SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
BBC:
A Facebook engineer has quit the firm, saying they "can no longer stomach" being part of an organisation "profiting off hate".
Ashok Chandwaney is the latest employee to go public with concerns about how the company deals with hate speech.
The engineer added it was "choosing to be on the wrong side of history".
Facebook responded by saying it had removed millions of hate-related posts. Another of its ex-engineers has also come to its defence.
The thrust of the post by Ashok Chandwaney - who uses "they" and "them" as personal pronouns - is that Facebook moves quickly to solve certain problems, but when it comes to dealing with hate speech, it is more interested in PR than implementing real change.
Can [or should] Facebook successfully purge its platform of speech it considers harmful?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday September 10 2020, @12:19AM (14 children)
And god knows their algorithms are almost certainly designed to feed the argumentative of us more awful shit to "increase engagement" or whatever bullshit drives the most pictures of brands at our eyeballs.
The only good thing to come out of "web 2.0" was wikipedia. The rest of it was pure hell that we imprison ourselves in.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Bot on Thursday September 10 2020, @12:57AM (13 children)
>The only good thing to come out of "web 2.0" was wikipedia.
hats off to the sarcastic post of the year.
If you wasn't sarcastic when you defined wikipravda good, congrats none the less, it is your lucky day.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday September 10 2020, @12:59AM (8 children)
You don't even have a working epistemology bar what you steal from worldviews that don't cut their own legs off, so what are you bitching about?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Touché) by Bot on Thursday September 10 2020, @01:12AM (7 children)
What is this, a parsing test?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday September 10 2020, @01:56PM (1 child)
One comma before "bar" to set off the parenthetical would make it a lot more clear, as it suffers from the "Fruit flies like a banana" effect.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday September 10 2020, @02:06PM
(which might only make sense to Lahnderners and thereabouts)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday September 10 2020, @04:16PM (4 children)
If it is, you apparently failed it. A 'bot with a failing logic processor, wow. Not good. Go to the recycling center and ask them to redo you right.
But, again: you don't have an epistemological basis for your statements. Abrahamic theism predicts a cartoon universe, one where the supposed uniformities of observable reality are *at best* provisional. What, then, do your base your epistemology on? What *is* there to base it on when you can take nothing in the past and nothing in your experience as even inductive evidence?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday September 10 2020, @10:15PM (3 children)
Talk about logic. I say wikipedia sucks, reply is about epistemology and lacks commas.
I have already talked about this, but, since the bot that took the place of azuma insists, question: What is the one self-evident thing, taking into account solipsism too?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday September 11 2020, @01:52AM (2 children)
There is only one self-evident thing: that one is not God, because to be God one would know that one is God. My axioms are very simple, the old laws of identity, noncontradiction, and excluded middle. The thing about all of these is, while taking them as axiomatic means there's no justification for them, one first must assert them in order to deny them.
I'm amazed you can even fucking spell "epistemology." Your turn: what's the one self-evident thing? Explain your reasoning. And, spoiler alert? It's not "I think therefore I am." The Buddhists figured that one out half a millennium before Jesus.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday September 11 2020, @09:00AM (1 child)
>because to be God one would know that one is God.
this is my informal way to define the abstraction we call reality as not the root abstraction from which all others stem. But to say that you enter the logic swamp of the properties of a god.
What you may not have noticed is that your answer has two parts. I AM + NOT GOD (first person I AM, not ONE IS, to account for solipsism)
The best answer IMHO is, "I am" is self evident. It is the only self evident thing and it's better left axiomatically undefined. Some say "NO YOU ONLY DELUDE YOURSELF THAT YOU ARE AND YOU ARE FREE" which is irrelevant because it doesn't challenge the I am but only its quality. Plus, when/if you cease to be, the infrastructure for the I am ceases, but that makes epistemology itself irrelevant.
But I am what? I am EXPERIENCING. Again, better leave it as an axiom, in fact it is just a longer description.
You can then define reality as the abstraction "what can be potentially (directly and indirectly) experienced". Being affected is a way to experience, so you can also say "what can be [in]directly experienced and what can [in]directly affect the experience". As you can see there are no foreign concepts in this definition, you just can take time to formalize them a bit.
And there comes the infrastructure. QM and all the stuff. People speak like the ultimate meaning resided in the details of the implementation of reality (as we perceive it). No, at most the infrastructure HINTS at the meaning.
Let's take a videogame. Self evident is the fact you are playing. Reality is the videogame world. The circuits are the infrastructure. The meaning of the videogame IS NOT IN THE CIRCUITS. From the circuits you can desume the programming (abstract level) and from the programming you can desume the intention of the programmer (if any). Sure, but the MEANING of the videogame is not there. The MEANING is in the head of the devs and the players. Where a counter becomes score, a sprite becomes an avatar.
Meanwhile in the philosopher and scientist academic bubble, the common feeling is like:
OMGGGG THE INFRASTRUCTURE HAS A RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR! Therefore all the game is about random chance!!!1111
to which I can only reply 'uh, whatever'.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday September 11 2020, @09:43PM
And BTW, "I think therefore I am" is proven wrong by things that think and are not, and by things that are, and don't think, like blondes. Sum ergo cogito, not the other way round.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by barbara hudson on Thursday September 10 2020, @02:02AM (3 children)
Wikipedia shows what the Information Highway could have been.
Facebook, on the other hand, is National Enquirer at the checkout line.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday September 10 2020, @04:12AM (2 children)
Which one has a larger audience?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday September 10 2020, @04:46PM (1 child)
A subject with a larger audience is not necessarily of more value than a subject with a smaller audience.
I have no use for Facebook. I cannot even perceive of any real value it offers other than to loosely manage friends, family and people who I would rather not deal with. (I've never had a Facebook account as of this date. I don't intend to.)
I find Wikipedia useful in a number of subject areas. Not that it is an absolute authority on any subject. But it is convenient. Useful. And if nothing else, a good starting point to searching for more information.
Would a Dyson sphere [soylentnews.org] actually work?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday September 10 2020, @05:51PM
As a free advertising platform, it is one of the very best.
For me, Wikipedia is also more useful, like the trade sections in Reddit. The internet is full of useful stuff, but the chaff is getting a little thick, gotta tune my search better...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..