That's the Sinclair Broadcast Group forcing the news orgs they own to read from the same script. They also had "must run" news segments that include conservative commentary. That doesn't mean Russia isn't a threat to democracy world wide, it just means we have a problem with mega corps owning too much media. I don't think that gives the US an excuse to spy on our own citizens however.
We set up a pleroma instance on OpenBSD a while back. It works pretty well. Kind of a pain to get set up due to version mismatches of elixir and Erlang and what not, but it wasn't too painful. I imagine it's a lot easier on a supported distro like Debian. Can't wait to upgrade for the new chat system. Hopefully that goes well on OpenBSD.
Note the .004 overall "Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio". Quite a few conservative outlets are indicating a true IFR of .26% based on this, instead of the .4 - .6% a lot of recent studies have indicated. Interesting stuff. I think that would indicate we must have had 33000000 cases by 4/29/2020 in the U.S. alone.
The weird thing is that, a year ago, if you asked me where "private companies should be able to make their own decisions about what content they publish" falls on the spectrum, I would have considered it to be right of center.
I guess it comes down to whether these justices are ideologically "right-leaning", or just Republican partisans.
From my observations left leaning means apply liberal criteria to decisions. Right leaning means adhere to the Constitution and law of the United States of America.
And how did you get to that conclusion? I mean the "right" has been failing to adhere to the Constitution since like forever. The Constitution does not allow restrictions on abortion, but it was affirmed by Supreme Court by Republican majority. The Constitution does not allow warrantless spying on American citizens, but it was affirmed by Supreme Court under a Republican majority. The Constitution does not say that I am free to pollute your lands with my toxic coal smoke spewing smoke stacks without paying for the damage caused, yet our Supreme Court under a Republican majority has decided it does.
From my perspective, left-meaning means having a close association with reality and pragmatism, and right-leaning means do and say anything to make the rich richer.
You can twist the Constitution in both directions.
You could say that the value of free speech is so important to society that it is codified on the Constitution. These companies that become big enough platforms should respect that value.
You could also say that the Constitution provides free speech protections to everyone. These companies should benefit from those same protections, thus the government shouldn't be able to interfere what these companies publish.
I defy anyone to write a rule with any kind of specificity for the first case.
User count? Great, while the user count is < N the platform is moderated and popular. As soon as the user count exceeds N it's instantly a cesspool of spam and porn. Then what, it bleeds users and drifts back into the first category again? They're going to write subjective distinctions on the content of the speech into the law to differentiate between spam, porn, porn-spam, and political speech?
It doesn't work! If it could work, please, anyone who reads this comment: Many of us are programmers here, propose a rule that doesn't fall apart.
The second interpretation is at least consistent, even if it does protect corporations.
If Twitter is the devil just leave Twitter, no one has to use it. Gab exists. We have no legal right to access the people who are on Twitter.
That is odd as it means there is no left and right debate. A society choose. Law is what the society agreed. And you said the us society you in, unlike Eu say, are right leaning.
Whilst it might be, but is the left in us is already right (like Obama use Romey Insuranve not single payer). Or are we in mix economy some are left some are right. Or left right actually many different things like large and small Gov,liberty, ownership, ...
Or is there something like open source which is beyond left and right but community, not gov vs market etc.
Hello, 5-month-old account. Please take the time to substantiate your assertions. For example, I assert that you're observations are ridiculous and here is some empirical evidence on which I base my assertion:
"There were only three areas in which Rehnquist showed any interest in enforcing the constitutional guarantee of free expression: in cases involving advertising, religious expression and campaign finance regulation. Rehnquist was 2.6 times more likely to invalidate laws restricting commercial advertising than laws restricting political or artistic expression. He voted to invalidate campaign finance legislation 67 percent of the time, and he voted to invalidate restrictions on religious expression 100 percent of the time. Indeed, in non-unanimous decisions, Rehnquist was 14.7 times more likely to vote to invalidate a law restricting commercial advertising, campaign expenditures, or religious expression than one involving any other aspect of 'the freedom of speech, or of the press.'"[1]
I'd argue he's narcissistic and his motives may have both been self-serving, but also not strictly financial. I'd also argue he probably doesn't have the foresight to predict weather or not this would end up being good or bad for him financially. It's all speculation at the end of the day, however. Just gotta watch what he does and draw our own conclusions from there.
