I'm not sure what you mean by banned or censorship, but Twitter isn't the government and I'm not sure how this example is "anti-democratic authoritarianism". Seems like they should be allowed to ban people from their platform who violate the terms of service. There are tons of platform/content providers that don't allow specific types of content even though it is legal.
If people disagree with Twitter they can leave the platform for another one or shareholders can act and have the firm change course. Trump still daily says whatever he wants on other platforms without the government censoring him.
What I mean is the undeniable integration of government agencies with Twitter Trust and Safety, at the time.
Right here, this ends our discussion.
But also the partisan support for the ban, on partisan grounds, from Congress and the government agency integrated Media. Which is government interference with the ability to speak via that channel.
All of this "should be able to do what they want" is a nonexistent reality. It's fantasy.
The Terms of Service, itself, was crafted under agency pressure. Though, this is a minor detail compared to the more ham fisted integration.
You can be willfully or otherwise oblivious. However, no one owes that type of conversation much engagement. It's your job to become aware of the facts and broken norms surrounding the event if you want to have further discussion.
Trump was the head of the government agencies at the time he was banned from Twitter. You're going to have to go down some strange rabbit holes to find the logic to work that out. It's perfectly reasonable that the people running Twitter didn't agree with Trump's politics and picked a reason to ban him.
How about Twitter having a preexisting, clear Terms of Service that ALL users must abide by?
Don't forget that Twitter was at the time and remains a private venue that was not and is not a government run organization or application. The Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that private businesses have the right to refuse service to whomever they wish for whatever reason. The 1st amendment covers what one can say in public, but explicitly does not cover private repercussions for said speech, ONLY government repercussions. Twitter is not public, and was not public. Private businesses and entities can and do control speech on their platforms and premises all the time, and have numerous laws protecting their right to do so.
How about this one:
User: Hi, I'd like to sign up for an account.
Twitter: Sure, you're able to do so. Here are the rules we've established for our platform. By signing up, you're agreeing to our rules.
User: OK, I agree. deliberately breaks rules
Twitter: You can't do that. We are warning you. This is a private business, and you agreed to our terms. Your actions are in violation of the terms you agreed to.
User: Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah muh free speech deliberately breaks rules again
Twitter: We're not joking. You can't post that sort of thing. It's against our rules. Do it one more time and we will be forced to ban you.
User: deliberately breaks rules again
Twitter: we are fully within our rights to ban you, and we're doing so.
User: waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah political persecution waaaaaaaaaaaaaah I'm going to sue you!
It has nothing to do with who the user is or was. Private businesses have full legal right to exercise control over their platforms. You break the rules, you are banned, simple as that.
I apparently didn't clearly convey my message. He'd have to use some twisted logic to blame the banning of Trump from twitter on the influence from government agencies and not on Twitter. That is what the person I was responding to was saying. I don't disagree with anything you said, nor do I think my original statement does in the context of the comment I replied to.
Trump was not "the head of the government agencies", in terms of functional control. Implying conspiratorial thinking is not an argument against the concrete facts. Which are that a). The FBI was integrated into Trust and Safety at Twitter b). Trust and Safety banned Trump while he was sitting President, against Trump's will c) Supreme Court case law long ago determined that any government involvement in private corporation speech decisions has to be considered to be an unconstitutional government violation of free speech. "Reasonable" is both untrue and immaterial.
Everyone citing "Freedom" here is ignorant of the facts and are going to be unhappy and surprised with how this matter is eventually settled by investigative bodies and courts.
Trump was consistently pushing the envelope and crossing boundaries with his posts on twitter and finally decided to just ban him and face the consequences of that decision.
Your suggestion that the almost the entire media is controlled by the Democratic party or all very favourable to them is also very conspiratorial - it's extremely easy to find a massive amount of media that is comically critical of both parties at all times regardless of which one is in power at the time. Contrast this with actual authoritarian governments like China and Russia.
Nope. The FBI was long integrated into twitter Trust and Safety. At that point, Twitter's speech decisions ceased being a private matter according to Supreme Court case Law.
Please. Give us all a break. There's nothing conspiratorial about noting that the Media favors the Democratic Party. You're gaslighting, and moreover your effort is pointless. Fully half of the electorate knows this to be true, and that isn't going to change in our lifetime. They know it to be true because it has had terrible consequences.
It was the Media that both lent the political cover required for the Russiagate fiasco to continue for four years, effectively hamstringing an entire administration in spite of it going nowhere.
In addition, the entire nation witnesses, over and over again, that the media incites riots or demands prosecution of riots at their singular Will. Against the Will of Police. Against the Will of local governments and citizens. The Media incited and covered for nine months of domestic terrorist riots prior to the 2020 election, leading to the murder of almost thirty people. Essentially directing and covering for brownshirt terrorists for nine months before an election. The entire nation was terrorized for that extended period. To cover it up, they then demanded the strictest prosecutions of mimic rioters that were misbehaving for three hours, or even just trespassing with what they thought was tacit permission. The difference between the 9 month and 3 hour rioters? Media narrative and demands.
