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: 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.