Never connect with anyone you haven’t met. If a work colleague or someone is on a call and doesn’t use video, no connection either. Don’t upload and store your resume on LinkedIn. There is no reason to do so.
Also, I don’t recall where this setting is, but make the default behavior such that if someone finds you and tries to connect with you, they actually follow you instead. This cuts down aggressively on spammers because in order to actually connect with you they would have to view your profile, open the … menu, and then click connect. If they aren’t paying attention they’ll just follow you instead of connect which means you can broadcast to them but they can’t broadcast to you.
Why? It's pretty useful for connecting with recruiters in my experience, and I don't think anyone can actually do anything just because they have a connection with you.
I do ignore the connections from random students though tbf.
Connecting with recruiters is mostly a waste of time, and generally anyone can just fake being a recruiter. Once someone has a connection with you they can see your extended network, they know where you work, they find out all information you have shared with on your profile, &c. The recruiter may be using you to connect with someone else. You also start to consume their content since you are connected. Better to let them follow you and then when it's time to reach out to offer you a job/send an in-mail.
Generally speaking, unless you operate at an elite level or at an elite institution, you're not getting a ton of worthwhile cold intros from recruiters.
> Also the irony considering recent moves by the US government in terms of control of the internet and free speech.
Well you've got plenty of countries doing it, including France, Iran, the United Kingdom, Germany, China, Brasil, Australia, you name it. Not that it's good, but a criticism for the goose is a criticism for the gander, as a manner of speaking.
As to which, why or why do we care so much about this? Idk, same reason our government funds tens of thousands of initiatives and cares about lots of different things that people find equally important or unimportant.
I think it's mostly easy to identify anyone if you actually want to - if you buy anything online you are 100% identifiable for example.
Given the pros/cons in context, I think I'm in favor of it for social media, at least. I'd actually argue you would want to go further and you should have your full address, employer, and more available online. LinkedIn is a cesspool of awful salespeople, but you know what it's not? A massive Russian/Chinese/Maga disinformation site. Maybe you should think twice before saying something online you wouldn't say while standing in front of your house or at work.
Anonymity on social media has brought a lot of problems and I'm not sure what the benefits are. Some point to a small percentage of folks who would be "outed" but, given that the alternative seems to be an emerging dystopia of bots, malicious actors, propaganda, and more, maybe actual transparency is better even taking into account potential harmful effects.
I'm open-minded on this and see pros/cons either way. Though I think if you find yourself worried about this stuff you can just delete your accounts and move on with your life. Trust me you aren't missing out on anything.
Fortunately your opinion doesn’t trump the Constitution or settled law. Anonymous (or at least pseudonymous) speech has been a feature of American discourse since before the Revolution.
Without anonymity, you lose whistleblowers, effective criticism of the powerful from the weak, and “public interest” leaks like the Snowden revelations. You lose outlets where the abused can ask for help and advice in escaping bad situations. You lose any/all criticism of employers current and past; who wants to hire a complainer? You silence people who are afraid to give their opinion because of their employer or parent.
> Fortunately your opinion doesn’t trump the Constitution or settled law.
Neither does yours? This is a nonsense claim.
> Anonymous (or at least pseudonymous) speech has been a feature of American discourse since before the Revolution.
You're just cherry-picking which ideas you like from the founders or early America. Slavery was also a feature of the United States. Whether we had something in the past or not isn't necessarily a good enough argument to keep doing it.
> Without anonymity, you lose whistleblowers,
We can figure out other ways to have whistleblowers without social media.
> effective criticism of the powerful from the weak, and “public interest” leaks like the Snowden revelations.
Snowden, who is living in Russia.
> You lose outlets where the abused can ask for help and advice in escaping bad situations.
The only way to do this is on social media, anonymously? If so, we have a much bigger problem. An emergency, even.
> You lose any/all criticism of employers current and past; who wants to hire a complainer?
I complain about past employers all the time. I don't think you lose this.
> You silence people who are afraid to give their opinion because of their employer or parent.
I don't think so. And both left and right political blocks have gotten plenty of people fired, even those who post anonymously.
> Slavery was also a feature of the United States.
Yes, and it required a Constitutional amendment to remove it. You’re welcome to try and push through an amendment to limit free speech rights, but it won’t pass!
> We can figure out other ways to have whistleblowers without social media.
I doubt it! The media is mostly dead or coopted, and the powerful won’t willingly set up a system where you can rat them out.
> Snowden, who is living in Russia.
Yes, to avoid retaliation. Your point?
> The only way to do this is on social media, anonymously? If so, we have a much bigger problem. An emergency, even.
Good, you’re getting it.
> I complain about past employers all the time. I don't think you lose this.
The popularity of anonymous outlets for this shows that most people don’t share your opinion. It would have a chilling effect.
> I don't think so. And both left and right political blocks have gotten plenty of people fired, even those who post anonymously.
