I've never put any stock in this point, your writings cannot be made distinct from you.
How many messages do you need before you can accrue enough personally identifying information to reveal who that person was? Every time they mention where they live, how old they are, what happens about that?
None of that goes away if you only soft delete the user's profile, leaving all the content and context for anyone to rebuild at their leisure.
Pretty sure the original account id is still tied to the message and sent to clients even after deletion. People can easily correlate it if they can prove just one of the messages belonged to you.
Capitalism has raised billions of people out of poverty. Yes, the people who are no longer starving are happy to no longer be starving. Communism on the other hand usually leads to mass famine. Even nordic democratic socialism is falling apart. None of the systems are perfect, they are all hampered by power hungry leaders. Capitalism clearly seems to be the best option.
Outside of the US, do people think that truth can be changed because you aren't in the US? Just deny literally 100+ years of history?
The only way Socialism works is in The Utopia that's never existed.
The real life examples of socialism are authoritarian nightmares. Thinking that outside of the US this isn't still true is an... interesting... attempt to deny history.
There is nothing more freeing than being "out of touch" with media.
I got rid of my TV in 2000, and my life improved dramatically.
I stopped playing AAA in 2009, and my life improved dramatically.
Indie games, specifically the Godot dev scene, is where the real innovation in gaming is happening. When AAA implodes, you'll learn what you were missing all along.
It just sounds like you mainly like 2d platformers and open source (which is fine). But Godot isn't nearly the best engine to use for 3D, and arguably may not even the best of the open soucre engines (for example O3DE may be better, although almost no one is using it right now). Most 3D indie devs are using Unity and many are switching to Unreal now just like AAA (for example Palwolrd). I think "out of touch" here means making false claims about something you (not you specifically but GP) don't even care to know about.
There's very little productive new ground to grow on if you're working on YouTube.
There's existing glaring site problems, but they're on purpose and ideologically driven (shorts, placebo dislike, subscriptions mean nothing) so no one is going to touch them. It's politically safer and more advantageous to mess with the UI and irritate all the users every couple years.
I assume OP didn't mean that a single overarching ideology was driving all if these changes, but rather that each of them individually is ideologically driven (and therefore immune to questioning). They all seem to be directly counter to the end-user's desires but are off-limits to redesign.
Pretty much what I had intended by that comment, yeah.
YouTube know that the choices they've made are qualitatively bad because users overwhelmingly complained about them (dislike button being the most obvious example of that)
...but quantitatively numbers didn't go down enough to force any kind of retraction or even recognition of discontent, so now we're stuck with the results.
Do they pretend there's no censorship? I don't see that. They block spam and I'm certain no one objects to that, so the bare fact that they exclude some information clearly does not constitute the status "censored"
I'd imagine the reason kiwifarms gets different treatment is because the site is a lot worse than the descriptor "anti-trans doxxing forum" might make you believe — it's a website designed specifically to facilitate long term stalking and harassment campaigns. Trans people are their flavour of the month right now but a few years ago it was anyone disabled.
Yes, they do. Censorship of official links is against explicit Wikipedia policy[1], but it doesn't matter because every policy can be overridden by consensus. In practice this means that a handful of professional activists can (and do) censor it as they see fit, since they can determine for themselves whether such a "consensus" exists.
The Mediawiki environment became increasingly hostile to "the external world" though.
I am making a research project on grammatical gender in French, that I host on Wikiversity (there is a dedicated research space there). Lately I get an increasingly large number of rejection of saving my contributions, because some sites are considered "unreliable sources". But in my project, I am looking to document what people use in practice in their written exchanges. That they express lies or try to spread disinformation is irrelevant from the linguistic perspective I’m conducting this project. But due to this software enforced policy, I get prevented from documenting my sources from time to time.
> If they're spreading disinformation, obviously they also aren't accurately representing their own speech patterns.
But GP is not documenting the 'true' speech patterns of the people spreading the disinformation, but rather the speech patterns they use when they are spreading disinformation (which, as you pointed out, might be different from their normal speech pattern). So the sources are still good enough for that.
> If you had actually read the thread you'd know that it's Wikipedia policy not to include links to sites containg content illegal in the US because that can actually get visitors in trouble.
Not really though.
They have WP:ELNO which includes this, but that excludes WP:ELOFFICIAL. Official links are exception to that list.
> "These links are normally exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking"
The only things that are restricted for official pages is what is in WP:ELNEVER
> 1. Policy: material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked, whether in an external-links section or in a citation.[a] External links to websites that display copyrighted works are acceptable as long as the website is manifestly run, maintained or owned by the copyright owner; the owner has licensed the content in a way that allows the website to use it; or the website uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement.[c] If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd, WikiLeaks, or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright.
> 2. Technical: sites that match the Wikipedia-specific or multi-site blacklist without being whitelisted. Edits containing such links are automatically blocked from being saved.
According to wikipedia's own official policies, links to 8chan and kiwifarms should be allowed as official links, as Stormfront and The Daily Stormer is, as they don't break copyright and are not on spam blacklists.
---
again my problem is not censorship (I am for that), it's just that wikipedia acts like it isn't happening and cannot make an official ruleset that they follow.
There's not a strong differentiation between "official" policies and guidelines and "unofficial" specific consensus on Wikipedia. Individual arguments are generally built out of policy and policy is just longer-standing consensus and can be changed. It's not like there's a different group of editors setting policy from those who argue on talk pages.
Wikipedia acting like it's not censorship is the standard method in which censorship happens in the west today. The people in charge here gloat and applaud the idea of democracy and freedom of speech, while they use dishonest tactics to censorship.
Here's the old joke:
> A Russian and an American get on a plane in Moscow and get to talking.
> The Russian says he works for the Kremlin and he's on his way to go learn American propaganda techniques.
> "What American propaganda techniques?" asks the American.
If there is some official policy which links are allowed and which are not, I'll shut up.
Why are some links allowed and some not, what is the policy, if there is some.
I see
> Wikimedia projects are not censored. Some kinds of content, particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature, may be offensive to some viewers; and some viewers may feel such content is disrespectful or inappropriate for themselves, their families or their students, while others may find it acceptable.
The description for mitosis is usually "a cell splits into two daughter cells" so we're right back to parents and children even with that analogy — which doesn't actually fit, because a process spawning a new process isn't usually duplicating itself.
"Child" and "Parent" are already universally understood and easy to remember. No reason to invent new words to explain this concept, it will only make IT harder to learn, not easier.
Some other terminology is taking this metaphor a bit far, like "Orphan", but it makes sense even if it's not a 100% ideal analogy. What matters is that it's easy to remember and explain.
> Medication is premised on it being a neurodevelopment disorder from birth, hence why ADHD people can take stimulants and no one else can. But this is not proven in any way.
From your very own source in another thread:
> Molecular genetic studies have identified several genes that may mediate susceptibility to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
How many messages do you need before you can accrue enough personally identifying information to reveal who that person was? Every time they mention where they live, how old they are, what happens about that?
None of that goes away if you only soft delete the user's profile, leaving all the content and context for anyone to rebuild at their leisure.
reply