but either through manual management or more advanced logic circuitry you can make your boat better suited for high-intensity situations.
It does take a handful of friends to really enjoy, though. Makes it hard as an adult, but scheduling play sessions is a nice social gathering.
> The thing I think driving Bitcoin is that all the other assets that can absorb billions of dollars in liquidity are throughly manipulated.
Bitcoin can be just as much manipulated, if not more, because there's barely any regulatory oversight. Remember the two bots that traded Bitcoins with each other on Mt Gox to drive the price up (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/29/bitcoin-b...)? What makes you think something like this doesn't exist anymore? Especially with the Tether guys at the helm, who have been proven to lie in the past (https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2021/attorney-general-james-...), Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency investors should be worried.
People who want to actually harm Elon Musk don't need that Twitter account to do so. I don't see how it is a threat to his personal safety, when this data is easily available elsewhere.