Thanks for making my point for me. It’s even easier to target people when they are not anonymous. A number of left and right wing commentators are having to pay for private security because of threats. The ones who successfully remain anonymous don’t have to do this.
> Yes, and it required a Constitutional amendment to remove it.
Yea but I can think of lots of other examples. You are missing the point.
> You’re welcome to try and push through an amendment to limit free speech rights, but it won’t pass!
I'm in favor of free speech so I wouldn't want to limit it.
> I doubt it! The media is mostly dead or coopted, and the powerful won’t willingly set up a system where you can rat them out.
Sounds like defeatism.
> Yes, to avoid retaliation. Your point?
He's not just there in Russia because of that. My point is he is either an actual traitor, or someone who was duped into doing what he did.
> Good, you’re getting it.
Haha I think you missed the point, but I can explain it for you. If you are relying on social media for these things, you have already screwed up. Regulating them one way or another is immaterial, because the dependency is a far greater problem.
> The popularity of anonymous outlets for this shows that most people don’t share your opinion. It would have a chilling effect.
I don't think it'll have a chilling effect. People publicly complain about their employers all the time using their real information. The popularity of something isn't an acceptable argument to me.
> Thanks for making my point for me. It’s even easier to target people when they are not anonymous. A number of left and right wing commentators are having to pay for private security because of threats. The ones who successfully remain anonymous don’t have to do this.
Maybe you shouldn't say things that result in you needing private security? It's no different than walking down the street yelling vulgar or offensive things. You might get punched. I see much more harm done by anonymous broadcasting here than I see benefits. Plus you are never truly anonymous on these platforms. Sure it's slightly more difficult for someone to identify you, but if you make enough people mad you will be identified and no amount of "anonymity" will save you. If the government itself wanted to identify you it can do so at the snap of a finger.
> Maybe you shouldn't say things that result in you needing private security? It's no different than walking down the street yelling vulgar or offensive things. You might get punched.
Maybe you shouldn’t have spoken up. Maybe you shouldn’t have walked down that street. Maybe you shouldn’t have worn that dress.
This is one of those things that sounds really nice and makes you feel morally good/superior, but it misses the point and the analogy fails. Speaking up, isn't offensive. Walking down a street, isn't propaganda. Wearing a dress, is your right as a person and it doesn't offend anyone. This isn't what's being discussed.
But, let's say you are right and we should maintain anonymity on social media platforms.
I don't think that kid who was wearing a t-shirt or sign or whatever supporting ICE should have been punched or face any consequences whatsoever. He should be free to exercise is right to free speech and/or protest, face no repercussions in public or private life, and when he goes home he should be allowed to hop on TikTok or Facebook or whatever, and post the most vile, hate-filled stuff he can think of, anonymously.
That's the world we live in today, and the status quo you are advocating that we maintain. Don't you think that warrants further discussion? I do.
I do agree that most people are able to be easily identified, and that anonymity has created problems, but people should be able to both use the internet and remain anonymous as without the anonymous or pseudonymous transmission of information a democracy can't function and makes it trivally easy for the state to further limit the rights of an individual
No it wouldn't. Accounts would be identified right so you would know that some account is a China bot farm or Russian military or whatever. And then when Jane down the street starts talking about the need to kill "insert group here" well you know who they are and you can go down and have a talking to them or tell their employer, or whatever. If you say crazy stuff maybe there should be repercussions. Today there are none. It has a moderating effect when there are consequences.
> And then when Jane down the street starts talking about the need to kill "insert group here" well you know who they are and you can go down and have a talking to them or tell their employer, or whatever.
This works the other way too. You tell others online "hey maybe we should stop killing X people" or maybe expose that X people are being killed without the public knowing and the people in favor of killing X people can and will ruin your life.
We in fact saw more of this happening in the past few years than the opposite.
That's just the messy fundamentals of democracy. I think it comes down to perception of what the threat is. I think groups like white nationalists, Antifa, pro-Hamas, pro-Russia, &c. are a much greater threat now than the potential downside of supposedly silencing people who "speak up".
How valuable is speaking up anyway? It's all good to argue when you see the positive case or the one you agree with, but do you also give sympathy to folks who are "speaking up" about white replacement theory or "speaking up" about avoiding COVID-19 vaccines, or other such nonsense?
> You're supporting a systematic chilling effect on free speech.
No I'm not.
~~~~~~
There's no point in free speech if the only free speech is from bots and propagandists. Social media platforms aren't free speech platforms either, you're subject to their terms and conditions.
Ha. Well, you can read my post history. I routinely advocate that the United States go wipe out the Russian military in Ukraine and annihilate its capability to assault Ukraine and assert our hegemonic status. You might classify me as a Russia hawk.
I don't use social media besides I guess LinkedIn, but I don't think that platform is material here.
Given that I don't really use social media, in what way is my free speech destroyed? One of the fundamentally incorrect assumptions people make, as you are doing now, is that they assume that the mechanism (social media in this case) is what defines whether or not you are able to exercise free speech, but you will fail to produce a coherent argument when it comes to people such as myself who don't use the platforms.
