aphasial t1_j91kn5g wrote

Pretty sure Elon buying it out actually constitutes "meaningful tech oversight" over a "culture [of] the inside."

No one would have been hankering for it, and Elon would never have threatened and them gotten forced to follow through with, a purchase if it hadn't been failing its own oversight and failing to stay neutral on public debates to begin with.


aphasial t1_j87mgtd wrote

Gerrymandering does not affect the US Senate or the Electoral College (other than ME and NE).

The US Senate is your best measure of what the realistic trajectory of the US is, and is definitely nowhere near as left as rando Redditors wish it were,


aphasial t1_j60vol2 wrote

I mean, I agree that there's plenty to talk about here when it comes to whether this is a good idea, or fair.

But plenty of people in this and similar threads are arguing around legality and rights of entry. And while that NY liquor law is interesting, I get the impression most of those arguing as such are simply suffering from the collective, seemingly-generation-wide illusion that discrimination not involving protected classes is somehow illegal.


aphasial t1_j5zj8oz wrote

This isn't a troll -- in fact I'm not certain the rest of you aren't trolling (with the caveat that: https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/10l7d41/comment/j5xdf1b/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 , which as someone not living in New York, I can't speak to)

Other than that (i.e., elsewhere), so long as discrimination isn't happening involving a Protected Class, venues can kick out or block entry to whomever they want. A venue (though maybe not in NY) has the right to refuse service to anyone if they so choose and that's that. Elsewhere there would be no legal question at all here.


aphasial t1_j5zihk4 wrote

Thanks... this is the first response that actually addresses the question.

That seems like a weird law, but I live 2000 miles away in California. Does that apply to venues in general or only to liquor stores? (In CA I believe that would be an open vs closed container distinction...)

While there are additional regulations whenever ABC is involved, in CA so long as we're not dealing with protected classes, venues absolutely have the right to refuse service, kick someone out, 86 them entirely, or otherwise control access, and the liquor license doesn't block them from it.

Is this statewide in NY or just a NYC thing?


aphasial t1_j5x24xn wrote

Lawyers are very f*cking aware that they are not average, ordinary citizens when it comes to their private life.

And while IANAL (I work in tech), there have been times when entire subdomains have been blocked from registering or participating in some activity as a result of pending litigation -- secretaries' work email addresses included.


aphasial t1_j5wv8fp wrote

Most of the rampant chaos of Big Tech happened under the Obama Administration (with the Silicon Valley to DC pipeline), but this is one thing that can be blamed squarely on the Bush Admin.

Google should NEVER have been allowed to buy Doubleclick, and the conflict of interest between search engines and ad networks should have been clearly called out and thus the markets kept distinct.

The internet (and world) would be a lot different now if that'd happened.


aphasial t1_j48env8 wrote

That would require environmentalists to allow California to build proper water infrastructure and capital improvements in the form of more and better dams. instead of using their control over the Legislature to browbeat the populace for any water usage and put farmers out of business.


aphasial t1_j2xcvqq wrote

Did Fark have anything beyond Fark and Total Fark that would affect filtering via account subscribe/follow links? I seem to be it being a straight weblog stream. Slashdot had a following->newsfeed feature for things like blog stories, but I don't recall that it ever really got a ton of use (or maybe that was just me).

If your social circle (especially friends-of-friends) is large enough, then IMO there isn't much of a difference. On any given day I might have 1200x400 different users and posts available to me, and the FB algorithm has to sort them somehow, even before getting to the "out of the blue" or paid microtargetting ads it wants to show. If someone wants to manipulate your perceptive worldview, they can do it using existing opt-ins with the amount of metadata they've got.


aphasial t1_j2xc8yy wrote

>It will be another ten or twenty years before the shift is felt more fully, but their willingness to go with an outsider like Donald Trump back in 2016 shows, at least to me, that they were cognizant of the problems in the propaganda strategy which has consistently won them elections since the 1980s.

Hardly. Much more a result of things like this:



If someone at FB (thanks for admitting that "Big Tech goes overwhelmingly for the other party") wants to lean on the algorithms and features, it'd be easy to rationalize. Just look at some of the internal discussions from the Twitter team from two years ago about the NY Post (or... anything else) for an example.


aphasial t1_j2w906i wrote

I mean... This is not news. Recommendation engines have been driving things since at least 2012, and basically as far back as Facebook's developers realizing that there were ways to alter user behavior based on automatic filters and prioritization being applied to the News Feed (second only to the "Share" button in importance to the rise of the modern hellscape).

Frankly, I think there's only this near-concern-trolling awareness occurring because suddenly the "wrong" people are in control of the algorithms and platforms. Conservatives have been complaining about the ability of social media to direct attention towards and away from what its designers desire for a decade now.


aphasial t1_j16re92 wrote

Both 12K year cycles and the fact that the last ice age ended about 11,500 years ago are pretty well-accepted positions. In fact, this was a central aspect of the "global cooling" scare of the 1970s.

Long term, most of the climate change alarmism going on about the next century is alarmism that just so happens to align with a lot of left-wing political goals at the same time.

While conservation of hydrocarbons is something we should shoot for regardless, the simple fact is that humanity has to technology it's way out of any number of climate challenges in the centuries to come, and developing that tech should be the top priority over 98% of the current performative and virtue signaling behavior over AGW.