gchamonlive

> Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the narrow majority that limits on independent spending from corporations and other outside groups equate to limiting their speech and thus violate the First Amendment.

So basically corporate donation is corporate opinion is protected under the First Amendment

Corporate political donations and opinions should be outlawed

  it's more common for a dictator to come to power through a revolution, military coup, or civil war

In time we'll see articles like "Don't register a .lan domain if you want people to visit your site"

Do you want to see beyond the mere meaning of words or do you just want to be a good thesaurus? Because we have the luxury of access to accumulated knowledge. Here I'm appropriating byong chul Hans lingo, but ghandi didn't have access to this vocabulary at his time. That's maybe the best he would have done, and it's a figure that I think is worth it giving the benefit of the doubt and reading him in good faith, but that requires lifting the lenses of skepticism for a little while.

I think ghandi speaks much more from a tone of trying to make you think differently, not necessarily being right or wrong, but making you accept or reject him by making you contemplate for a moment his perspective.

In this case you reaffirmed your view of the world that technology is a vector of freedom, but what is the circumstances of that technology? Because when you think of ghandi as an Indian, and that Indians suffered a humanitarian crisis in the hands of the English empire, I can't help but wonder if the colonizers just created the poison than sold them the medicine.

So from his point of view he's right to reject technology that are colonization instruments, but if that same tech would otherwise take place in the world from the needs of the people, then it would be an acceptable technology to adopt. And this argument is timeless, because how many current tech, the social networks, the language models, are actually being used as colonization tools today, by influencing elections or by spreading misinformation? We don't need to go that fast, not when the price to pay is our freedom.

It's the other way around, big techs need to properly disclose in their platform, during interaction that they aren't in a private and safe environment

The problem isn't when adopting a closed platform, but when people start expecting it to respect their preferences. It's always a matter of time for the experience to degrade little by little with no option to run to.

This is to say, we should use the tools that get the job done, but always be vigilant with coupling to any vendor, but specially proprietary ones.

Is this even true? Is there a measurable physical difference in the medium that accounts for this, or is this just an abstract process that could be but isn't necessarily related to biological processes? A different way to think, a more mature intrapersonal relationship...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49945572