I also enjoy watching folks turn themselves into a pickle defending the actions that the EU and UK are taking to curb free speech. These actions range from age verification, in, say Australia, to supposed hate speech curbs in the UK (you mentioned western civilization and defending free speech in that context, not me) to a number of actions taken by the EU or EU member states that also curb free speech. If you post something pro-Nazi in Germany on Facebook you'll go to jail. That's curbing your right to free speech.
The topic of this thread here is of course Arizona, but the US actually is far more permissive in speech than any other western country. Maybe you and others should spend more time focusing on other western nations, generally speaking.
> Show us your passport and one piece of recent utility bill to prove your hard earned right to post shit on the Internet.
When HN implements the feature, sure. For now I use my real name. How about you?
> There's no point in free speech if the only free speech is from bots and propagandists. Social media platforms aren't free speech platforms either, you're subject to their terms and conditions.
You're absolving the social media companies of why they continue choosing to amplify bots and extremist content in one big "community", rather than working towards creating smaller communities that can have social trust and social regulation.
That is the core perverse incentive here that actually needs to be addressed, and by sidestepping that you're then going off into the weeds with some mistaken idea that we can approach the problem by purifying who can use such websites.
I think we should just ban social media companies. If you want to create a small community walk outside and create one with your neighbors.
> and by sidestepping that you're then going off into the weeds with some mistaken idea that we can approach the problem by purifying who can use such websites.
On the other hand we have what we have today, propagandists, bots, hatred, &c.
It's like you're complaining about potential problems, but ignoring the current problems happening today are those potential problems.
I am also not "going off into the weeds" because I'm just responding to the OP.
> I think we should just ban social media companies.
Sure, great! Go right ahead! I honestly think sec 230 was a mistake. Not in that I want to see it reversed so the fascists currently in power can use the dynamic as a club to go after speech they don't like. But rather that I think the Internet would have developed healthier without it, and what it has enabled.
> On the other hand we have what we have today, propagandists, bots, hatred, &c.
You seem to be pigeonholing all of the problems into one bag. "Hatred" does not go away with real-name policies.
> It's like you're complaining about potential problems, but ignoring the current problems happening today are those potential problems.
No, I am pointing out that you're approaching this from the wrong angle. The core dynamic of the Internet has always been "don't trust what you read on the Internet". The lack of needing permission to communicate is precisely what has enabled so much innovation. Defining context is the responsibility of higher layers.
What changed from that core dynamic? The social media companies showed up, took unvetted and unfiltered streams of content, and presented them to the public as trustworthy finished products. "We'll figure out a better system than naive voting later". Well later never came, did it? At least Slashdot tried.
Facebook relies on real names, creating lists of bona fide friends, and can (could?) show you only posts from friends-of-friends, right? How does this differ from what you're proposing? If you're seeing Facebook posts from bots, you've either friended bots or Facebook is responsible for showing them to you, right?
> Facebook relies on real names, creating lists of bona fide friends, and can (could?) show you only posts from friends-of-friends, right? How does this differ from what you're proposing? If you're seeing Facebook posts from bots, you've either friended bots or Facebook is responsible for showing them to you, right?
I think I am just more aligned with, for example, the French president on his criticisms: https://archive.ph/JMrd4 (archive link to avoid Bloomberg paywall)
"“Having no clue about how their algorithm is made, how it’s tested, trained and where it will guide you — the democratic consequences of this bias could be huge,” Macron said Wednesday in New Delhi. “Some of them claim to be in favor of free speech — OK, we are in favor of free algorithms — totally transparent,” Macron said. “Free speech is pure bullshit if nobody knows how you are guided to this so-called free speech, especially when it is guided from one hate speech to another.”
I think this idea that social media companies are free speech platforms or should be treated as such, is incorrect and it's leading to bad outcomes. They are product companies selling you an experience of "being connected" and engaging with them is a matter of terms of service, not exercising a constitutional right.
> Sure, great! Go right ahead! I honestly think sec 230 was a mistake.
I would but it's not up to me. I am not sure Section 230 was a mistake, at least in principle. But if you think Sec 230 was a mistake what would social media companies do in response? Verify you. Which the government has access to...
> I think this idea that social media companies are free speech platforms or should be treated as such, is incorrect and it's leading to bad outcomes. They are product companies selling you an experience of "being connected" and engaging with them is a matter of terms of service
Yes I wholeheartedly agree with Macron's quote, and basically agree with your interpretation of it. Maybe you can see we have some common ground here and re-read what I wrote before? My critique isn't trying to reject that there is a problem. Rather I'd say my critique is that your proposed solution is specious and will enable worse things
> not exercising a constitutional right
Except individual users are also exercising a constitutional right. That's the problem - users' main modern ways of partaking in their constitutional rights are being modulated by corporations!
