Facebook and Twitter can sway elections with a press of a button.
Once your company can directly affects direct democray and lives of billions these kind of statements make no sense anymore.
Unless you like to be ruled by corporations.
We call these businesses natural monopolies and regulate them. Like forcing them to serve everyone or cap their profits.
The stock market is a type of direct democracy and look how unstable it can be.
It's worse than that. They've effectively levied a tax on everything (without representation). Even if you pay cash, you pay (e.g.) Visa if the vendor accepts Visa. Businesses are contractually obligated hide the transaction cost from the consumer. This means all products and services have their prices jacked up to cover the cost of accepting Visa, MasterCard, etc. Even if you're paying cash, you're paying into it.
"Cash back rewards" are essentially a discount on the tax they've imposed.
So they tax you, they decide what you can buy, and you don't get a say. Kinda fucked up.
Every company can affect democracy in some way. Foxnews had a massive effect on elections, Gas prices being high affects elections. Should these be regulated?
That's not what gp is saying.
Facebook and Twitter control what users, in bulk, say in a way that can sway elections.
Facebook and Twitter moderate and suspend and users adjust what they say in order to not get suspended again, if they care to not get banned. (Those who don't care if they get banned are a red herring.)
There is also the algorithmic feed which gives a lot of control over what users say to other users.
I got banned because I say controversial things like Black people are not disproportionately targeted by police due to their race, but rather due to them disproportionately having guns and knives when the police show up.
The general public have a serious problem understanding nuance and statistics and I think it's disgusting that the media cry racism at every corner because it enrages people and gets clicks.
It's even more disgusting that people fall for it without realizing what the media is doing to them because they can't read past headlines.
I'll link to the actual TPS report that shows this but I'm on a slow connection right now and can't do it.
edit: nvm I'm dumb; it's not that but the report is named 9082-2018-TPS-Annual-Report.pdf if you can find it on its own. You can google "tps force report 2018 -2020 pdf". I'd find it myself but I'm downloading a 12mb pdf that's taking forever and I'm pretty sure this is the one.
If you constantly smell shit, check your own shoe homie.
The report I spoke of is in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31915214
Engage in Good Faith Healthy communities are those where participants engage in good faith, and with an assumption of good faith for their co-collaborators. It’s not appropriate to attack your own users. Communities are active, in relation to their size and purpose, and where they are not, they are open to ideas and leadership that may make them more active.
The actual post that was removed on me was in r/toronto a story I told about helping a homeless man wandering down the middle of the street in downtown Toronto. It was supposed to be a discussion of things you've done in the city that make you feel good. Moderators removed it because it wasn't relevant to Toronto just because it happened in Toronto.
Visit r/toronto and you will see feel good stories like this all the time in the subreddit. I pointed this out to the admins and still got nowhere.
I also wanted to post "We should try UBI but you have to vote to qualify. Thoughts?" in r/onguardforthee but that was also removed for trolling. That subreddit has posts similar to that one all the time.
I was definitely treated unfairly and double standards were used against me because of my reputation. I don't troll though, I just enjoy having difficult and philosophical conversations, which is why I can see it's perceived as trolling. I enjoy challenging people to think. I would never say something I didn't believe.
The admins doing nothing about the abuse was the last straw that proved to me Reddit doesn't care about finding the truth.
Dude, cannot you see why if you start posting about how _Universal_ Basic Income, should not be universal and based on some sort of test, that people might think you are being a troll?
Like legitimately, what is the difference between your behavior and a troll who misinterprets things on purpose?
Do you think it’s plausible that a person has been so curious on this topic that they’ve done deep research, can pull up such hard to find data that it takes them multiple attempts to find some esoteric source that supports them, and they didn’t find the high school level answers to the questions they are asking and require us to debunk each and every point they throw out without ever engaging with your counterpoints?
You’d have to believe that this person is incredibly competent at research while being simultaneously incapable of grasping the basics. You’ll notice he never tackled any point or counterpoint there. Just kept posting new sources as they were discarded while complaining that no one would look.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
Edit: sorry, missed that this was a sibling thread. If you missed it the same user elsewhere in this post is also trying to argue that he was kicked off a Reddit merely for bringing up the unassailable point that cops only arrest black people more because they are inherently more dangerous. I assume you can see why I’m pointing out that the poster is unbelievable. I am already confident that they are not posting in good faith and only doing counterpoints for random third parties who might read this thread and be persuaded by the poster due to the lack of any counterpoint
Double edit:tbh this actually had the hallmarks of a 4channer mocking us to their buddies. I was one of those assholes in my youth and recognize the tactics. His “I just wanted to post, ‘{controversial statement}, Thoughts?’” is an easy bait sentence that brings out all the free speech absolutists to defend you for just “asking questions” while talking past the group engaging with the {controversial statement} portion of the sentence.
If you have not been on 4chan/8chan/2chan/whateverPermutation boards and wish to engage in internet debate it would be illuminating to observe. In between the gore and the shock porn they have random threads where they openly discuss using these tactics as they believe “normies” won’t be able to stomach their shock content to read deeply into it
Hi all, I had to use Yandex to find this. Google wasn't showing the result. I hope this also shows how dangerous Google's censorship of search results is as well. I challenge you to find this report in Google search results!
https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/9082-2018-...
I can't download the PDF but if I remember right the table in question is somewhere in the 50s or 60s. You can ctrl+f for it. It breaks down by suspect race and weapon type when police arrive on scene.
The third side nobody wants to talk about in this argument is that police disproportionately use force against suspects with weapons when they arrive on scene.