My characterization of him is similar to yours: a narcissist with a fragile ego and a desire for adulation, with an overestimated sense of his own abilities. I think he has some sort of idiot-savant ability to manipulate the media, isn't REALLY that financially savvy, probably has a genuine desire to "Make America Great Again" (by whatever metrics that represents in his not-very-objective head), but is totally out of his element as a statesman playing The Great Game against the likes of Vlad Putin and Xi Jinping. That last problem is only alleviated by surrounding himself both with respected national security experts (Mattis, Dunford, Kelly, McMaster) and generally listening to his base in attempting to avoid major foreign military conflicts.
Even if they had 30% immunity, that still leaves the majority of the population exposed. I'm sure 30% would be very much preferable (if it's even true), but probably not good enough to allow things like concerts or maybe even sit down restaurants to reopen.
There are estimates that herd-immunity is achievable at 43%
"The disease-induced herd immunity level is 43% ... when immunity is induced by disease spreading, the proportion infected in groups with high contact rates is greater than in groups with low contact rates"
That's super interesting. It's hard to imagine what a legitimately authoritative anti-disinformation campaign would look like. Back when Operation INFEKTION was big, in the 80's iirc, the U.S. Department of State was involved in trying to counter claims of AIDS being of U.S. origin by sending out letters to many news outlets. Mostly the details of these letters were worked out by a group known as the "Active Mea-sures Working Group".
As far as I know, they were basically underfunded and understaffed, but worked hard to try to tease out the truth and track down the origins of disinformation. These days I'm not sure if it would help or hurt to have the likes of the CIA, FBI, DoD, etc running these groups considering peoples lack of trust in them. It's a tough problem for sure.
That's why independent media is so important. The government will always be assumed to have a spin on things: can you imagine if Trump had the US department of state doing what you described? No democrat would ever believe it was unbiased.
It's unfortunate that the government is not the only powerful player in town. Doesn't help that even Amazon owns a news outlet these days.
Slackware doesn't use it, and Patrick Volkerding recently got a Patreon account set up so Slackware 15.0 or 14.3 will hopefully be out soonish with updated packages. I'm writing this on 14.2 and have been running it since it came out with basically no issues. Also have it on a backup server, runs great.
Use Alpine or something then. I use Alpine as well on a server, OpenBSD on a server, slackware on a server, slackware on my laptop... There's some options. We even use Devuan to host OP's essay, although we'll eventually move to openbsd probably for other reasons.
In terms of package management... why do you need it? I have no problem maintaining everything with slackpkg and sbopkg along with slackbuilds.org. Sometimes it takes a while to find all the requirements for an application and add them to a queue, but once it's set up it's just sbopkg, click on update, upgrade, and you're good. It's pretty much rock solid once I get everything installed and I haven't missed package management much at all. My main gripe is the old packages in 14.2 but -current has a lot newer stuff. I don't mind waiting though.
I'd say software doesn't always win out on it's merits, there's almost definitely some social aspects regarding what does and does not get adopted. I do agree the commercial interests probably played the largest role, though. I think beyond the initial knee-jerk one might have towards this it's pretty comprehensive and there's interesting points here that are at least worth exploring.
Aren’t those social aspects part of their merits? A big part of why systemd won widespread adoption was by stepping up – the number of people working on the others wasn’t enough to be more competitive. I lost track of the number of Upstart bugs we avoided by switching to systemd, and that had the backing of one of the most popular Linux distributions.
> Aren’t those social aspects part of their merits? A big part of why systemd won widespread adoption was by stepping up – the number of people working on the others wasn’t enough to be more competitive.
They had the people because they had the money. The debate about systemd is only partly technical; it's mostly a culture war about how Red Hat is hostilely taking over the free software ecosystem, and how that invokes memories of embrace/extend/extinguish.
Another factor I was thinking is that almost everything in systemd is there because someone saw a need, even if it’s a niche – things like mounts aren’t a big deal for many people but the people who had something which wasn’t well served before wanted something better in a new system. Trying to replace a core component will flush out a lot of those smaller communities.
