ow you see why they are fond of accusing international bodies (e.g. the Security Council, ESCWA, UNESCO, UNRWA etc) of being “politically motivated” when they bring out judgements that criticize Israel -- it’s simple projection, based on the fact that that’s how their own courts work.
However there may be other reasons too - such as UN decisions that fly in the face of obvious, well established, history:
Lovely law that, making calling for a boycott illegal and punishable by fines. Looking at the text excerpt it doesn't even have to be effective, simply saying it is enough to trigger the law.
Reminds me of the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions, similar laws in the UK and Europe and "hate speech" laws in many western countries.
Re: Re: Israel on the other hand has many Arab citizens (~20%) with full voting rights and no other direct discrimination.
I looked at your link before I wrote my comment.
I'm not a total fan of Israel. They have not lived up to the standards we expect in western democracies and they have shot themselves in the foot by allowing the settlements, which create the impression that it is Israel that is the barrier to peace- when in fact the real barrier is that Arab Muslims (as distinct from Christians, Druze and a few other minority communities) do not really want any settlement in which Israel continues to exist at all.
No more than, say, black citizens of the US, anyway...
but a lot less than Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Atheist or Buddhist citizens of almost any Muslim majority state, as this piece by a Middle Eastern Christian woman illustrates.
Re: Re: and no Israeli leader with the necessary standing since Rabin
Both sides have extremists that don't want peace, however the extremists on the Palestinian side dominate the scene more effectively than on the Israeli side.
If there was a leader on the Palestinian side with standing and authority similar to what Mandela had then it is plausible that a suitable leader would eventually emerge in Israel (remember Mandela had to wait through the time of Verwoerd, Vorster and Botha before De Klerk came along.)
Also there is another big difference between Israel and Apartheid S. Africa.
S. Africa implemented racist policies that denied voting rights to the black population and discriminated against them in other ways. Israel on the other hand has many Arab citizens (~20%) with full voting rights and no other direct discrimination. In short Israeli Arabs have everything that Mandela obtained for S. African blacks already. (Their average life expectancy actually exceeds that in any Arab country, even including the rich ones)
That is really the root of the problem. For a large proportion of the Palestinians the only acceptable solution is one in which Israel no longer exists.
You mean how the Palestinian leadership is regularly accused of being “terrorists”?
So was Nelson Mandela.
No. That isn't even close. My point has nothing to do with who is or is not a terrorist, let alone who is called a terrorist (hardly the same thing at all). My point is that there is no-one in the Palestinian leadership that wants to do what Mandela did and probably no-one that could do it even if they wanted to.
Nelson Mandela commanded a level of respect within his own people that enabled him to be trusted to negotiate the transition with De Klerk.
There is no Palestinian leader with that level of authority since the death of Arafat (and no Israeli leader with the necessary standing since Rabin).
In fact the Palestinian leadership does not even want peace or any settlement that would allow ordinary Israeli civilians to continue their lives in peace as white South Africans do today under the government of the ANC.
If you are in doubt of this then listen to the views of someone who grew up inside the bubble of the Hamas leadership:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "I don't understand the confusion, that's the argument." -- It results from corporations trying to put over fictions,
A platform need not be neutral to be a platform. Stormfront has no obligation to post pro-Black Lives Matter speech any more than The Root has an obligation to host articles promoting White supremacy
All of which is fine - so long as we are in a situation of many small-medium sized platforms competing with one another.
The problems arise when a platform grows so large that it can influence the debate at a national scale.
In the UK this used to be a problem for the left, because the Murdoch press came to dominate the discourse and we had 18 years on unrelenting Tory rule as a result.
In the US now it seems to be more a problem for certain sections of the right, because both the MSM and the newer tech platforms seem to have a common agenda on some issues.
When there are 8-10 genuinely independent platforms each with around 10-15% of the market all is well because everyone has somewhere to get heard.
When you have only 2-3 platforms controlling a very large section of the market then the possibility of abuse arises.
The traditional answers to this problem were Nationalisation/regulation where there was a natural monopoly and anti-trust suits otherwise.
However it is difficult to see how either of these can work in this case.
Re: Re: Re: Fundamental errors in architecture can't be fixed
There is a certain irony here.
Currently the right is claiming that they are being silenced by large corporations whose agenda they dislike. They may well be correct in this observation BUT - which philosophy is it that says it is OK, even laudable for corporations to use the free market and grow into de-facto monopolies and that for the state to interfere would be "liberal/socialist/communist".
