And John Berardi.
Those weekly nutrition articles and Q&A’s…that could be followed up with discussion on the Forums was some amazing stuff,
All of this was ON TOP OF a number of diets and research articles that John would share openly and freely,
2 Likes
Savage.
3 Likes
Another “smart” one.
Ann C seems to know just the right moment to pop up and say something controversial in order to maintain her relevance.
I don’t disagree, and I’m generally not a fan, but few have her gift of venom.
1 Like
DAMN she can spit it out, can’t she?
(I have always envisioned her as some one who likes to have rough sex with young black and Latino Gang Members…)
Maybe she will steal this line…
Of course not. I’d no sooner expect myself to be free of bias than I would an algorithm to return results that are 100 percent “fair”, however fairness might be measured.
It seems like a liberty-minded solution is achievable, other than “let the market correct itself” when there is no expectation that will happen and, if it does, will likely play out over decades. The control of information that these tech companies have is consolidating, not dissipating. I don’t believe that trend will reverse. There will be another tik-tok that comes along, and another snapchat, but these will all be applications on the fringe of social media’s core that is already firmly established.
What makes that different from other markets and products? It is right there in the name, Social Media. With a multi-billion user head start, the positive network externalities provide a competitive advantage that puts any new company at a tremendous competitive disadvantage.
These guys all won the game fair and square, mind you. They made the best products that attracted the most users, but now we have a digital marketplace with no real historical precedent that’s also taken on the role of Town Square. It won’t take much for these companies to ease into a role just like WeChat.
If you don’t know about WeChat, don’t download and install it. Learn what it is before you do that.
It should always be with the end user, in my opinion. The need for people to be protected from words is way overblown. That doesn’t mean I’m suggesting a forum free-of-moderation, as others are now characterizing my argument. I’m not sure how anyone would infer that, unless they were deliberately misrepresenting my argument for reasons known only to them. I was quite clear about “easily agreed-upon guidelines”, but apparently some people read that and conclude that I’m suggesting Twitter be unmoderated.
The more I think about it, the more “Elected Official Twitter” makes sense to me. The only conflict I see is the need for easily-agreed-upon community standards that, if enforced on an elected official, brings up the same questions that a court ruled on whenever Trump first plainly violated the community standards. You have to let those guys speak. Fine, give them a green checkmark or whatever and warn the users that community standards can’t be enforced on elected officials.
I’m done with nuanced discussion for now. Back to the easy life.
How about a fact check link?
MySpace?
Google Plus?
Oh, but you have that already. Here’s Tom Cotton engaging in his quasi-fascist fantasies and it’s clearly marked that he’s an “US Senate candidate, AR”.
No problem here as it’s his opinion. He didn’t falsely state as a fact that someone’s dead wife was a whore.
Again, the solution is here, staring you in the face. What you’re doing is inventing a more convoluted and complex scheme so that one person could lie about someone’s dead wife.
I don’t know why our elected officials should get a pass when it comes to community standards. Are they in the Politburo or something?
I actually agree with this to an extent. I am not a person who believes there is no such thing as good and proper regulation. My issue is with the current person, motives, and method of solution. This is not something that should be an EO, but if effected it should be passed by Congress through the entire process and then scrutinized by SCOTUS. I do not want the precedent of an administration embarking on this through what is essentially attempted fiat. This will set the bar far too low for future meddling by administrations.
I’m not sure I agree. Currently consolidating yes, but I believe society goes in cycles and the cycle of the “network” dominance in it’s current form will eventually be over. I will admit it may be too long to wait for current situations.
Agreed, but that’s impractical for a few reasons. However, what I was really getting at with this comment is that the demand for filtering information is practically based, on account of nobody wants to sift through 300 pages of search to find the most relevant results… However, “most relevant” is at least partly determined by a human. Hence, I don’t believe you can ever have a fully impartial search or information filter. Besides, “easily agreed upon” is not so easy once you start digging a little deeper.
I don’t think that’s what he’s doing. Other people on this forum might, but I think he’s making a different point.
It’s almost like you’ve read and understood the words I wrote but…
You just aren’t quite brilliant enough to read between the lines and realize that I’m actually talking about a deeply hypocritical, convoluted regulation scheme while also suggesting that Twitter should have no moderation at all so it will fail at business. Why?
Because I have no soul.
4 Likes
True. But at some point this will have to be tackled, and you yourself called for “easily agreed upon” standards. Which is why I raise the point. Or perhaps I misunderstood.
It was a choice of words that just means reasonable. Someone will always disagree, but that’s life. Again, I imagine the general standards of twitter are probably working just fine.
Youtube used to have reasonable standards, until people started getting videos removed or demonitized for reasons that could not be explained beyond “violation of guidelines”.
1 Like
Have you all listened the JRE podcast with Jack Dorsey and Tim Poole? They get into the censorship, etc. It was pretty interesting.
1 Like
So yesterday Trump walked out of the White House accross the street and to a church that had been vandalised the night before during the riots so he could hold up a bible for a pre-planned press photo op.
The problem: Trump ordered an overwhelming number of riot police to engage the peaceful protesters outside the whitehouse, tear gas them, and have rubber bullets shot at them until they moved back to clear city blocks of room for Trump to make his brave walk to the church and hold up a bible.
now, i have no problem with using force to disperse violent or destructive protests…especially non-lethal force. But, the daytime protests across the country have by and large been overwhelmingly peaceful, and that especially goes for the daytime protests outside the whitehouse and the trump administration knows this. Yet they still felt it was prudent to violently confront and suppress the peaceful protest so that Trump could get his photo op, not to use as a symbol of unity to help this nation heal and bring us together, but to specifically stump for the white bible belt’s vote in the upcoming election. It was so obvious and disgusting that Fox News even ran an article on it.
1 Like
Watching him use the Bible as a prop never gets old. Essentially everyone knows he’s not a Christian and has no knowledge of the Bible. But when you run as a Republican you have to fake things for evangelicals and they apparently either can’t pick up on it or simply don’t care.
The only better obvious physical pandering is when he comes out and dry humps flags.
This tells you that, in spite of what some want to believe, cops, soldiers, etc., are more likely to do what they are told and not what’s right.
Or, they know he is pandering and they enjoy having the power to make him pander.
The disgust I have for what happened yesterday knows no bounds
1 Like