deepl_derber

It is absolutely what he was saying.

I agree, which is why it's fortunate that no one is or has suggested "cancelling" anyone for "discussing" things.

The report's author(s) are advocating for removing RMS from positions of influence and authority from the free software community because he's advocating for child sex abuse and bestiality, harasses women, and is a shitty human being.

Pretending that anyone ever has been jettisoned from their position or public life for "discussing" something - or that that's what's happening here - is insanely disingenuous.

> Character assassination by anonymous cowards.

Character assassination involves lies. The majority of this is just "here's a collection of absolutely indefensible shit RMS said, in his own words".

> It seems like there is no evidence of untoward behavior, just a bunch of gross opinions?

I don't think you actually read it then, because a significant portion of it is about his untoward behavior (as a boss, to random women at conferences, as a Voting Member, etc.)

> But the FSF is an American organization, and in America we have something close to free speech.

Free speech has absolutely nothing to do with this (as you note, the foundation has every right to get rid of him because of his abhorrent views). You don't generally want advocates for child sex abuse representing your foundation, regardless of what sort of foundation it is.

I'm comfortable with right-wingers not taking me seriously, since I return the favor with pleasure.

Quillette articles are rarely proof of more than the ability of deranged conservatives to get nonsense published.

>Do you believe that acceptance of the theory that genes impact IQ is split along communist/non-communist lines?

Maybe. I think the idea that genes impact IQ and that IQ actually usefully measures anything - certainly anything that could be described as 'intelligence' - is probably split that way.

Where Kendi and I (appear to, I haven't read his book) disagree is the idea that your antiracist policies must be _explicitly_ discriminatory to work. You can implement universal social goods like "everyone gets housing and health care" which in practice give far more to black people (because on average they're starting further back) but which apply to everyone and get the right outcome.

Certainly I wouldn't argue for a second that we should implement policies that ignore or exclude poor white people.

I don't see how this follows from what I said at all.

>Regardless of the accuracy of your classification of KiwiFarms, they aren't gone, just moved into the onion.

And that substantially reduces their reach and ability to disseminate their garbage. It's good.

And yes, they're a bunch of Nazi stooges.

>The only way that this works is to exert total control of the content of all communications.

Not true! Just being banned from significant swaths of social media has frequently forced many prominent Nazis/alt-righters out of business. Before Kiwifarms recently had all of their major issues, they were already finding it difficult to keep the site running as a result of continued pressure on every host they switched to.

>There is a robust empirical difference that's seen between races.

There's not an objective/standardized way to even measure intelligence, so you'll forgive me if I treat the claim that there's an empirical difference in intelligence between races with a mountain of skepticism.

All the talk page indicates is that the article is correct, despite what a number of skull-measuring right-wingers would like you to believe.

Wikipedia doesn't have a left-leaning bias, reality does.

Personally I'd be more concerned that people don't know that IQ tests are not a measure of intelligence, and that anyone who's claiming that differences in IQ across racial lines are evidence of racial intelligence differences is attempting to launder some racist bullshit.

>The idea that the only cure for discrimination is discrimination is akin to saying the only cure for violence is violence. It’s abject insanity that such a notion is being advanced in society.

Absolutely not. The idea that any of this is fixable with 'forgiveness' is far more insane. You can't undo hundreds of years of systematic disenfranchisement and subjugation with forgiveness - you have to discriminate in the opposite direction.

To quote LBJ, "You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair." That's what Kendi is saying, and he's completely right.

The outcomes have been underwhelming because we (at least, the US) haven't actually been doing this, and we've just found new and arguably worse ways to maintain deeply racist policies.

They can't. The data model in Drive will no longer support hardlinking, period.

It would also have quota implications - if I had a 5GB file multiparented in 3 locations, I wouldn't want to suddenly be over quota because Google decided I really wanted it copied to 3 locations.

>If I upload the same file to two separate folders it's because I want two separate copies. If I change one of the copies, I don't want it to change the other copy.

That's precisely the behavior you'll get. You were allowed in the previous implementation to upload a file to one location and then put it in 2 locations, such that you would have changes in either location reflected the same way. This wasn't 'copying' a file, it was multiparenting it.

I think the UX around the trash bin is pretty good and I've always found the quota pane useful.

I disagree - rclone can solve a substantially simpler and different problem (i.e. computing the size of a specified hierarchy on-demand). Being able to store and produce sizes of arbitrary folders in Drive for however many millions of users in a reasonable time frame is a substantially more challenging problem, and what we're talking about here. Google probably hasn't provided the on-demand version of this because it's trivial to script with their API.

Given that Google does offer you tools for managing your quota, and knowing it's a very difficult problem to solve, I'm disinclined to believe this is malicious or incompetent.

I think you're being naive if you think they won't roll this out to Enterprise soon as well.

lol, so in other words, you're exactly the reason they're doing this.

Why did you think your university account was for "whatever random crap I want to put in it", and also as much data as I could ever want to use"?

Trash is now auto-emptied.

You can also view objects by the quota they consume at https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/quota

I think it stands to reason that if computing folder sizes was a trivial thing to implement the Drive folks would've done it by now. It's obviously useful.

> My coworker overflowed his Google Drive quota and learned that lesson the hard way.

This sounds a lot more sinister than "my coworker had to delete some files to go back under his quota".

What about them restricting the visibility of a video in response to a violation of their policies is 'unethical' and 'gross'?

They also don't allow sharing porn, or for people to use the service as a CDN, is that 'unethical'?

Since Drive doesn't generally delete users' files for policy violations maybe the safer assumption is to assume that it wasn't deleted unless there's evidence that strongly suggests otherwise.

This has nothing to do with 'free speech' though.

edit: apparently I'm rate-limited from making new posts, but JackFr's response to me below is completely fair. Sorry for not reading more thoroughly!

Just a guess but I think it means it promotes a bunch of false claims about COVID that could lead to people getting hurt or killed.