cujo

*Take the following with a grain of salt. I've not used this product in production as of yet. I just started investigating it a few weeks ago.*

Statamic sort of fits in this discussion. It's a flat file cms that is by default deployed similarly to wp, but it has 2 distinct use cases that separate it a bit.

1. you can use their ssg module to do ssg things and just use their cms as, well, the cms. you can do this locally and just push the output to your favorite web server.

2. if you are familiar with laravel development, you can drop it in an existing laravel application with minimal effort.

https://statamic.com/

And if your wp site is fairly large be prepared to go take a nap while it runs. I just installed this plugin on a larger site and it's still churning 30 minutes in.

On the flip side, we run a custom cms with hugo as the SSG on a much larger site and it builds and deploys in under a minute.

WP has it's uses, but speedy sites are not a focus.

Right-to-work effectively weakens unions, but is sold under the reasonable sounding rhetoric. The common pitch is something like...

> Right-to-work means that you can work in a union trade without joining the union. Otherwise you have to join and pay the union to work in your profession. Why should you have to pay to work as a <insert profession here>? Support right-to-work!

That's how I often see it sold. In the end, it means unions get weaker in industries that need them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law#Arguments_fo...

The number of users that almost pulled off an insurrection is pretty small.

> So where would I set the bar? I would set it at the level that a company isn't at fault if their platform has the right kind or amount of moderation that the bad event that happened was unusual or couldn't have been expected. If someone gets hurt because Facebook didn't police an openly Nazi group, they should be liable. If someone gets hurt because Facebook has decent moderation procedures in place but the Nazi group was sneaky and posed as a sports fan club and used coded messages, then I think Facebook would have a pretty easy defense even without Section 230.

I like this idea in theory. How does this work if the platform promises no moderation? Is that allowed? I'm thinking of a mastodon-type setup where a setup can choose not to do any type of filtering/moderation.

This last summer with the BLM protests the local town FB group got flooded with people behaving badly and eventually the moderators had to step in and effectively ban a bunch of people and prevent discussion on the topic for a time.

This wasn't a group that catered to Nazis. It was a group that asked about the best pizza in town and pointed out when the high school was putting on a play. To say it caught the mods off-guard would be an understatement.

Mods had to step in and save the day, but it basically requires someone to watch the service 24/7 during heated times as the threads blow up quickly. They don't take days or weeks to warm up. It just takes an active community and some catalyst event.

This was effectively just a forum. It happened in a FB group, but could have just as easily been some local dude hosting a phpbb forum. Same thing.

So this is the thing I keep coming back to: why would anyone ever dip their toes in user-created content if 230 is changed/repealed? It's all risk at that point, especially for folks who would aren't quitting their day job for it.

Or to put another way, with 230 as it is, Trump can't use twitter/fb/etc, but he can spin up his own phpbb and start his own community there. Why isn't that ok?

This is a perfectly sound hypothetical. Do you only allow discussion with people who have experienced a direct hardship? Is that your line for moderation? I'm being antagonistic, but that's part of your 230 fix right? You want judges to draw the magical cutoff line.

So what do you do about companies who run a shoestring budget? They can't play in this game?

It sounds like you're really just mad because the big companies don't moderate evenly enough for you.

> replacing it with something that requires a reasonable level of moderation, or provides a little bit of protection for companies that have made a good attempt at moderation. That would be a much better incentive for companies than the incentive 230 currently provides.

I'll bite. I think TW/FB have done a reasonable job of moderating. Where do you set the bar? Where should the politically appointed judge hearing the case set the bar? Your solution is just moving the problem directly into the sites of the political party in power.

You can't say this law is misunderstood. How many people do you think have ever read the text of this law that are making claims on it?

Even in this thread it's clear that way too many commenters haven't read the article in question.

230 isn't complicated. People's ability/willingness to read and interpret it outside of online rhetoric is a problem.

So, you're saying that anyone can write an entire book on overthrowing the government and sell it on amazon, but Twitter has silenced however many million people? It sure sounds like there are easy avenues for people to share ideas.

> Maybe if you (or I) were banned from HN, no big deal, find some other corner of the Internet to shout from.

