pms

It's obviously not about "manipulating the voting tabulation". Influencing people to vote the way you want them to is fine as long as it's not based on deceit. Is this what you can't stand?

It's also quite optimistic to think that the industry will self-regulate, as the recent history of Boeing 737 MAX shows...

Long story short, this "research" and data access wouldn't be allowed under the DSA, because (i) the researcher didn't provide any data protection safeguards, (ii) his university (and their data protection officer) didn't assume legal liability for his research, (iii) his research isn't focused on systemic risks to society.

This "research" and data access wouldn't be allowed under the DSA, because (i) the researcher didn't provide any data protection safeguards, (ii) his university (and data protection officer) didn't assume legal liability for his research, (iii) his research isn't focused on systemic risks to society.

That's a great point. I agree that's a danger, but please note DSA doesn't cede the control of content to government, but rather it creates an institution of (national) Digital Service Coordinators (DSCs) that decide whether a researcher's access to data is well-reasoned. In most cases that institution will be in a different country (the country of company's EU's HQs) than the researcher. That said, there could be malicious players involved, e.g., researchers and respective DSCs secretly recruited by a government to influence elections. This, however, sounds implausible, since in principle both the DSCs and researchers are independent from national governments.

Also, we can have depolarized recommendation algorithms. We don't need to go back all the way to timelines.

Republicans and Elon Musk have become very skilled at exerting political influence in the US [1] and Europe [2] through social media in ways the public isn't really aware of. Is this really that far from the goal of Cambridge Analytica of influencing elections without people's knowledge? Is it fine for large online platforms to influence election outcomes? Why wouldn't an online platform be used to this end if that's beneficial for it and there is no regulation discouraging it?

[1] https://www.techpolicy.press/x-polls-skew-political-realitie...

[2] https://zenodo.org/records/14880275

Republicans and Elon Musk have become very skilled at exerting political influence in the US [1] and Europe [2] through social media in ways the public isn't really aware of. Is this really that far from the goal of Cambridge Analytica of influencing elections without people's knowledge? Is it fine for large online platforms to influence election outcomes? Why wouldn't an online platform be used to this end if that's beneficial for it and there is no regulation discouraging it?

[1] https://www.techpolicy.press/x-polls-skew-political-realitie...

[2] https://zenodo.org/records/14880275

I don't think it's about the US in its entirety, nor ads, but Republicans and Elon Musk have become very skilled at exerting political influence in the US [1] and Europe [2] through social media in ways the public isn't really aware of:

[1] https://www.techpolicy.press/x-polls-skew-political-realitie...

[2] https://zenodo.org/records/14880275

I hope it's quite the opposite, since this can lead to innovation as we figure out how to depolarize social media platforms or how to develop more politically neutral online media.

If applications and datasets are fragmented, then that's going to be a nightmare for all stakeholders, including:

* researchers, because they will have to write data access applications, including a sufficient description of planned safeguards, detailed enough to the point that their university is ready to take a legal liability (and you can imagine how easy this will be), and

* digital service coordinators, because it will take ages for them to process applications from thousands of researchers each requesting a slightly different dataset.

In the end, we need to develop standardized datasets across platforms and to streamline data access processes so that they're safe and efficient.

Except platforms don't allow it and have sued for it...

https://www.google.com/search?q=x+sues+researchers

> But you of course didn't answer anything else I said, despite being wrong about the one thing you picked out of my response

Exactly. This only exposes the lack of accountability and the harmful stereotypes that led Nazi Germany and now lead Israel to committing a genocide.

If an OS is used, then that's because people need it, not because they're fighting some imaginary fight in the jungle. It's their preferred OS. If the number of people using computers shrinks, because non-pro users move to mobiles, while the fraction of pros using Linux increases to 95%, or even 50%, I think that's a very clear win for Linux.

The reason why MacOS grew in popularity is because it started to be used by pros, myself included, i.e., I've switched from Linux to MacOS seeing many top computer scientists using MacOS. However, after over 10 years of using MacOS, I'm actually still not sure whether it was worth it, and I'm considering to go back to Linux since a few years. The main reasons stopping me from switching is a reliable Calendar app and concerns about battery life.

Why is this is a top comment? Market share is a relative measure. Even if there is a drop in the number of personal computers, still it's an achievement that the drop didn't affect Linux, while it affected other platforms.

> Basically if the higher percent is due to less desktops overall instead of a major uptick in Linux desktops, it is not really much to celebrate.

I disagree. Imagine that Linux became the OS used on 95% of personal computers. According to your reasoning there wouldn't be much to celebrate. Says who?

It's 100% different. The institution I envision should represent all countries, or at least member countries, so that it has global democratic legitimacy. Simply put, interests of one country are not equivalent to interests of all countries. If one country tries to take the role of that institution, sooner or later it will run into a conflict of interests.

No. What I'm proposing is to make these processes purposefully and explicitly neutral, accountable, and just. This implies democratic and decentralised governance and decision-making. Clearly this isn't happening now.