Of course if the federal state were to nationalise Google/youtube/twitter/facebook - the effect of which would be to force the corporations to follow the first amendment (which is what they seem to want) then the right would cry COMMUNISM!!! (at least that is what they ought to cry...
_In Hitler's Germany, or Stalin's Russia, people were allowed to go to church--but only the church approved by the dictatorial "leader"._
Actually Stalin didn't even allow people to go to the church that was (semi) state approved without consequences. Only old women could get away with it because they fitted the state's narrative of a dying institution. The only "church" that was approved was the "church" of dialectical materialism.
_I'd argue that they did know how to run their services. They chose to build them without moderation,_
The reason for that choice - and the root of the problem is that these services deliberately blur the boundaries between private conversations and public ones. That is a key feature of the business models that have been so successful.
No one outside a totalitarian state would want to censor the contents of 1 to 1 telephone calls (except where one party is in prison).
Most people would expect broadcast radio to some editorial control.
Use the same technology for both purposes (and introduce a grey area between the two) and you have a problem
That is, in a sense, my point: Whereas “family reunification” is an accurate phrasing of that immigration policy, “chain migration” is the phrase that seeped into the mainstream because it is “punchier”.
Family reunification is the laudable purpose that was in the minds of those who framed the law.
Chain migration is an unintended consequence that can happen when people take advantage of the law.
Unfortunately is is very hard to frame a law in such a way as to allow the former whilst preventing the latter.
We all know of hard cases that occur even under current, relatively relaxed, immigration rules - so the unintended consequences do work both ways.
The real problem is that it will be impractical to have reasonable immigration rules whilst the countries that source immigration are in such a messed up state.
In some places this will probably fix itself within a couple of generations (eg most of Eastern Europe).
In other places it is a matter of better governance and a certain amount of aid/inward investment. (eg Sub Saharan Africa, Latin America).
In still others there are cultural/religious issues that make genuine progress difficult - several of these countries have actually regressed in recent years (eg Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and most of the Middle East/North Africa.
In reality the rhetoric of neither tha alt-right nor the left on its own will solve things like this. The left have to admit that the conservative, even the alt right are actually correct on some issues, and the right have to admit that the underlying principles of the left are correct - evenn though they have messed up in some areas.
Unfortunatley both sides are moving apart into their own spaces. The reason that google/facebook etc should not censor the conservative voices is not for the sake of the conservatives - it is for the sake of the left - who need to hear those voices - in order to correct their own mistakes.
Contrast the 1990s in which security through obscurity was still regarded as a valid encryption tactic.
That's not how I remember the 90's. I think you need to go back a lot further to get to the point where anyone competent thought that. I was looking at ASIC implementations of RSA in 1983.
On the post: Israeli Music Fans Sue Two New Zealanders For Convincing Lorde To Cancel Her Israeli Concert
Re: Re: ... because look, the court agreed!
ow you see why they are fond of accusing international bodies (e.g. the Security Council, ESCWA, UNESCO, UNRWA etc) of being “politically motivated” when they bring out judgements that criticize Israel -- it’s simple projection, based on the fact that that’s how their own courts work.
However there may be other reasons too - such as UN decisions that fly in the face of obvious, well established, history:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-jerusalem-unesco-motion-jewish-t ies-temple-mount-noble-sanctuary-el-harem-al-sharif-a7360776.html
On the post: Israeli Music Fans Sue Two New Zealanders For Convincing Lorde To Cancel Her Israeli Concert
Re: "'Free speech'? Not on our watch!"
Lovely law that, making calling for a boycott illegal and punishable by fines. Looking at the text excerpt it doesn't even have to be effective, simply saying it is enough to trigger the law.
Reminds me of the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions, similar laws in the UK and Europe and "hate speech" laws in many western countries.
On the post: Israeli Music Fans Sue Two New Zealanders For Convincing Lorde To Cancel Her Israeli Concert
Re: Re: Israel on the other hand has many Arab citizens (~20%) with full voting rights and no other direct discrimination.
I looked at your link before I wrote my comment.
I'm not a total fan of Israel. They have not lived up to the standards we expect in western democracies and they have shot themselves in the foot by allowing the settlements, which create the impression that it is Israel that is the barrier to peace- when in fact the real barrier is that Arab Muslims (as distinct from Christians, Druze and a few other minority communities) do not really want any settlement in which Israel continues to exist at all.
No more than, say, black citizens of the US, anyway...
but a lot less than Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Atheist or Buddhist citizens of almost any Muslim majority state, as this piece by a Middle Eastern Christian woman illustrates.
https://medium.com/@najwa.najib/donald-trump-is-good-for-middle-eastern-christians-350f 049bed62
(Note that she isn't a great fan of Israel either..)