You can test out your spine on this matter, however ridiculous, but don't think that you'll get away with such assertions in this conversation.
Pretty skeptical of this given how many recent CS grads there are (and yeah I'm aware of the usual complaints of "but they can't pass a basic coding interview!!" but most of the ones I've seen seem pretty competent)
A basic coding interview doesn't really cover what companies are looking for. There's a lot of talk about devops and cloud development, which means they're looking for people who are already familiar with developing software that's cloud native rather than just general software development ability.
At my day job, we actually spend a significant amount of time working with juniors to get them up to speed on deploying to kubernetes (writing manifest/helm files, building cloud-ready configurations, handling autoscaling etc). The company I work at sees a lot of value in investing senior engineer time into teaching new grads the ropes but I feel like a lot of companies would rather just hire people who already know how to do this stuff.
Honestly in the past year or two I have been fairly impressed with recent grads I have worked with. On the other hand I've run across several people that got laid off from one of the big tech companies and I am shocked how little they know. Things that should have taken a week or two such as setting up an api endpoint to return records or consuming one of our apis ends up taking 4+ months for them to complete.
I don't recall anyone on here saying the site will just go down forever. The general consensus here was that there'd be more bugs/glitches and a general degradation in quality. This seems to have panned out
Though, I'm afraid this will be hard to quantify for you. You will also need to satisfy the burden of proof that those links/citations are prevalent ideas and constitute a representative sample of more than just a few individuals.
What's more though, such a representative sample only just informs us about the population of HN commentators. I don't think that is a particularly interesting sub-population, very little (if anything) can be extrapolated other than: "there were a lot of comments on HN stating Y." Doesn't really mean much for me - to be blunt, nobody really cares what random groups of HN commentators think. It doesn't represent very much.
On the other hand, perhaps we can look at actual studies that use statistical techniques to in fact make somewhat more interesting inferences, eg:
Cool deal dude. Confirmation bias and false extrapolation are common tools of the human mind to avoid the fact that very little is known for certain. Which is to say, humans are often uncomfortable acknowledging profound ignorance, and for most things - that's exactly what we are.
Therefore, stating that a bunch of people on hacker news wrote something goes on to say absolutely nothing more than just exactly that.
This is to point out the extrapolations you made are totally unsupported without more than anecdata. The very well sourced article linked would indicate you are cherry-picking and/or misrepresenting.
Minor mea culpa, I realize now the population you are extrapolating to is all HN threads regarding Twitter/Musk and not more broad. I apologize for misreading and inferring you were extrapolating to all of media and more. Nonetheless, the point of unsupported (or false) extrapolation stands.
Burden of proof is for you to find specific examples, quote them, link them, then find data that those items did not come to pass. Following that, find more quotes that are similar, enough so that it's a persistent and significant percentage to constitute an actual trend. Until then, it's anecdata. You are the one making the claim, it is up to you to provide the evidence to back it.
Let's say I did read "those thread". If I were then to come back and say "nope - it all checked out, the histrionics were in your head." I'd wager you would respond by saying I read the wrong threads. I doubt you are willing to engage in a good-faith discussion further at this point. I'm not sure exactly which point you are making, which threads you are thinking, and I'm certainly not going to go try to find the evidence for a very vague claim that you are making.
I suppose we can probably end the bad faith argument here pretty readily.
Your claim is that there is at least one internet commentator who made a prediction in potentially bad faith, pearl clutching, where that prediction did not bear fruit. This is based on examples which you recollect.
Can you claim that this is a phenomenon that is a majority opinion, or even widespread? You would be doing so based on examples, which is cherry-picking. In addition, using human recollection only introduces confirmation-bias.
In contrast, an article that sites something like 20 different studies, which shows that indeed a number of negative outcomes did occur is a very different basis for making statements.
Rule of thumb, unless you have data - you don't know, and if you think you do, you're probably wrong. Therefore those that claim big things without giving data...
Given the number of downvotes you seem to get.. The HN community favors and rewards discussions that are based on data, and not just feelings or "I saw 5 people write X and from that I extrapolate X to be true for tens of millions of other people."
Please review, these guidelines are what keeps this site different from Reddit or Twitter, or any other trolly comment section of just about any other website: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "
"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously;"
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
"Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity."
Last thought, when others disagree with me - I do spend a bit more time on the subject to double check my thinking and to assess their opinion in greater detail. Finding places where oneself was incorrect is a good way to grow.
Unfortunately, chat communities on the modern internet are more about performative trolling (as you would put it), rather than ever admitting mistake or being wrong. It's about noise generation and not much more. With luck, hacker news can be a last bastion where the noise is unwelcome, whereas facts, data and analsyis are welcome. That is a difference between reddit or Twitter & here.
