dev_by_day

You asked for examples of censorship and it was given to you.

Irregardless of Greenwald, you can't deny twitter and social media outlets banning a New York Post journalist(and the White House Press Secretary) for sharing that story was not egregious censorship.

Banning articles from journalists is censorship. Period.

The Hunter Biden Laptop story was openly censored, even when put forward by a journalist with the Post and Biden has admitted that laptop may have been his.

https://nypost.com/2021/09/21/the-hunter-biden-laptop-is-con...

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2021/09/21/dou...

Leftist bias at the intercept prevented Greenwald from publishing a story about it as well https://nypost.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-quits-the-inte...

MSNBC has used the same "entertainment" defense when it was sued for defamation. All news media organizations use this defense, its not unique to Fox.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddow...

> That's a strawman.

Its a strawman that you are introducing by saying:

> I suspect what you mean by this is "outlets claiming to report 'news' but actually spreading misinformation".

> That's quite different from "disagreement".

I am pointing out that there is not a large difference between what you say is misinformation and disagreement. Many news outlets get things wrong and are guilty of allowing political bias to steer them towards saying things that are not true. You can't just call something misinformation because you disagree with it.

Nearly every news outlet in this country has gotten things wrong at some point and a tenuous definition of misinformation could be used to make them all look bad.

Citing something as "misinformation" is often a strawman argument and a word used to dismiss viewpoints people do not agree with on any issue that has some ambiguity, including the lab leak theory.

What would you call news outlets like MSNBC spreading lies about the Kyle Rittenhouse case? An honest mistake? Or calling the lab leak theory racist?

Notice how this works?

When a news source that is aligned with your political party gets it wrong "its ok" but when its a new source that is not aligned with your party its "spreading misinformation".

There is no objective standard for misinformation so trying to say disagreement and misinformation are not the same depends entirely on what is the issue being discussed. Any issue with ambiguity can be dismissed far too easily by just claiming it "misinformation".

FWIW I despise censorship, irregardless of which party it comes from, and can tell we both see a lot of flaws in human nature in general so don't think we are far off in disagreement here. Journalists should be left the fuck alone, certainly.

By the way the "source" I am invoking are MIT scientists for the lab leak theory being plausible https://www.amazon.com/Viral-Search-Covid-19-Alina-Chan-eboo... and when it comes to dissenting views on COVID I am referencing Dr. Robert Malone(holds a patent for mRNA vaccines) and the great barrington declaration https://gbdeclaration.org/ which was created and signed by many Ivy League medical researchers and practitioners about how flawed our strict lockdown measure are.

Hunter Biden has gone on record saying that laptop might have been his.

Don't presume a persons sources without asking first. You strike me as a smart person as well and should check these sources out with an open mind before dismissing them.

So your saying Democrats are not in favor of censorship? Are we just going to pretend this is a one sided issue and they were not guilty in trying to cover up the lab leak theory or going after journalists who try to write stories about hunter bidens laptop?

I don't see how pointing how both parties are guilty of engaging in censorship is wrong. I am advocating for the position that censorship is a tool used unfairly by both parties when they are given the chance, I don't like conservatives or republicans either for how they treated Edward Snowden and Juliane Assange.

The Mueller report showed some involvement but did not say the election results were illegitimate and there were a large amount of democrats who continue to claim this election result is not legitimate.

(FWIW I don't like trump but I still believe he would have won 2016 with or without Russia, its a cop out to blame Russia for that)

We literally had Democrat senators saying "rioting is the voice of the streets"(AOC), and calling Kyle Rittenhouse a domestic terrorist, whole portions of cities in democrat run cities were given to anarchist militias like in CHAZ and were flippantly calling these groups "peaceful" while they engaged in looting, arson, and attacking police officers.

We shouldn't allow people to spread lies and demonize one side unchecked. If were going to talk about problems, its best we don't scape goat on one side and admit there are flaws in both parties.

Letting them scape-goat and demonize unchecked doesn't help anything either.

Plenty of equivalence actually.

Democrats encourage anarchist militias who openly advocate for violence and arson, try to de-legitimize election results through "Russia-Gate" conspiracies, openly cheered on the fire bombing and attacking of police officers and government buildings(court houses), spread misinformation about the Kyle Rittenhouse despite all expert legal analysis saying they were misinformed.

Democrats have plenty of blood on their hands in demanding censorship.

Remember the accusations of racism that were used to shut down the lab leak theory? Or the demands to censor scientists with any dissenting viewpoints over Covid? The cover up of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal that resulted in journalists from the Post being banned?

