monklu

Not exactly though. With a human stranger, I can still stereotype based on their appearance, background, accents, etc. and apply whatever mental adjustments as taught to me by my societal upbringing. With an "AI" bot, the "strangers" are faceless people who curated the training sets and wrote the obscure statistical algorithms.

Apple is the only one of the "big tech" to actually operate a datacenter in China, whose contents are entirely subjected to the whims of the regime.

I'm afraid your conviction in Apple is the product of a well-crafted fantasy by their marketing department, instead of based on some deep rooted philosophical belief regarding the rights and privacy of their users.

> the remaining 49% didnt budge much

You're desperately looking for a ground to stand on that simply do not exist -- please explain how Ukraine can "self-defend" and "stand their ground" without "death to the Russian invaders"?

Pardon me, but isn't that exactly what they're doing?

> "As a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine we have temporarily made allowances for forms of political expression that would normally violate our rules like violent speech such as 'death to the Russian invaders.' We still won't allow credible calls for violence against Russian civilians," a Meta spokesperson said in a statement.

On the contrary, I think this says less about FB, but more so reflects a hypocrisy in "western principles" that many are probably not self-aware of.

Let's assume for a second, that FB do not relax their rules for this conflict. Then they would have to ban a whole sleuth of Ukrainian accounts, including many government accounts such as Ministry of Defense, and probably even Zelensky. You don't have to stretch your imagination to see what the headlines would look like in that case -- "Facebook bans Ukrainian resistance against Russian aggression" etc. In a sense, FB was a facing a catch-22 situation, where it's just lose-lose for them, and they had to make a call to swallow the "less poisonous" pill.

Contrast this situation with American war efforts in the middle east and Afghanistan over the past 20 years, where they faced no such conundrum.

> Affirmative action makes the world a more just place.

No it doesn't -- race-blind admission standards make the world more just, affirmative action make people like you feel as though they make the world more just. Big difference.

There's obviously no evidence to suggest standardized evaluation of academic excellence favor any particular racial genetics. The fact that today in the US, race-blind admission causes over/under representation of certain racial demographics is thus entirely due to social-economical and cultural factors. We can therefore expect that once those factors are equalized, then the results of a standardized race-blind admission process should naturally reflect the racial demographics of the general populace.

Unfortunately, just as those social-economical and cultural factors are the cumulation of damages done by racial oppression over many generations, so too its undoing will take generations to fully accomplish. And yes, that does mean you may likely not live to see that day. But the seemingly easy path of using affirmative action to force an outcome so that you can pretend to live in a just world is entirely the wrong way to tackle this problem, and will only serve to make the world worse for everyone involved.