Why did this post get flagged? It's a social network and the comments are mostly about the code and implementation. The title doesn't mention any political entity or person... ?
1 karma · joined February 17, 2023
I have been seeing a lot of weird definitions for "inflation" lately and it's not doing the population any favors. The BBC defines inflation as "the price of things going up." This is like saying that a rise in shoplifting is caused by an increase in shoplifters.
Quite simply inflation occurs when you have less goods and services compared to the amount of currency in circulation. The cure is to increase production of goods and services to outpace the amount of new money entering the economy.
The statistics are a total mess in my opinion and any being professed with any exactitude should be taken with a grain of salt.
Typical Chrome user decides they want to start moving away from Google. They rely on a ton of Chrome extensions so don't want to switch to Firefox or Safari or some other walled garden.
Brave is a good drop in replacement for Chrome as it's compatible with the app store and runs on Chromium.
Add uBlock Origin and EFF Privacy Badger, they're in great ad-blocking shape.
The ads are opt-out, Brave Rewards is also opt-out and you can even turn off the button for it in the app tray. You can stop the "new tab" ads and also turn off the "cards" for their crypto stuff.
I heard allegations of including their own affiliate links in typed URLs. I don't care one iota. If it doesn't raise my price then that's between Brave and whatever company.
I don't care if they are destroying the internet ad industry. There are more important things to worry about like not letting my personal or professional life become the subject of nation state spy campaigns and Big Tech overlordship.
But don't take my word for it. Please, let hipster Rasputin Jack[off] Dorsey explain: https://twitter.com/jack/status/1037399105306324993
It's also highly immoral for them to craft their own narrative out of user generated content which was never the intention of 230. The crafting of a narrative of available information and the presentation thereof is called opinion which is the province of publishers.
"(3)The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity."
...
"(5)Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services."
Next, here is the pertinent section of the law that I feel covers the
(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
> (2) Interactive computer service The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
Just as a news organization would be held in contempt of the public interest for selectively editing a recording of someone to make them appear to say things that they didn't say, it's equally unethical to call oneself a provider of an "interactive computer service" while selectively editing the flow of diverse viewpoints and opinion to essentially accomplish the same cultural effect of selectively editing a recording.
Now, in (c)(2)(A) the "interactive computer service" is allowed to take steps to filter at its discretion what it deems "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable." The last bit otherwise objectionable is essentially a blank check and really should not have been in the law. The US flag may in some circles be considered "objectionable". Should this give Facebook the right to censor patriotism to the US flag as it may be "objectionable"?
The problem is that "objectionable" is based on opinion where the other criteria are more closely definable.
I am all for blocking some speech. I just believe that, for example, incitement of violence means that one tells another to hurt another explicitly. Not implicitly.
The ex-CEO of Twitter, Hipster Rasputin whatshisname, admitted that censoring the Biden laptop story from the NY Post in October 2020, and shutting down any account that shared the story, was a "mistake" and only reinstated the NY Post account 2 weeks after they said it was a mistake. Of course he blamed the Post because they "only" needed to delete the tweet with the link to the story in order to reinstate the account.
If the ban was a "mistake" then why do they need to delete the tweet?
And they do engage in censorship. See "Laptop from Hell" by Miranda Devine
It's turtles all the way down.
Civilizations grow on top of their earlier innovations and we can't just go back to the way things were without a collapse. How do you think the cell phone in your pocket could possibly be made without plastic? Or how about the Starship?
What's unsubstantiated about it? Jack Dorsey admitted he censored the story from the New York Post incorrectly and only after the election did they reinstate the ability to share the article.
The computer shop owner who had the laptop had the signed receipt from Hunter Biden. Hunter himself admitted he's under investigation by the FBI for tax fraud.
The drug and sex pictures in the laptop were not the most incriminating material. It was the emails to foreign powers selling his father's influence as Vice President and a longstanding senator that is the real damning stuff.
Now, if you have a laptop containing emails selling your significantly political parent's influence to foreign interests then that might be of interest to the general public. If you just gave stupid pictures of yourself doing drugs then nobody cares.
They can be directly or indirectly intimidated if the trial is high profile enough and if their identities are leaked.
With Chauvin's trial, the jury was indirectly intimidated by the public demands for a guilty verdict from politicians like Maxine Waters and other public figures.
In the Rittenhouse trial the judge caught someone in the courtroom surreptitiously filming the jury presumably to leak their identities. It's definitely possible to get a biased court.