I agree tribal echo chambers is more of a problem than moderating to keep conversation on topic, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it was censorship because the people in these echo chambers still have access to opposing viewpoints if they choose to go looking for them. This contrasts with journalists in Russia “just going to another country”, their views still won’t be available to their intended audience.
Seems obvious that we would want a way to distinguish speech that is completely suppressed for all platforms vs speech that’s outside of the parameters of what’s expected on a particular platform but that you’re free to conduct elsewhere. If I can’t publish a paper on cell microbiology in a computer science journal it seems unhelpful to lump that in the same category as Putin arresting people in Russia for reporting on the war in Ukraine.
I guess ironically some of the people trying to equate the two are doing so to suppress discussion of moderation by shouting it down as censorship.
AT&T had shareholders, but they also had a public interest mandate imposed on them by antitrust regulations, so couldn’t operate on the modern notion that shareholder value is all that matters.
It only creates a shortage in a world where you have the x-shaped supply and demand curve from econ 101, which doesn’t apply here because the shortage already exists because of zoning/planning laws limiting the construction of new housing. If there wasn’t an existing shortage then no-one would be calling for rent controls. Rent controls just change who the winners and losers are as a result of a given shortage, in Stockholm’s case, existing residents are the winners and new residents are the losers. Existing residents who benefit get to vote to maintain the status quo in municipal elections whereas the people that can’t move there because of rent controls don’t, hence the system is self-sustaining.
This is just taking the rational consumer model, forgetting it's just a model and treating it as a fact of life, and then inventing corollaries from it. Plenty of people find intrinsic value in solving problems without there needing to be a profit. See, e.g. Open Source Software, The Apollo Program, Academia, the BBC.
The pharmaceuticals thing is unique to the US, but every country has seen a simultaneous rise in kids mental health issues, so that rules out pharmaceuticals.
Seems like an uncharitable interpretation. Reads more like they were replying to the headline by saying management sent people to prison, not the glitch.
It wasn’t actually a private prosecution, the Post Office has the right to prosecute on behalf of The Crown. The CPS can intervene on private prosecutions so it might not have flown under the radar for so long if it had actually been a private prosecution.
With moral panics, the kids would never agree that video games or D&D or whatever was causing them any problems, yet with social media use most kids will agree it’s a problem, so can’t be characterised as a moral panic.
They just stop late (and early) for the more mundane reason of 'because they can', the service is less frequent at off-peak times so there's enough time to stop at Turnham Green before the train behind catches up.
Not necessarily, it could mean the ads get better at tricking you into buying something you never use, or that it adds greater costs to the supply chain for something that you would have found out about via conventional means anyway.
It would depend on the extent to which the consumer is a willing participant in the trade offs. It’s unreasonable for every passenger to assess the safety of different airlines in making a decision on who to fly with, but if you’re buying a niche smartphone you’re probably more aware of the trade offs.
Also running a small batch of non-RtR compliant phones is probably going to result in a more expensive device than a mass produced RtR device due to economies of scale, whereas I’d guess it’s much easier for a small airline to undercut competitors by foregoing safety checks, so there’s more adverse incentives in the airline case.
They're using such a wide definition of censorship that it'd be impossible to create a tech platform without censorship as there's just too much content for a single individual to consume, so one way or another the design decisions in the platform are going to prioritise which content to show to users in the time they have available. Light touch moderation has the exact opposite effect on public debate than this article is intending: A simple chronological feed prioritises the loudest voices and censors infrequent posters. Voting prioritises shorter snappier content and censors thoughtful longform content.
If you’re a hobbyist sysadmin setting up a personal VPS then the security risk is your own competence in correctly configuring things the better more robust less risky way, but you can’t replace yourself with a more competent sysadmin in this scenario, so fail2ban helps to Swiss cheese model this edge case.
You can be regulated not to do something, for instance if the regulator banned airline loyalty schemes then none of the airlines would have the cost of administering those schemes, or the cost of competing against each other on perks, so the total amount people spent on airlines would go down.
Causing car prices to increase post-recession was kind of the point of cash for clunkers, but I don’t see why something more targeted has to have the same effect.
You would direct the revenue from the tax into grants for those least able to upgrade to electric on their own. London is doing such a scrappage scheme right now for the latest increase in emissions standards.
Not ruled a monopoly only in the market of digital mobile gaming transactions. But it’s not illegal to be a monopoly, the judge still ruled they broke competition law by banning Epic from linking to their own store front.
The whole appeal of trading cards comes from some company creating artificial scarcity on the supply of the cards, if you could just go online and order for a flat per card fee any brand new trading cards a la carte from the entire back catalog it would take away all the "fun".
I don’t think the fact that you could potentially invest time in closing the information gap negates the general point, e.g. you could take a course in car mechanics before buying a used car
Reads like you’re extrapolating your own experiences, if I do the same you get the opposite answer, my school in the early 2000s had computer rooms you were free to use for coding or other projects at lunchtime. It’s not either/or. A school can provide smart devices for use on school premises locked down with appropriate apps. Your parents were coming from a position of ignorance whereas now parents have first hand experience of the negative effects of smart phone use.
You’re assuming that the return pharma companies get is the absolute minimum they would be prepared to accept in order to do R&D, but I suspect there’s quite a lot of slack that the regulator could take in. The FCC fixed the price that AT&T could charge back in the monopoly days yet Bell Labs continued to churn out research for the benefit of humanity.
When you’re manufacturing natural gas from solar the pre-existing network of gas pipelines alleviate the intermittency problem with solar because you can store energy as methane in an existing system that’s already designed for seasonal volumes of energy storage.
The vast majority of artists make all the money they’re ever going to make off their copyright in the first few years, so seems like a fair trade to end perpetual corporate copyright if an extremely tiny number of bleeding heart edge cases lose out.
The rules are already different for humans and machines. If I memorise a copyrighted book then that’s not copyright infringement, but if I store a copy on a hard drive then that is. You ask why distinguishing between humans and machines matters and then answer your own question: “we end up in a dark place”.