(Just to be clear though, I think the legal system's current framing of the owners/workers of Facebook having a "constitutional right" to control users' speech is utterly disingenuous)
> if you think Sec 230 was a mistake what would social media companies do in response? Verify you
Now that the situation has been set up, maybe, and maybe users would stand for this. But verification wouldn't actually resolve their problem when Joe Judgementproof posts fascist hate, they'd become jointly responsible for publishing it. The point is that the moral hazard created by sec 230 is precisely what has allowed the centralized social media industry to grow to the point it has.
>The point is that the moral hazard created by sec 230 is precisely what has allowed the centralized social media industry to grow to the point it has.
That's exactly the opposite of what Section 230 has done.
Section 230 doesn't stop anyone from suing folks who defame or otherwise break the law. Rather, it specifies that those who say such things are the proper target, not the platforms that host such third-party speech.
And that's the important point. Section 230 covers third-party speech. Because litigation is expensive. As such, it mostly protects the little guy who doesn't have the resources to fight tens, hundreds or thousands of lawsuits because some folks don't like the restaurant/movie reviews or opinions about the quality of book plots or political speech or the Epstein Files or a myriad of other things that folks don't like and wish people would shut up about.
Nothing stops an aggrieved part from suing an individual for the things that individual says. But Section 230 says you can't sue the platform (say the website, Matrix or XMPP server you personally host) for the speech of a third-party who uses that platform.
In the absence of Section 230, huge, deep-pocketed companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, et. al can pay for legions of lawyers to fight such lawsuits.
Do you have such deep pockets? Not all Internet content exists on those huge, deep-pocketed platforms. Many useful and interesting sites hosted by individuals or small businesses exist, but would be put out of business in a week if Section 230 didn't exist.
Getting rid of Section 230 would only cement the huge platforms' dominance and make them more unaccountable and powerful. Is that your goal? Not saying it is, but it's important to think through the impact of Section 230 beyond the (false and misleading) pronouncements of those who want to control you, your speech and the means of disseminating that speech.
I agree that removing section 230 today would have an even more centralizing effect. We've already got huge tech companies that would happily shoulder such liability, and lots of small sites that would find themselves in an uncomfortable position.
My point was that if we never had section 230 to begin with, then we would have kept the strong incentive against setting up sites revolving around centralizing speech in the first place. There would have been more emphasis on protocols, and keeping communication under the control of the person speaking.
>My point was that if we never had section 230 to begin with, then we would have kept the strong incentive against setting up sites revolving around centralizing speech in the first place.
Where did you get that idea? Section 230 never provided any preference or privilege to large organizations over small ones.
In fact, it did exactly the opposite for reasons I discussed. You say that without Section 230:
...lots of small sites that would find themselves in an uncomfortable
position.
That doesn't even come close to covering it. Without Section 230, your aunt would take down her knitting pattern discussion website/chat room/mailing list/whatever within half a day, with whoever it was posting something objectionable (or just off topic) and when your aunt deletes it, file a lawsuit claiming censorship.
How long is your aunt going to keep the completely free and volunteer site up when she has to pay lawyers $5-10K every week? And if she doesn't delete it, continue to flood the site with garbage until it's unusable, turning a knitting discussion site into 4/8chan.
All while doing nothing to stop the big boys from creating a dystopian hellhole because they have legions of lawyers on staff.
In fact, without Section 230, $BigCorp and/or other bad actors wouldn't even need to buy out their competition or wage costly efforts to destroy them, just post oceans of objectionable/off topic stuff, sue if it's taken down or wait for it to go under because its awash in garbage they posted there to make it unusable.
If we never had, or got rid of Section 230, your preferred candidate or issue advocacy group could trivially be taken down through these tactics, stifling free expression. Think fake DMCA take downs, but without recourse except through $500/hour lawyers and the courts.
Not sure where you got the idea that Section 230 ever was some sort of "giveaway" to big companies to encourage centralization. It was not, and even today it primarily protects the little guy, just as it did 30 years ago.
Do you have your mind made up and no amount of actual evidence will change it?
> Without Section 230, your aunt would take down her knitting pattern discussion website/chat room/mailing list/whatever within half a day, with whoever it was posting something objectionable (or just off topic) and when your aunt deletes it, file a lawsuit claiming censorship.
I don't want "my aunt" to be running a knitting pattern discussion website! I want "my aunt" to only be publishing/hosting what she herself writes, while her discussion partners each publish/host what they themselves write. I then want all of these messages stitched together to form a cohesive presentation on each person's computer, by software that represents their interests.
There was the better part of the decade after the CDA passed that the tech community was still focused on protocols that worked this way. Section 230 immunity made sites that centralized user content feasible rather than legally radioactive. Centralized sites then took off because they were easier to develop, and investment-wise they caused Metcalfe's law power to accrue to the entity running the site rather than to an abstract protocol.
I do agree that in the current context, there is a strong path dependence here - neutering section 230 would not rewind the clock. And the present political push is from a movement that wants to censor speech even harder than corpos already currently do. I'm talking about what could have been.
