Two Experiences Rekindle the Debate. Fancy digs on the A What could possibly ruin this? Even more astounding is how many of these kids are traveling in first or business class.
Platforms, Speech And Truth: I'm about to talk about an issue that has a lot of nuance in it and no clear "good" answers -- and it's also one that many people have already made up their minds on one way or the other, and both sides will probably not really like at least part of what I have to say.
You get to live your own life. But, at the very least, I hope people can acknowledge that sometimes issues are more complex than they appear and having a nuanced discussion can be helpful, and I hope people can appreciate that.
This is a long post, so I'm going to provide a TLDR at the top right under this, in factbut as noted above, a part of the reason it's long is because it's a complex issue and there's a lot of nuance.
So I strongly advise that if your initial response to my TLDR version is "fuck you, you're so wrong because Internet sites have every right in the world to kick people off their platforms, and there's no legal or ethical problem with that.
No one's free speech is being censored. That said, we should be at least a bit concerned about the idea that giant internet platforms get to be some sort of arbiter of what speech is okay and what speech is not, and how that can impact society more generally.
But there are possible solutions to this, even if none are perfect and some may be difficult to implement, and we should explore those more thoroughly, rather than getting into screaming fights over who should or shouldn't be allowed to use various internet platforms.
So, this post was originally going to be about the choices that Facebook and other internet platforms make concerning who is allowed on their platforms, specifically in response to an interview that Mark Zuckerberg gave back in July, in which he noted that he didn't think Facebook should remove Holocaust deniers from its platform, saying: I find that deeply offensive.
I just think, as abhorrent as some of those examples are, I think the reality is also that I get things wrong when I speak publicly. But it's a complex, nuanced topic, and I was trying to write a complex nuanced post. And just as I was getting somewhere with it This created another furor in the other direction, with people talking about deplatforming, censorship, free speech, monopoly power, and policing truth.
And then when Twitter chose not to follow the lead of those other platforms, we were right back to a big furor about keeping hateful wackjob conspiracy theory assholes on your platform, and whether or not you should want to do that.
Chances are no matter what I say is going to piss off pretty much everyone, but let's do the stupid thing and try to address a complex and extremely nuanced topic on the internet, with unflagging optimism that maybe just maybe people on the internet will for a moment at least hold back their kneejerk reactions of "good" or "bad" and try to think through the issues.
Let's start with a few basic principles: Whether you like it or not and you should actually like itcorporations do get rights, and that includes their First Amendment rights to have their sites appear how they want, along with deciding who not to associate with.
On top of that, again, despite what you may have heard online about Section of the CDA, platforms not only have the right to moderate what's on their platform without legal liability, they are actually encouraged to do so by that law. Indeed, if anyone knows this, it's Alex Jones, since Infowars' own terms of service makes it clear that Infowars can boot anyone it wants: It is not censorship if you violate the rules and your post is deleted.
All civilizations have rules and if you violate them you can expect to be ostracized from the tribe. One of the rare cases where I can say that, hey, that Alex Jones guy is absolutely right about that and we'll leave aside the hypocrisy about him now flipping out about other sites applying those same rules on him.
A separate point that also is important, and gets regularly ignored, is that "banning" someone from these platforms often has the opposite impact of what was intended. Depending on the situation, it might not quite be a "Streisand Effect" situation, but it does create a martyr situation, which supporters will automatically use to double down on their belief that they're in the right position, and people are trying to "suppress the truth" or whatever.
Also, sometimes it's useful to have "bad" speech out in the open, where people can track it, understand it Indeed, often hiding that bad speech not only lets it fester, but dulls our ability to counter it, respond to it and understand who is spreading such info and how widely.
So, really, the question comes down to whether or not these platforms should be removing these kinds of accounts.
But, before we should even answer that question, there's a separate question, which is: What options are there for platforms to deal with content that they disfavor?
Unfortunately, many people assume that it's a binary choice. You either keep the content up, or you take it down. But that hardly gets at the long list of possible alternatives.
You can encourage good behavior and discourage bad behavior say, with prompts if the system senses you're doing something bad, or with reminders, or by a community calling you out for bad behavior or lots of other options. Depending on the platform, you can minimize the accessibility or findability of certain content.
You can minimize the reach of certain content. You can append additional information or put a "warning flag" on content. You can "shadow ban" content.
You can promote "good" content to go with any content you deem to be bad.There is no hijab enforcement in Afghanistan, but it is predominantly worn. In the midth century many women in urban areas did not wear head covering, but this ended with the outbreak of civil war in the s.
The Afghan chadri is a regional style of burqa with a mesh covering the eyes. It has been worn by Pashtun women since pre-Islamic times and was historically seen as a mark of. Sagging is a manner of wearing trousers or jeans which sag so that the top of the trousers or jeans are significantly below the waist, sometimes revealing much of the underwear..
Sagging is predominantly a male fashion.
Women's wearing of low-rise jeans to reveal their G-string underwear (the "whale tail") is not generally described as sagging. A person wearing sagging trousers is sometimes. October ·there is a section in English on enwikt and a section in English on frwikt => the interwiki link to the French Wiktionary will be blue· here is a section in English on enwikt but no section in English on frwikt => the interwiki link to the French Wiktionary will be green (or another colour)· There is no section in English on enwikt and.
News and Breaking News - Headlines Online including Latest News from Australia and the World. Read more News Headlines and Breaking News Stories at Herald Sun.
The fashion industry should ban models that are too skinny because there are people who look at these models and desire to be like them, no matter how unhealthy they may actually be. On that note, models should also be banned if they are too skinny for the sake of their own safety and health rather than encouraging them to get skinnier and more.
Nov 16, · Yahoo India Answers Sign in Sign in Mail ⚙ Help Account Info; Help; Send feedbackStatus: Resolved.