On the post: Israeli Music Fans Sue Two New Zealanders For Convincing Lorde To Cancel Her Israeli Concert
Re: Re: and no Israeli leader with the necessary standing since Rabin
Both sides have extremists that don't want peace, however the extremists on the Palestinian side dominate the scene more effectively than on the Israeli side.
If there was a leader on the Palestinian side with standing and authority similar to what Mandela had then it is plausible that a suitable leader would eventually emerge in Israel (remember Mandela had to wait through the time of Verwoerd, Vorster and Botha before De Klerk came along.)
Also there is another big difference between Israel and Apartheid S. Africa.
S. Africa implemented racist policies that denied voting rights to the black population and discriminated against them in other ways. Israel on the other hand has many Arab citizens (~20%) with full voting rights and no other direct discrimination. In short Israeli Arabs have everything that Mandela obtained for S. African blacks already. (Their average life expectancy actually exceeds that in any Arab country, even including the rich ones)
That is really the root of the problem. For a large proportion of the Palestinians the only acceptable solution is one in which Israel no longer exists.
On the post: Israeli Music Fans Sue Two New Zealanders For Convincing Lorde To Cancel Her Israeli Concert
Re: Re: Re: There is no Palestinian Nelson Mandela.
True - Winnie Mandela was much worse because she endorsed violence against political opponents within her own people.
However that was not my point - see below.
On the post: Israeli Music Fans Sue Two New Zealanders For Convincing Lorde To Cancel Her Israeli Concert
Re: Re: There is no Palestinian Nelson Mandela.
You mean how the Palestinian leadership is regularly accused of being “terrorists”? So was Nelson Mandela.
No. That isn't even close. My point has nothing to do with who is or is not a terrorist, let alone who is called a terrorist (hardly the same thing at all). My point is that there is no-one in the Palestinian leadership that wants to do what Mandela did and probably no-one that could do it even if they wanted to.
Nelson Mandela commanded a level of respect within his own people that enabled him to be trusted to negotiate the transition with De Klerk.
There is no Palestinian leader with that level of authority since the death of Arafat (and no Israeli leader with the necessary standing since Rabin).
In fact the Palestinian leadership does not even want peace or any settlement that would allow ordinary Israeli civilians to continue their lives in peace as white South Africans do today under the government of the ANC.
If you are in doubt of this then listen to the views of someone who grew up inside the bubble of the Hamas leadership:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8sOG62H7Ks
On the post: Israeli Music Fans Sue Two New Zealanders For Convincing Lorde To Cancel Her Israeli Concert
Re: Re: Hating the Israeli government does not equal Hating Jews.
What worked with South Africa can work with Israel.
NO it can't. There is no Palestinian Nelson Mandela.
On the post: Implementing Transparency About Content Moderation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "I don't understand the confusion, that's the argument." -- It results from corporations trying to put over fictions,
A platform need not be neutral to be a platform. Stormfront has no obligation to post pro-Black Lives Matter speech any more than The Root has an obligation to host articles promoting White supremacy
All of which is fine - so long as we are in a situation of many small-medium sized platforms competing with one another.
The problems arise when a platform grows so large that it can influence the debate at a national scale.
In the UK this used to be a problem for the left, because the Murdoch press came to dominate the discourse and we had 18 years on unrelenting Tory rule as a result.
In the US now it seems to be more a problem for certain sections of the right, because both the MSM and the newer tech platforms seem to have a common agenda on some issues.
When there are 8-10 genuinely independent platforms each with around 10-15% of the market all is well because everyone has somewhere to get heard.
When you have only 2-3 platforms controlling a very large section of the market then the possibility of abuse arises.
The traditional answers to this problem were Nationalisation/regulation where there was a natural monopoly and anti-trust suits otherwise.
However it is difficult to see how either of these can work in this case.
On the post: Implementing Transparency About Content Moderation
Re: Re:
Content moderation is speech. Asking for regulation is attempting to limit free speech rights.
You don't really believe that, do you? You don't have a free speech right to use a private platform, you know?
Mike - I think you lost the plot there.
Your statement and his are basically in agreement - although I'll admit that he has a rather odd way of putting it.