>There was the better part of the decade after the CDA passed that the tech community was still focused on protocols that worked this way.
Which protocols? I was designing and implementing networks throughout the 90s and aughts and I really don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps I wasn't in the right place at the right time?
Email mailing lists? IRC? Instant Messaging? NNTP? Those all would have been vulnerable to frivolous and malicious lawsuits without Section 230.
Honestly, I'm at a loss here. Please do enlighten me as to which protocols you're referring.
>I then want all of these messages stitched together to form a cohesive presentation on each person's computer, by software that represents their interests.
Sounds like you want personal ActivityPub platforms. I'm all for that. But nothing even approximating that existed in the 1990s. In fact, there's nothing like that now that a non-technical person can host for themselves.
I agree regarding listserv and NNTP. It's questionable whether IRC and IM would be treated as "publishers" without sec 230.
Perhaps your coming up was a little earlier than mine? My perspective included things like gnutella and edonkey. There was a general feeling of building new application protocols to support new types of applications. Hard problems that needed to be figured out, for sure. But also background baseline values of people running software they choose on their own computers.
For protocols, there was also websites themselves. Someone with something to say would host their own. And some rough solutions for distributed discovery there like webrings.
Then web 2.0 came along and swept that all away in favor of the old centralized-mainframe dumb-terminal model (3270->browser, rs232->http, 80x24->html).
> there's nothing like that now that a non-technical person can host for themselves.
Yes. All of the high-cost productization/advertising work to make software palatable to normies doesn't get done, because investment money heads towards technical architectures that are more capable of exfiltrating value from end users. So any software still based around representing the interests of its users gets relegated to developers scratching their own itch.
>I agree regarding listserv and NNTP. It's questionable whether IRC and IM would be treated as "publishers" without sec 230.
Firstly, the concept of "publisher" is irrelevant to Section 230, then and now. IRC and IM (at least chat rooms) require servers to host the back and forth. As such, the issues were exactly the same as with email or usenet. Section 230 protects the hosts of any platform that allows third-party content. Full stop. This whole "publisher vs. platform" thing is a canard and a malicious attempt to muddy the waters. The law itself does not make such a distinction, nor does the case law surrounding it.
>Perhaps your coming up was a little earlier than mine? My perspective included things like gnutella and edonkey. There was a general feeling of building new application protocols to support new types of applications. Hard problems that needed to be figured out, for sure. But also background baseline values of people running software they choose on their own computers.
Sure, I was aware of gnutella and edonkey and other peer to peer file sharing tools. And yes, you're correct that there was much discussion of peer to peer applications for, well, almost everything. And even before that, there was KA9Q[0] which I ran on my PC/XT back in 1990. But none of that really went anywhere once NCSA-Mosaic[1] was released and the web (as you mention below) was born.
>For protocols, there was also websites themselves. Someone with something to say would host their own. And some rough solutions for distributed discovery there like webrings.
Right, and Section 230 protected (and still does!) the hosts of those sites too, while Mark Zuckerberg was in middle school.
>Yes. All of the high-cost productization/advertising work to make software palatable to normies doesn't get done, because investment money heads towards technical architectures that are more capable of exfiltrating value from end users. So any software still based around representing the interests of its users gets relegated to developers scratching their own itch.
On that I kind of disagree. It's not so much that the normies aren't interested. They certainly would be if the could click to download and then follow an install script to set it up, and it just works.
Going all the way back to Diaspora[2], to pixelfed, mastodon and it's offshoots, etc., I've set up a variety of open source platforms that tried to fulfill that dream of personal ownership/possession of one's content.
As a technical person, most of them were installable with significant complexities, but none were simple to install for the non-technical user.
And that is/was because the developers didn't make it that way, not any sort of malicious conspiracy. In fact, I recall some discussion around Diaspora, with the developers saying they preferred to focus on functionality rather than ease of installation.
The developers of Fediverse projects have continued in that vein.
tl;dr, I think we're mostly in agreement here, but you seem to be a little confused about how Section 230 works/worked. No matter. It's all good. I certainly appreciate the discussion and your perspective. Thanks!
The chilling effect you’re supporting leads exactly to thriving of bots and propagandists while suppressing dissenting voices of regular people. Just look at any country where it is already fully or partially implemented.
>This is the current state, today, with anonymity.
whatever the current state, removing anonymity will remove dissenting voices of regular people.
> Which ones?
Russia for example. The sites where verification is implemented has become pro-government bot cesspools.
Here you mentioned LinkedIn - it is where pro-Russian propaganda runs free (especially if compare to for example HN where people freely respond to it), and it is exactly where my even pretty mild response to it got me almost banned, and so I don’t engage it there anymore.
I wonder how do you square your de-anonymity of speech position with anonymity of voting, or do also think that voting should not be anonymous?
> whatever the current state, removing anonymity will remove dissenting voices of regular people.
I don't think so. It may moderate them, which given our political environment is likely to be a good thing.