In a reasonable world, the first step would be reforming NATO so that it becomes more neutral and focused on preventing wars rather than countering Russia. I'm saying this as a Pole, so definitely this isn't self-serving, since Poles are second most hated by Russians after Ukraine. This step should, however, happen in parallel with the EU developing its European army, to defend itself from Russia if that's needed, which is another challenging and non-obvious step, but we're closer to this now than we were before Trump.

However, we don't live in a reasonable world, so I suspect the first step will be, as much as I don't want it, World War III.

You can ridicule this idea, but we're already having the US (partly through NATO) taking the role of a global sherif, except without aiming for neutrality, accountability, nor justice, so we end up living in a geopolitical world in which "might makes right". If we continue like this, we will have another World War, but learning by mistakes is sometimes the only realistic way forward.

How do you imagine Iran giving up? If anything, it will radicalize. This would happen even if you did anything remotely similar to your kid (i.e., attacked the kid violently because of an accusation they did something wrong), not to mention to a state that revolted against US political manipulation 45 years ago.

I'm wondering whether Trump knows that Iran won't give up and nevertheless pushes forward, or does he really believe that Iran can surrender? I think that's 99.99999% wrong belief. It feels like he is expressing it only to cover up his actions. He probably knows this will lead to a long-term escalation, but thinks that's the right thing to do for the interests of groups/countries he cares about.

I don't think that's sustainable, because it leads to injustice, i.e., countries with nuclear weapons abusing their power, which in the end encourages all countries to get nuclear weapons to protect their own safety and interests.

As challenging as it sounds, we need to develop a strong impartial international institution whose the only mission would be maintaining peace and preventing wars on the planet. This should be the only entity that's approved to have nuclear weapons.

I don't think that's sustainable, because it leads to injustice, i.e., countries with nuclear weapons abusing their position. As challenging as it sounds, we need to develop a strong impartial international institution whose the only mission is to maintain peace and prevent large-scale conflict on the planet. This should be the only entity that is approved to have nuclear weapons.

I don't know what you mean exactly, but it seems false. The human brain uses about 20 watts of power. A GPU uses more.

Thank you for being the voice of reason.

Thank you. This needs to be emphasized more.

You're expressing your opinions in this context, because Tesla didn't reveal the data that would let us tell whether its FSD system is objectively safer than an average human driver in the same driving conditions. You're leading a discussion that distracts from the core issue that Tesla is unwilling to release data that would enable independent researchers evaluate its FSD systems. In other words, you're doing marketing for Tesla for free.

You continue falling to the straw man fallacy by bringing over and over the correlation is causation criticism, but the study doesn't make causal claims...

I understand that an analysis like that is not conducive to thoughtful and insightful debate for closed-minded people who do not care, or even oppose, to learn things that don't align with their interests.

You continue to ignore my responses to your points, e.g., about the fact that the study takes care of external events by applying difference-in-differences methodology, and continue writing accusations without being specific.

If anything, disinformation and censorship of research are worthless, flawed, unethical, and cowardly.

I admire that you've confirmed your biases.

By truth I mean scientific discourse centered on evidence and freedom of speech. Unfortunately, Musk's and Trump's "freedom of speech" includes freedom to disinform the public to achieve their goals, so it isn't equivalent to everyone's freedom of speech. By taking down this post, you're acting against everyone's freedom of speech.

The study is honest, because it doesn't make any conclusions, just provides new data analysis, potential interpretations, and a call for further research. You haven't responded to my arguments, e.g., about how the study takes into account external events.

It sounds like you're misperceiving the post because of your personal biases, but at least you're upfront about it, which I appreciate. You're taking down the post, because you don't like it. That's against Hacker News guidelines. This kind of behavior needs more attention, just like the behaviors of Musk and Trump. We need more transparency, not less, so I appreciate that you're upfront.

BTW, I haven't voted for Harris nor Trump. My perfect (non-existing) candidate would take the best from each of them. While I appreciate various things about Trump and Musk, I'm critical about the fact that they both disinform the public to achieve their personal goals. That's unethical.

Why this got flagged?

You're changing your arguments whenever I address the previous one. Have you noticed?

> Hacker News biases heavily against Trump and Musk

I imagine you're writing this only because you are biased for Musk (and/or Trump). Many people in Hacker News seek truth. Clearly, you're not the one, and you're deciding for this community that it shouldn't seek it either.

First, you don't understand the methodology of this study. Difference in differences takes into account external events by assuming that two different time series are affected by external events in the same way. In this case, the two time series correspond to the number of views of Republican-leaning and Democrat-leaning users on X. Thus, the methodology takes into account external events.

Second, the speculation you're writing about is an interpretation of the new data analysis.

Third, the authors don't argue that correlation is causation. If you still think they do, then please quote the sentence where they do that.

Honestly, it looks like this thread is being taken down because some people don't like it, including you, which goes against HN guidelines.