So is the premise of your argument that we should be protecting the less internet savvy from having to learn how to browse the web?

Give me a break. FB/TW shouldn't be required to uphold the public's ability to communicate.

What makes these companies the "new public square"? Some threshold for use? Is the "real" public square no longer the public square? If FB/Twitter/etc, are the public square, then the government should own them, right? Or does this mean private property can be a public square now and deserves protections because of it?

If I build the biggest coffee shop my small town has ever seen and it becomes ridiculously popular, is it the new public square and I'm no longer allowed to kick out people for being assholes?

This "big website is popular so now we must treat it as public space" is a take that I see kicked around but has lots of holes in it.

Frankly, it makes smells like bullshit.

I call bullshit.

Wouldn’t the air have the same problem? With no fan it’ll still heat up and have to throttle down.

Alternate headline: "People With Access to More Information Less Likely to Trust Blindly"

The article references a paper that hasn't yet been peer reviewed either. This isn't much.

"In general, people’s confidence in their leaders declined after getting 3g. However, the size of this effect varied. It was smaller in countries that allow a free press than in ones where traditional media are muzzled, and bigger in countries with unlimited web browsing than in ones that censor the internet. This implies that people are most likely to turn against their governments when they are exposed to online criticism that is not present offline. The decline was also larger in rural areas than in cities."

They bang on the 3g access, but gloss over the rural vs urban part. It could be reframed to something like "people who are isolated from information are less likely to question their assumptions about their government."

If you don't want to use email, fine. But this is work, not your personal jollies. I'm sure this guy would have pitched a fit if the people below him decided not to see him in person until they ran 3 laps around the building, or whatever ridiculous requirement they dreamt up.

The worse thing that happened to driving was we were convinced it should be fun. Sharing public space with big, heavy, dangerous boxes of metal should never have been been spun as fun.

What don't you buy here? I'd say "It's pretty close!" is pretty accurate!

None of this is strong or principled. What's the principle?

* Charter schools: Politicians create charter school setups that don't have proper checks and balances and tend to completely shirk their responsibility to public schools in the process. Your statement isn't some fringe idea. It's just not why charter schools are pushed. If you take a look at what happens with charter schools you'd see why people get divided on them. We aren't presented with a rational system. We're presented with a system that gets hijacked to push religious schools and/or defund public schools without.

* Medicine: "Works great pure free market." - Citation Needed. No one will give us your far left solution.

* Gun control: In case you haven't noticed, we aren't allowed to question it. We aren't even allowed to study it. This game is rigged.

* Race: How does cancel culture play into this? I'm not allowed to find a different Applebees if the manager is a racist? "The left's oppression of free speech" - do tell.

I know this may not be the case here, but...

> moved out of a major Northeast city to the coast of Maine

is not necessarily a move that is going to bring a lower rent/mortgage. Coastal Maine can be pricy.

Not all camping is backcountry hiking.

Because college was infinitely more affordable.

I have a hard time believing that GE has been dealing with a lot of warranty claims because people are using after market filters. Couple that with that a filter that runs more than 2x the off-brand one runs, and it looks a lot like a money grab.

I think their unpublished argument is that they can make money by forcing people to use their own filters by making the argument publicly that they shouldn't have to provide support for people putting consumables that they don't have any quality control over into their machines.

I think there's a big difference between pushing through occasional lulls, and never wanting to do something ever.

You clearly fell into the latter camp.

Do you have some data on this?

"brew search broot" is a lot fewer characters than your question!

But then why blog? Why not just journal in a notebook or on your "notes" app and be done?

But then you should probably only compare trips with somehow similar distances/times involved right?

Since I'm unlikely to fly my 20 mile commute to work, logging those miles under the "drive car" category isn't comparable, but is likely how I'd be in a car accident since that's something like 75% of my driving life. It seems you should only compare flights of 3 hrs vs car trips of 3 hours, or similar.

> The real selling point of ear buds is the fashion part.

Small and wireless has been a desirable trait for a long time. I think you're underselling that a bit.

> they are still a substandard user experience compared to 3.5mm jack and decent headphones

A lot of people disagree with this. A lot of people prefer the portability of small wireless music over big cans with "better" sound.