> Here you mentioned LinkedIn - it is where pro-Russian propaganda runs free (especially if compare to for example HN where people freely respond to it), and it is exactly where my even pretty mild response to it got me almost banned, and so I don’t engage it there anymore.
Well I don't know what the specific example is. I've seen pro/anti all sorts of things on LinkedIn and when I do I unfollow or find another way to hide the content. But it's also not super engaging. Why is that? Because, well, firstly LinkedIn is a heaping pile of garbage, but also because money, careers, and more are at stake. If you find a pro/anti anything post and start saying really crazy stuff, yea someone might tell your employer about it. How LinkedIn moderates its discussions I think is a separate issue, and, frankly, is yet another demonstration that these platforms are simply not "free speech" and using them means you agree to the terms of service which allows them to moderate how they see fit.
When folks complain about these algorithms or the wrong group buying their favorite platform, there is a very easy and simple solution which is to just stop using them and delete your account. Then, nobody is policing your speech.
> I wonder how do you square your de-anonymity of speech position with anonymity of voting, or do also think that voting should not be anonymous?
I think voting should be anonymous, but you should have identification for voting issued by the state. It's an exercise of your constitutional right, and there are plenty of mechanical and morally good reasons for it. Yelling the most obscene shit imaginable on TikTok is not even in the same ballpark and is not exercising a Constitutional right.
Well, I think a more charitable spin would be he really does see that robots taxis are just around the corner and it is entirely plausible that Tesla will be able to deliver them. After all, despite whatever flaws they have and they certainly have some, you can go out today and buy a production car that does essentially drive itself.
When I was growing up, that was absolutely science fucking fiction. You’re telling me I get in this car and touch a piece of glass and then it drives itself? Incredible. Maybe the future really could get here fast.
I think that’s a little more charitable. I have a Tesla, won’t buy another one because Elon sucks, wouldn’t touch the stock, I think he’s generally turned in to a con artist, &c.
> Either way, Tesla now has to pitch electric cars to right-wing climate-change deniers, which is not a great strategy to adopt voluntarily or otherwise.
What’s funny to me is that I legitimately think that the day-to-day experience owning an EV is significantly better than the day-to-day experience owning a gas car. They could have slowly ignited or not emphasized the environment and just focused on it as future tech and it may well work. Over the years owning one I’ve had many a curious person drive by the Supercharger in their car, often times a truck too, and ask about the ownership experience.
EVs by association got this hippie-dippie connotation but that’s because the Prius looks like it does, but the Model 3 is quite nice and I think the perception could be overcome by just making damn cool cars.
> They will sell their gas at discount to China until the very end.
Yes and no. There's a minimum price they need to sell it, and somewhere in between they may not actually make enough between the minimum and sale price to actually fund their military. Nevermind the awesome job you guys are doing blowing up refineries and other industrial facilities. It'll be good when Europe stops importing Russian gas and steps up their seizure of sanctioned ships too.
Sanctions can and will work against Russia. Part of the strain they face today is due to these sanctions, it just takes awhile and in the meantime, unfortunately, there are people dying.
I favor harsher sanctions against Russia but let's not be too optimistic. It doesn't take much funding to recruit a poor, desperate guy from the outer provinces, hand him a surplus rifle, and send him into a human wave attack. In a perverse sort of way, killing off those guys might actually be reducing Russian government expenses.
The bad thing is, they always did this and it worked.
The good thing is, those russians stopped growing back with birthrates being one of the lowest in the world.
We might just see a world without any russians in a few decades. What a dream
Probably the parent lives in one of the countries neighboring with Russia and unfortunately Russia is very unfriendly towards its neighbors, invading them when it wants, so you live in constant fear. From that perspective, this is just a variation of "I want to live in peace" expressed in an extreme way.
Many welcomed the Nazis when they invaded Eastern Europe because they relieved them from the Soviets. When literal Nazis are perceived as the better option you can imagine the alternative isn't very shiny.
Part of Russian propaganda over the years has been this view of the "clean Red Army". You see it all over the Internet. "American history books teach it wrong". It was the Soviets, they insist, that fought the good war and good victory over the Nazis and western powers only fought the frail, old German army in the west.
Reality on the ground is much different. While the Soviets did bear the brunt of the Nazi onslaught, what is often overlooked is their own culpability in the war (invading and splitting Poland in partnership with the Nazis, &c) and their evil annexations of peoples and countries that were nearby as part of their own power-grab. In other words, part of the reason they were in the war in the first place is because they joined the Nazis in effectively kicking it off, at least in Europe.
Soviet apologists also tend to forget that the United States and other anglo powers* simultaneously fought the Nazis in the west, took down the Japanese, invaded and liberated Italy, the Philippines, and more, fought and won in North Africa, and did all of this while providing the Soviets with the equipment they needed to stay in the war. Nevermind staging additional campaigns and operations, such as those in China to aid them against Japanese occupation.