On the post: We Need To Shine A Light On Private Online Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Fundamental errors in architecture can't be fixed
_As opposed to the more common rightist corporatist, globalist agenda?
in which chaos and "pushing the limits" is used as a toolThat would be alt-rightist._
As opposed to the Totalitarian rightist corporatist, globalist agenda?
which is of course Control alt rightist.
and the Totalitarian corporatist, globalist agenda that will happily drift into a nuclear war (presumably initially with N Korea)
which is Control Alt delete-ist
On the post: We Need To Shine A Light On Private Online Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Fundamental errors in architecture can't be fixed
There is a certain irony here.
Currently the right is claiming that they are being silenced by large corporations whose agenda they dislike. They may well be correct in this observation BUT - which philosophy is it that says it is OK, even laudable for corporations to use the free market and grow into de-facto monopolies and that for the state to interfere would be "liberal/socialist/communist".
Of course if the federal state were to nationalise Google/youtube/twitter/facebook - the effect of which would be to force the corporations to follow the first amendment (which is what they seem to want) then the right would cry COMMUNISM!!! (at least that is what they ought to cry...
On the post: Why The History Of Content Moderation Matters
Re:
Actually Stalin didn't even allow people to go to the church that was (semi) state approved without consequences. Only old women could get away with it because they fitted the state's narrative of a dying institution. The only "church" that was approved was the "church" of dialectical materialism.
On the post: Why The History Of Content Moderation Matters
Re:
carnie chicken-head-biting geeks
YEA!! Someone else who knows the true definition of the word "geek".
On the post: Why The History Of Content Moderation Matters
"If Google has all this fancy AI,
It doesn't.
Google AI - like all AI - is 90% propaganda and 10% carefully tuned systems that do (very) specific and well defined tasks.
On the post: Why The History Of Content Moderation Matters
Re: Re: Re:
The reason for that choice - and the root of the problem is that these services deliberately blur the boundaries between private conversations and public ones. That is a key feature of the business models that have been so successful.
No one outside a totalitarian state would want to censor the contents of 1 to 1 telephone calls (except where one party is in prison).
Most people would expect broadcast radio to some editorial control.
Use the same technology for both purposes (and introduce a grey area between the two) and you have a problem
Everyone would agree that
On the post: Why The History Of Content Moderation Matters
Re: WHY are corporations developing this not just from scratch, but in vacuo?
On the post: Why The History Of Content Moderation Matters
Re: WHY are corporations developing this not just from scratch, but in vacuo?
NOT ONE fanboy has ever had a comment hidden here, ONLY those who dissent, and for NO articulable reason.
If you dissent on EVERY issue - then it does begin to look like your reason for being here is just to be contrary.
Dissenting comments coming from users who don't make a point of ALWAYS dissenting don't get hidden.
On the post: It's Time to Talk About Internet Companies' Content Moderation Operations
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is, in a sense, my point: Whereas “family reunification” is an accurate phrasing of that immigration policy, “chain migration” is the phrase that seeped into the mainstream because it is “punchier”.
Family reunification is the laudable purpose that was in the minds of those who framed the law.
Chain migration is an unintended consequence that can happen when people take advantage of the law.
Unfortunately is is very hard to frame a law in such a way as to allow the former whilst preventing the latter.
We all know of hard cases that occur even under current, relatively relaxed, immigration rules - so the unintended consequences do work both ways.
The real problem is that it will be impractical to have reasonable immigration rules whilst the countries that source immigration are in such a messed up state.
In some places this will probably fix itself within a couple of generations (eg most of Eastern Europe).
In other places it is a matter of better governance and a certain amount of aid/inward investment. (eg Sub Saharan Africa, Latin America).
In still others there are cultural/religious issues that make genuine progress difficult - several of these countries have actually regressed in recent years (eg Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and most of the Middle East/North Africa.
In reality the rhetoric of neither tha alt-right nor the left on its own will solve things like this. The left have to admit that the conservative, even the alt right are actually correct on some issues, and the right have to admit that the underlying principles of the left are correct - evenn though they have messed up in some areas.
Unfortunatley both sides are moving apart into their own spaces. The reason that google/facebook etc should not censor the conservative voices is not for the sake of the conservatives - it is for the sake of the left - who need to hear those voices - in order to correct their own mistakes.
On the post: FBI Director Chris Wray Says Secure Encryption Backdoors Are Possible; Sen. Ron Wyden Asks Him To Produce Receipts
Re: Rolling your own encryption
Contrast the 1990s in which security through obscurity was still regarded as a valid encryption tactic.
That's not how I remember the 90's. I think you need to go back a lot further to get to the point where anyone competent thought that. I was looking at ASIC implementations of RSA in 1983.
On the post: Sarajevo's City Government Says No One Can Use The Name 'Sarajevo' Without Its Permission
Re:
Next >>