honest_guy
> This lead to Johnson hiding in a fridge. The UK was that anti-Brexit that for the main pro-Brexit party to win they had to hide in a fridge on live TV to avoid talking about Brexit.
I just looked that up. It appears he was visiting a milk distribution company of some sort on his campaign when he was approached by a live TV crew who asked for an interview. He was then led into part of the facility by an employee. Truly compelling stuff!
There was a referendum in 2016 and a general election in 2019 which the Conservatives won in a landslide. The notion that there was a major swing in opinion in that timeframe is simply absurd. Pro-Brexit political parties don't win landslide victories in such circumstances.
It depends what form of gambling you're referring to.
A blockchain based roulette smart contract could provide absolute transparency to anyone placing a bet. The exact process which determines the outcome is known, and it cannot be changed. The assurance that you get your money is the smart contract.
A smart contract based prediction market, such as Augur, can offer similar transparency. You have the assurance that, should the market be resolved in your favour, you will get your money. The main concern is the governance structure which determines the outcomes.
Currency, payment processing and banking are definitely the primary use cases - which is nothing short of revolutionary, in my opinion. In less stable/poorer societies, access to banking, trustless payments, and an immutable ledger are immensely valuable.
Even here in the west, I would kill for an alternative to PayPal for international payments. I was recently forced to receive payment via PayPal. Between their 'generous' exchange rates and fees, I lost out on hundreds of dollars. Shortly after, they locked my funds for 25 days while they reviewed my account. I had zero recourse and just had to wait them out. The same transaction on Cardano would've cost 7c plus the cost of exchanging it back to fiat.
There is no choice outside Google/Apple when it comes to mobile devices. None which are fully compatible with a normal person's way of life, or which provides access to the same apps.
It may be technically possible to avoid them, but 'technically possible' and 'competitive alternative' are worlds apart.
This seems like an honest framing of the situation!
I am claiming that the Nayirah testimony helped manufacture consent for US military involvement.
> I'm obviously not claiming that lying was invented in the last few years, so pointing out some lie that gained traction in the past doesn't really challenge anything I said.
You claimed that the problem of the last few years was blatant lies gaining traction in the marketplace of ideas. I am pointing out that lies have forever gained traction in the marketplace of ideas, while also being co-signed by authoritative news sources and politicians.
> If the truth (or interpretations approaching the truth) is a needle in a haystack, it's unlikely that many people will actually ever find it. That's a problem.
I agree, but I don't believe that restricting speech or massively censoring information is the correct solution. Or a solution at all.
When the next set of lies is rolled out to land us in another unending conflict, I would quite like the internet to be a place where information can freely flow. My fear of governments is far greater than my fear of kooky people on the internet.
Nothing about how the userbase acted restricted his ability to use the platform, publish content or engage with content in any way. He just got annoyed by it, then got banned by an instance admin.
If you're seeking highly curated and specific information, I doubt it is for you (at this point in time). With that said, there are some great bots which are helping to fill the place with content from traditional social media so that you don't miss out. For example, I follow a bot which posts HN threads above a threshold of points onto the timeline. This is how I keep up with HN, and it is how I found this post.
New federated apps are being developed all the time, too. A federated reddit alternative exists, which may one day satisfy your need for specialized/focused content on a given topic.
> Should 230 remove the right for companies/individuals/platforms to have a say in the content they publish?
If they wish to be afforded the legal protections offered by 230, yes. It is a choice - not an obligation. A trade-off.
> Should platforms not be able to make decisions about how they moderate their own platforms?
They should be able to, but, again, accepting the responsibility of being a platform rather than a publisher means that there should be limits to what can be considered inappropriate. There is certainly no easy answer for where that line is drawn, but it does need to be drawn. A heavy-handed moderation policy can effectively become publishing requirements.
I still find it alarming that so many people perceive these actions as sincere attempts at harm-reduction. Regardless, it is a pleasant to see both sides being represented in the discussion.