* I don't intend to suggest that it was only the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada that fought the good fight because we undoubtedly received heroic contributions from numerous allies and friends during the war.
To be fair, American propaganda had the same effect. For example, in South America, if you ask the average person about WW2, people will talk about USA mostly. Most people would be surprised if you told them that URSS had 24 million deaths, almost 50x what USA had. I'm not saying that USA didn't play a major role, but it's weird how it is the only country besides Germany that is ingrained in America (continent) mind when you talk about WW2
That stuff isn't working very well at the moment though. The poor desperate guys are getting killed by drones faster than they can be recruited. And Russia's other thing at sending missile at cities is quite expensive.
Maybe you should update your epistemology and stop listening to the guys that said so; I listen to the experts who say (since 2022) sanctions hurt, but russia is like a big tree - even if you poison it, it won't fall on the next day; it doesn't help that russia has disproportionately big spy network - people will take more abuse before they rebel against their government.
It is a known strawman argument. The sanctions weren't introduced because someone was convinced they will make Russia fail or what not, they were introduced because this was the only thing we could do barring military action that nobody was ready for. We knew they will have a negative impact on Russian economy but nobody was hoping for a miracle. Countries like Iran or North Korea were living under sanctions for years and they are much smaller. I haven't seen anybody arguing otherwise, barring YouTube clickbaity "Russia is falling" videos.
I don't think there are strategic lies here. Russia's war machine and their economy have taken a massive hit from sanctions. The news/media cycle and "experts" obviously want to make money and recycle the same stories and "any day now" kind of rhetoric, but that doesn't make sanctions any less of a great option.
It's also possible to run an economy on empty for a long, long time provided there's a war on. Look at Germany, who literally ran the country on empty throughout all of WWII, books like Adam Tooze's "Wages of Destruction" cover this in great detail. There was a saying in the last few years, "enjoy the war, the peace will be terrible", and it was, because once you took the wartime tourniquet off all the toxins flooded your body. It wasn't until the Marshall Plan that the bare subsistence life was slowly eradicated.
Now, can you see anyone giving Putin's kleptocracy a few trillion dollars to rebuild Рашка? The Marshall Plan rebuilt Germany because the US realised that without that as the economic powerhouse of Europe the place would be a basket case in need of US support for decades, but when you're just a gas station masquerading as a country (McCain) no-one's going to bail you out except insofar as it keeps the gas flowing, and if you look at places like Nigeria you don't need much to keep the gas flowing.
> can you see anyone giving Putin's kleptocracy a few trillion dollars
Unfortunately, if the leaks are true, they might actually be discussing that.
"Fortunately" Putin is more bent on having the whole Donbas which Ukraine will not give so I don't believe this happens in the near future - which is bad for Russia as a country.
Russia has one of the biggest war chests in the world, huge reserves of carbon fuel that it can afford to sell under market rates, and is supported by China. It can sustain even hardest sanctions for a long while, lifting them certainly wouldn’t help.
> huge reserves of carbon fuel that it can afford to sell under market rates,
Under market rates sure, but it must still be profitable. China and India know that, so they're going to drive down the price to the extent they can so that it's just barely profitable. But you can't just profit from the oil and gas, you need to profit enough to buy fighter jets and tanks, and all sorts of other things.
Russia sells wheat too. Minerals too. Weapons. You will be surprised the oil part isnt at 100% as what western media is telling you. Plus this source is mostly based on what western finance can see. BRICS dont submit data to westrrn finance analysyst anymore since 3 years ago. Anything you want to buy stock or trade you must absolutely ignore western hypes. Incredibly unreliable.
Russia had been under sanctions since 2014 and in January of 2015 its economy was already "in tatters", as reported by Obama in the State of the Union that year. Then, in March of 2022, great Joe Biden proclaimed that he has turned "ruble into rubble". I am sure the 20 packages of sanctions since then destroyed anything that left and it's really just vacuum in place of Russian economy now... Why end the lies if you can call anyone pointing them out a Russian bot?
Any form of exaggeration is counter-productive. Russian economy is going slowly down, with the main cause being the war or Putin's need to fund it, and in a part also because of sanctions. But it can be low for decades, Russians will never go out on streets about it. But hopefully when Putin dies Russia returns to normal relations with the rest of the world and this bad epoch can end.
Saying the same thing without exaggerating doesn't make it true. Russian economy is growing, it's the rate of growth is going down. As for Russia returning to normal relations with the rest of the world: it's normal already. Russia cooperates with the majority of the world's population in China, India, Brazil etc.
Or, as Reshetnikov says, Russia's economy will continue to slow down in the first half of 2026. The prices will continue to increase, soldiers will continue to die in thousands. India announced they will not buy Russian oil, so the only major buyer will be China, driving the price even further down.
I have several friends in Russia, and I do wish them well, but it will be difficult to get back to normal as long as Putin is alive.
I am not sure where did you get this, there is no such announcement publicly available.
