CathedralBorrow

That makes sense if the original statement was that capitalism is the only thing that can ever incentivize abuse.

If you assume that abuse can be caused or influenced by more than one thing -- which I believe makes sense but you might disagree -- then it doesn't matter what communism was doing if we're talking about capitalism.

How can you argue against the statement "capitalism incentivizes abuse" by talking about communism?

Note that I don't disagree with your notion that abuse is abundant in all human societies.

> It is literally impossible to view everything you say through all possible interpretations. There is no way that any single person can know every possible interpretation of what they say.

100% agreed. Don't see how it relates to what I wrote however.

Funny; since you are right now bringing up this group of people to express indignation towards their behavior.

It's easy to offend without intending to, so I don't get how your intentions are relevant. Yes it can be annoying and difficult to consider the impact of your words and how they might be perceived by other, different, people. It would be simpler if you didn't have to think about that at all. But is that really the argument? It's a big hassle and you'd rather not have to do it?

How do you make someone shut up in a social network?

I'm a roguelike enthusiast who's attempted to play HyperRogue many times but always get stuck on not understanding the geometry at all. Any tips from those who have?

Again, if you wanted to convey a specific meaning of consequences you probably should have just said that. There's a lot of consequences you're protected from, and even more that you're not protected from.

> Surely you don't think you should be able to doxx or punch someone in the face that has extremist views?

How could you possibly believe this in good faith? Consequences can also be, for example, people expressing their distaste in your speech and choosing to boycott your products if you're a business.

You said protection from consequences, not protection from criminal violence and harassment. If you meant protection from criminal violence and harassment, you should have said protection from criminal violence and harassment.

> Freedom to do a thing implies protection from consequence, or you're not free.

This is a wild take on freedom. Do you seriously believe that free speech means that you should be able to say anything and be protected from any and all consequences?

Legal free speech does not mean that a private company is obligated to host it.

Doing shady things? Is this a rephrasing of the "nothing to hide" argument?

Have you ever had a meeting where sensitive information was shared?

Zoom meetings are like those, but with the sharing of sensitive information transmitted over the Internet. Someone could easily record their screen and audio and capture said sensitive information for subsequent sharing -- or "leaking"-- with someone else.

They definitely exist, and can be installed to home screens.

It is however a huge hurdle to user acquisition, which is the angle I was referring to. The obscurity of Gab kind of supports that point. All kinds of products and services can exist, but if you get booted of all the main channels you are doomed to be an obscure niche at best.

Regardless of hosting, Parler seems to be dead in the water given how much of the Internet is accessed via mobile devices, and Parler being banned from all (both) major app stores.

Because users have attendees leaking meetings and asking Zoom if there is any way to identify the leaker. This in turn informs Zoom that the ability to identify leakers is a desired feature for users. This might make the product seem more "secure" and "safe".

Yet you presumed to know that anyone downvoting you must be a "Biden lackey".

How do you engage with a mob that chants demands for executing democratically elected leaders while storming the capitol?

Listen to their demands and try to find a compromise?

That's a matter of opinion.

Can casting your one-every-four-years vote for a presidential candidate not be accurately construed as showing support?

"I do not support this man but I did want him to be President, and cast my ballot for him" is a concept I can't understand at least.

"If you're still buying Apple products, then you're simply unforgivable."

What does this even mean? Are you unable to forgive me for buying an Apple product? Why exactly should that matter to me?

Yep! https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/discord-link-sende...

You just set up a bot on your server, and give the extension the URL the first time you activate/click it.

Edit: To be clear, it activates on user action, i.e. it doesn't send all my history to the channel. I did try that for a while but it just made a lot of noise that I never combed through. This one suits me much better; just right click and send to discord.

Like many others here I've tried more or less all of the productivity services and only one of them has actually stuck: Discord.

I made a server called Diary, accessible only by me, and I have a few different channels like work-log, life-log, d&d session notes, joke ideas, etc. I also feed all screenshots I take into a channel, and set up a chrome extension that sends whatever page I'm on to the web-log channel as a link.

As with every other attempt to "force people" to do something via UX limitations, I think that's doomed to fail.

The whole notion of forcing users to change their behavior by placing obstacles in their way is futile in my experience. It's a grave misunderstanding of who users are and how to design for them.

Forcing users to do what you want them to is how you get desire paths [1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path

What is the correct way to express personality in your view?

This sounds a lot like tribalism. The left-wing people coordinating an attack on the right-wing people to win some battle. Isn't human communication on a global scale slightly more nuanced than that?

I hadn't heard of this, can you link a news story or something about it?

Buzzfeed News has always been decent in the sense that it is a serious journalism outfit.

> If you have issues with it you have issues with science.

Dogmatic statements like these just weaken your case; the idea that some memo was the Golden Standard™ of Science and those who question it are questioning Science itself is clearly ridiculous. It's Trump-level hyporbole. The perfect memo.

I think we agree, and that makes sense.