The "war on disinformation" their obsessed with is not any different from a "war on fake news". Censorship is a tool of cowards and there are plenty of cowards in both parties that will use it to shut down any dissenting view points.

It literally only took them 12 minutes to ban the sites https://twitter.com/Nodernary/status/1489636577097695236

The fact a domain name can be banned so trivially is whats problematic, dns changes take awhile to propagate and domains are a pain to move. The ban should have never happened in the first place.

> - sovietism wasn't real socialism

This is one of those funny and illogical arguments that come up often and uses a rather common (and ironic) propaganda trick of just denying a massive failure ever existed.

This is the equivalent of stating Nazism wasn't "real national socialism" or Mussolini wasn't using "real fascism".

You can't just pretend away bad outcomes from a terrible system when it doesn't go your way. They deployed socialism and communism and the outcomes were exactly what those systems always bring.

Where has this mythical "real socialism" been tried and succeeded? Venezuela? Its also a disaster. Was that not "real" socialism either?

The reality is Socialism has been most effective while being integrated in a hybrid manner with other systems (Social Democracy). Socialism on its own is a disaster that hands over far too much power to the state and doesn't work economically.

You also don't need to paint an entire a peer to peer community with the worst actors on it. There are plenty of normal content creators and instances that are not overrun with that content (see https://tilvids.com/videos/trending)

Also backing up your videos locally will not do anything for helping your fans get access to your content, you will still need to re-host it somewhere. Having it on peer-tube means if your account gets frozen/banned over some bullshit, you can just point your fans to your peer tube channel.

wayback machine FTW https://web.archive.org/web/20220214093323/https://www.reute...

Right, outages get more expensive the larger you grow. What else needs to be thought of is not just the loss of revenue for the time your service is down but also it's affect on user trust and usability. Customers will gladly leave you for a more reliable competitor once they get fed up.

Highly recommend reading her piece on "The Womens Movement" https://www.nytimes.com/1972/07/30/archives/the-womens-movem...

Helped me understand how feminism, like many mass movements, can over generalize and marginalize members of their own group.

Live UFC events are also shown on ESPN+. Big main events are primarily only offered through ESPN+ as well.

This is why I prefer putting the "bad" message into a deadletter queue instead of dropping it entirely(and alert on messages going into this queue). This unblocks the queue so it can continue working and allows one to decide if it should be dropped or re-processed.

IMO hashistack nomad provides a better development experience. The complexity is gradual and it doesn't try to do "everything", it can stay focused on workload orchestration(whether its a container, vm, or even a process) and delegates coordination out to specific services better suited for it(consul for service discovery, vault for secrets etc...)

yes! I meant it more as a +1 to allsides but should have clarified that.

This site is great for trying to get different takes https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news

I used to do what you did(just read a bunch of major publications from differing political orientations) but also found issue with not being able to compare different perspectives easily.

The parting jab in the closing email is classic:

"you said 'I will not be copying more stuff' " (OP didn't say that and given their current stance of not copying anything, I doubt they would admit that)

"Arrive at new ways of doing things -- make new mistakes"

Egotistical people always try to get the last word in. Even when apologizing.

FWIW I think you may have confused me with the op of this thread. I don't actually disagree that most of the BLM protestors were peaceful, as BLM did not explicitly encourage property crime and violence. Antifa however did, and the worst crimes were mostly committed by antifa members and not BLM.

There is alot of odd cognitive dissonance in your comment which I appreciate proves your own point, you were presented with evidence that goes against your own world view, but instead of "stopping and thinking" you just decided to outright dismiss it instead of acknowledging it.

You stated you didn't see any evidence of violent assaults on police officers in portland, yet I gave you an example of a protestor assaulting a police officer with a hammer and instead of addressing it, you resorted to projecting a false narrative of ad-hominem and assumptions of my world view which are actually incorrect.

The funny thing about human biases is they actually effect us all, including you, and thank you so much for proving this. Its made my argument here easy.

Hopefully you take some time to "stop and reflect" how cognitive dissonance can corrupt your own world view when your presented with evidence that goes against it.

I really find it hard to believe apple will remove the touch bar considering how heavily the eco-system is already invested into it. Imagine all the touch bar integrations they and other vendors have built just vanishing?

I honestly hate it and want tactile buttons back but it feels to good to be true.

It's never to late to do the right thing, FB has fucked up in the past but calling out software that is doing harmful data collection of their users is what they should do here.

This is a fairly obvious move for google to get further into biometric data harvesting.

Source? I have not seen any confirmed incidents of agent provocateurs. The news would have went batshit crazy if such a thing was actually confirmed.