> but it will be difficult to get back to normal as long as Putin is alive
There won't be a return to the 1990s-2000s subservient state, which you seem to be calling "normal". Whomever comes to replace Putin is going to be way more nationalist than the guy who spent more than half of his life in the USSR, being a Party member, and working in the field of internationalist politics.
> 1990s-2000s subservient state, which you seem to be calling "normal".
No need to go that far, I visited Moscow a few times before 2014 and it was more or less fine. I'd say 2 decades behind the West but OK. What is now is a big mess with Russia being an international pariah. This is bad and also unfair to millions of people who don't care about imperialistic ambitions of Putin and just want to live their lives in peace.
There's always the question of where exactly you're referring to and what kind of crime you're referring to. But I assumed that's what the parent post was referring to.
Well, they're more aligned with Larry Ellison's than they are the CCP, even if they're probably not all that aligned.
Separately I don't particularly care who owns TikTok. I've never used it. But if someone is going to own Tiktok and people are going to voluntarily subject themselves to these algorithms and the owner’s intentions, I'd prefer it to be Americans (or another western country).
I can't stop the influence of it on my life by not using it. Perhaps it's not as straightforward as it seems to you.
China didn't seem to be doing much with it, as far as the West goes. Not sure if they were using it against their citizens though? Much safer to have it Chinese controlled for me, it seems.
You suggesting that China was "anti American" sounds crazy to me. They were surely your biggest trading partner? Like, I hate all those guys so much that we're going to make everything they want at whatever price they want to pay ...? In the past it might have been possible to argue they were anti-American in their politics; like opposing democracy, or rounding up nationals, ... but USA does as badly (worse?) on those things.
What it looks like is China was 'winning' the trade balance and USA's billionaires decided to take a break from raping teenagers to throw all the citizens on the fire to try and leverage their position to bring in fascism as a means to enriching themselves even further. Go USA, eh.
> I can't stop the influence of it on my life by not using it. Perhaps it's not as straightforward as it seems to you.
Yea but you can stop what would be 80+% of the influence on your life by not using it. It is very straightforward.
> China didn't seem to be doing much with it, as far as the West goes.
China (and other malicious actors) have demonstrably leveraged social media platforms to inflame tensions, create anti-American and anti-Western sentiment, and more. With platforms like TikTok they were able to more directly influence content, they understand the algorithm that is used, &c.
But let me put it to you from a different angle. If you don't think China was or could have been using TikTok to influence Americans and westerners in general, then I'd suggest the US had nothing to do with, oh, idk, the Arab Spring. :)
> Not sure if they were using it against their citizens though? Much safer to have it Chinese controlled for me, it seems.
Well they have other platforms for that, social credit score, TVs on every corner, &c. Much safer for me to have it American controlled so I don't have an authoritarian Chinese communist party trying to influence me or anyone around me, or further inflaming tensions for their own gain.
> You suggesting that China was "anti American" sounds crazy to me. They were surely your biggest trading partner? Like, I hate all those guys so much that we're going to make everything they want at whatever price they want to pay ...? In the past it might have been possible to argue they were anti-American in their politics;
Well it's not just Americans and Canadiens, it's the EU too. The strategy was to leverage incredibly cheap labor (slave labor in some cases) and loose environmental restrictions to start manufacturing cheap goods and then move up the value chain. Inherently there's nothing to wrong with the approach (minus the slave labor and all of that), but as China continued to do so they did so while also undercutting competitiveness from other countries and blocs. They artificially devalue their currency, they routinely broke WTO rules so much so that other countries said to hell with it. The EU for example has historically tariffed Chinese products. Why? Because if they don't then local industries in the EU with long summer vacations and all of these nice things would be out-competed and out of business.
This isn't really controversial or anything. It's pretty well known, and from an American standpoint the point of view with respect to China is rather bipartisan.
Whether a policy decision creates effects that "harm" consumers isn't the only facet of international trade policy that has to be considered. In fact, it may be one of the least important depending on what exactly that harm is.
> Lawyers said tech and C-suite executives were among those to have had visas denied apparently on the basis of comparatively minor historic offences such as cannabis use, bar fights and driving under the influence of alcohol, in a sign of how far-reaching the US anti-immigration drive has become.
It wasn't clear to me from the article whether this applied to UK citizens or citizens working in the UK under a visa? Maybe someone can clarify or point out where I missed this clarification.
I'd also like to point out that, while this is probably boneheaded, many countries have asinine visa rules.
You aren't permitted to be there on a student visa and also make money from YouTube or other similar sites. Though anything that reduces "influencers" is a net good so I'm not actually complaining about this, but mainstream viewpoints find this jarring.
Also, I don’t recall where this setting is, but make the default behavior such that if someone finds you and tries to connect with you, they actually follow you instead. This cuts down aggressively on spammers because in order to actually connect with you they would have to view your profile, open the … menu, and then click connect. If they aren’t paying attention they’ll just follow you instead of connect which means you can broadcast to them but they can’t broadcast to you.
reply