Not triggered, just pointing out anecdata. Your previous statements were unsupported. The reference I cited gave some examples of how those statements were inaccurate.
The point in contention "I find the histrionics a form of performative trolling."
- others have pointed out that the histrionics is your perspective. You noted statements like "the site will be down all the time", others have corrected that they have seen statements like "greater downtime" - and the data does back that up.
- therefore, what are you talking about exactly? This is why I'm saying you have the burden of proof to show exactly what you are talking about, with quotes, links, citations, data. Otherwise it seems that you're making a mountain of a mole-hill from cherry-picked data that likely fit your own confirmation bias. Which is not really a useful insight when someone is just saying: "see, gee, that one person over there - they exaggerated!" Is it really a large number of people that were making incorrect statements, enough that you're not just cherry-picking data? Hopefully you got the point, that nobody's word is really just taken at face value here, and those that are - are opinions and are not worth much (which goes for my opinions too, and anyone else's here.)
The old: "I know you are, but what am I." - well done.
If you can point out where I am cherry-picking data, please do so. If you would point out exactly how I have violated the HN discussion guidelines, please do so (arguably this is turning into a flame-war, mea culpa again for entertaining a bad faith argument for too long)
Otherwise, at this juncture your claim, "at least one pearl clutching internet commentator turned out to be wrong" is not super interesting and your incorrectly extrapolated opinion that "all of them who said X were wrong" is unsupported, debunked by previously cited data, and is a good example of cherry-picking data. You were asked to provide citations and/or backing data for your opinions, and it seems the best you have mustered is: "I'm rubber and you're glue"
I think specifically the criticism was leveled at the F150, given the comparison to a significantly smaller less-impressive looking truck yet still had the same size truck-bed in it.
>The bed in the F150 is shortened to make room for a second row of seats.
F150's come with multiple cab/bed options depending on the year. Yes, some have short beds with cabs, others have Long/standard beds with cabs (enough to put a 4x8 piece of plywood in the back). Some come with short beds and no cab. Long beds with no cabs.
That and the F150 isn't even a big truck, it's literally classified as "light duty". If you're trying to signal for _excess_, you aren't buying a F150.
Where I'm at, this is true. The F-350 is for signaling, F-150 is a decent utility vehicle (that allows for decent city driving). People actually use the all-in-one hauling, towing, and off-roading-in-comfort F-150 & Tundra here.
I feel like AAA gaming has just gotten too big, the time between releases is way too long compared to back in the 2000s and try to hard to big massive open world or movie quality cinematic experience. I feel similar about Sony.
Nintendo on the other hand seems have a good balance of putting out quality games of various ambition with a good frequency
>Nintendo on the other hand seems have a good balance of putting out quality games of various ambition with a good frequency
And you see how vehemently the gaming community reacts everytime a Switch exclusive game has some slight frame dip despite running on 2016 hardware. Part of that demand does in fact come from the consumers who don't understand how much work goes into those fancy graphics. And what it sacrifices.
The idea of something to replace TikTok is exciting. With each new social network there is so much opportunity to start a new following and it’s easier to go viral. The first rounds of ads are also more effective.
Nothing will be the same thing. The algorithm Tiktok had in 2020 was one of a kind.
A person with a phone could go viral and reach thousands if not millions in a day.
Today, Tiktok has largely throttled the viral nature of their algorithm. You have spend money on paid advertising if you want to reach millions of people. Yes, there are still videos that get millions of views, but it is hit or miss now.
This was noticeably on display for me in 2020 right after it was determined that Biden had won the election. Lindsey Graham, a Republican Senator, was caught on video in the Senate chamber warmly congratulating and hugging Kamala Harris, a D senator and VP-elect. It was as if they both knew Graham's hyper-partisan antics during the preceding months before the vote was all just an act - a part of the game. I'd bet that he secretly voted for Biden/Harris as well and will do so again.
This is basic human empathy from a very small group of insiders. I mean, this is their job. Do you think they all go around work being dicks to each other all day every day?
Their job is to represent us, supposedly. And they keep trying to whip their own supporters into frenzy against each other (quite successfully, I should note - so much so that it's already getting violent at times). The fact that the people doing so are themselves chum buddies tells volumes.
Hq2 itself is about twice the size of the large HQ1 buildings (re:invent, Doppler) but it’s only one(ish) building. Amazon owns like 35% of Seattle downtown real estate
Seattle proper != King County. Amazon is building out big across the lake in Bellevue. It's Seattle's local municipal government that's gone rabidly anti-business more than the county or state as a whole, although Washington is never going to be confused with a purple state anymore after the last 5-10 years.
Amazon is not the only F500 to be divesting headcount within Seattle city limits in favor of elsewhere in the metro area.
If people disagree with Twitter they can leave the platform for another one or shareholders can act and have the firm change course. Trump still daily says whatever he wants on other platforms without the government censoring him.
reply