Was this what you meant?
https://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/Use%20of%20force%...
https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/news_centre/ohrc-interim-report-to...
edit: nvm I'm dumb; it's not that but the report is named 9082-2018-TPS-Annual-Report.pdf if you can find it on its own. You can google "tps force report 2018 -2020 pdf". I'd find it myself but I'm downloading a 12mb pdf that's taking forever and I'm pretty sure this is the one.
Why?
> The SIU Director’s Reports reveal instances where there was a lack of a legal basis for police stopping Black civilians in the first place, inappropriate searches and unnecessary charges or arrests. The reports and legal decisions also raise broader concerns about officer misconduct, transparency and accountability.
> The data shows an over-representation of Black people in use of force cases that result in serious injury or death.
And yes I saw your edit, but no I don’t care. You’re bringing up the same tired arguments that have been discounted over and over and then you end up linking studies disproving your point but we should consider you’re replacement cherry picked article?
I’ll be charitable and assume you are arguing in completely good faith. Unfortunately your topic looks _exactly_ like one that is being pushed by people lieing for political gain at the expense of an oppressed group.
If you want to overcome peoples legitimate reaction to your points that are completely indistinguishable in both content and tone from racists whose arguments were proven to be based on lies and omissions, then you need to come with a much higher quality of evidence and discourse
It has a table showing how often suspects have weapons when the police show up broken down by race.
Whenever there is an argument between two sides, find the third side.
> Whenever there is an argument between two sides, find the third side
That is not an argument. That is a value statement. If someone says the sky is blue and someone says its tie die, should I find a third person whose of the opinion that the sky is mauve? Being different doesn't make an argument correct
You linked a study explicitly stating the opposite of your assumption
You now want me to go through tomes of data to be convinced to your side.
No, come up with something new that doesn't require us to do a bunch of work for you. Your arguments are tired and were not gonna waste more time on them.
I've explained why I can't link directly. It's somewhere on page 52 or maybe 54. It might be in the 60s but it's in that range. There is a table you can ctrl-f for and it has stats broken down by race and the weapon the person has when police respond to calls.
The third side here is that police disproportionately use force against people who have weapons.
I hope you can find the table on your own because I gave you everything you need to find out. If not, I'll reply in an a few hours or so with a direct link.
https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/9082-2018-...
https://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/Use%20of%20force%...
Look at fleeing police in Table C20: Civilian actions at the time of police encounter (as concluded by the SIU), SIU use of force investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2000 – 2006
Look at resisting arrest in Table C21: Civilian actions at the time of police encounter (as concluded by the SIU), SIU use of force investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2013 – 2017
Look at who has guns and knives in Table C22: Civilian possession of a weapon at the time of police encounter (as concluded by the SIU), SIU use of force investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2000 – 2006
Look at guns and knives in Table C23: Civilian possession of a weapon at the time of police encounter (as concluded by the SIU), SIU use of force investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2013 – 2017
There's all the stats and numbers directly linked and the relevant tables. Am I still a racist?
btw, this conversation would have gone a lot smoother if you had just said you didn't see the tables with the race/weapon breakdown. Then I would have realized I was linking to the wrong thing this entire time. You wanted me to be a racist so badly that you were letting me flail around looking like an idiot with irrelevant links (even though I told you my situation - I couldn't _see_ the PDF because I couldn't download it) and weren't even trying to work with me here or give me the benefit of the doubt.
It’s not that I couldn’t find the data, I did not look because you did not indicate the data would be any different than the same arguments that also come out defending the police when it comes to discrimination. And your data still follows that! It’s just crime stat! It does not account for police prejudice that leads to overpolicing
> Am I still a racist?
If you walk away from these stats thinking black peoples actions are the root cause of the overpolicing, then yea you probably are
The question of whether Twitter and Facebook should be treated like a phone company than they are like Hacker News isn’t a stupid one, and I don’t think it’s as clearcut as people on both sides of this debate would like it to be. But the question of whether a payment processor should be able to exercise this kind of editorial control over transactions using them as an intermediary is not really the same question.
Also, keep your paws off my furry porn.
Did you have a problem then?
The point I’m making is that I don’t think it’s hypocritical to suggest that such a standard applies to some companies, not all companies, which is what your original post seemed to suggest. I’d personally want to set the bar pretty high when it comes to taking away any business’s right to choose their own customers.
Some people sure. Maybe even the "twitter consensus" or "HN consensus", but I think you should be very careful about taking apparent consensus on these sort of social media platforms as indicative of a broader consensus in society.
When this is just coded language meaning "racist conspiracy theories", sites don't want to carry those posts. Social media sites are catching on to the coded language game.
There's a big difference between saying COVID originated from Wuhan and conspiracy theories saying COVID was manmade.
1) rudeness or disrupting
2) age and health
3) intoxication and indecency
4) whatever else society can agree on (good luck!)
In fact, the obligation to serve customers by law would serve as both a consumer and merchant protection for cases exactly like this -- the fact that, until sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional in the US just a couple decades ago, many banks refused to lend to otherwise-credit worthy gay couples or unwed heterosexual couples for mortgages (afraid of being accused of supporting illegal activities), which would be more of a moot point in this sense because the onus is no longer on the bank to scrutinize how someone lives their personal life so long as they meet objective measures of credit worthiness.
If Mastercard and Visa refuse to do business with you, you will soon find yourself out of business.
Imagine there’s only 3 car dealers in your region and they all blacklist customers who have at least once followed Elon Musk on twitter.