bl_r
@bl_r@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- Comment on Utah Locals Are Getting Cheap 10 Gbps Fiber Thanks To Local Governments 8 hours ago:
Havig better speeds than broadband sure sounds utopian to me
- Comment on blast me off, fam 1 week ago:
The thing I find hilarious about this is alcohol in the US is often measured in ml, and usually sold at 750 or 1500ml as opposed to quarts
- Comment on Not happening, dude 2 weeks ago:
I need this shirt
- Comment on What a TikTok Ban Would Mean for the U.S. Defense of an Open Internet 2 weeks ago:
If whataboutism is reframing the question in a different light that includes what we were talking about and not simply deflecting with a what-about, then I guess I did a textbook whataboutism. I guess I did the classic whataboutism bit where I said tiktok wasn’t censoring, even though I swear I said they were, and instead I said what why do we give social media the power to censor shit like that I was saying tiktok wasn’t censoring and whatabout other social media. 🙄
Whataboutism is when you don’t defend your point or argue against the original point and just change topic. Ex: “Oh you are saying that tiktok is censoring anti-ccp thought? What about facebook and twitter doing shit like banning XYZ political commentators???”
What I said is a bit more complicated than that, so I’ll boil down my points into something a bit more simple manner
- Yeah, tiktok is censoring content
- I don’t like the article’s framing that places instagram as the safe, non-censoring control
- I think media is framing this in such a way that the main reason that tiktok is a problem is because it has a lot of dissent on it and it is foreign-owned, and therefore their flavor of censorship is worse
- instead of forcing tiktok to be sold to an american company, why don’t we address the root cause of the problem, which is the amount of control social media companies have.
Look man, you can’t claim someone is doing a fallacious argument tactic when they aren’t doing it. If someone argued something, fucking respond to it or don’t, it genuinely doesn’t matter. But if you are gonna just be a cunty smuglord instead, you’re a dick and I wish you the worst.
Now, i’m gonna disregard your shit-slinging and go back to taking your comments in good faith. I have a serious question for you. You seem to have a problem with my points, but what about it do you disagree with? I’m literally agreeing with you in a few places and just calling the framing flawed. If you’re gonna respond to that, don’t take me out of context.
- Comment on What a TikTok Ban Would Mean for the U.S. Defense of an Open Internet 2 weeks ago:
If I could do an analysis like this, I would. But I don’t have the technical know-how to do so. Being like “Why don’t you do [complex activity] rather than comment on an existing study” is a shitty mindset that attempts to shut down conversation and doesn’t build upon it in any meaningful way.
Further, I think you completely missed the point of what I said. You presented an article that showed tiktok is biased towards CCP positions, and that isn’t really surprising. I said that I don’t think Instagram is any more trustworthy simply because it is American owned, and I think the framing of that view is flawed. I don’t think it invalidates the data, I just think it places a huge amount of trust in a social media company that has been in constant controversy for its entire existence. The point is why is the problem the fact that a social media company is using their power to promote CCP viewpoints, rather than the fact that social media companies have such power with such little oversight.
You seem to be claiming there’s a fire without even seeing any smoke while simultaneously ignoring the flames in front of your face.
I think you can only say that when you are intentionally misinterpreting what I said to the point I think you are trying to stuff me in some little box I don’t belong in. I acknowledge that TikTok is a problem. If the problem is algorithmic bias with social media, why are we stopping with the foreign company that has opposing interests? Why aren’t we angry that a single company can hold so much power and have such little accountability?
the only issue with Meta is how they refused to take down offensive stuff from high-profile conservatives due to political backlash
I wish I lived in a world that this was the only issue meta had.
- Cambridge Analytica
- Internal research shows Instagram knew it harms teens
- The entire concept of facebook echo chambers and radicalization
- That one time Facebook promoted housing discrimination
- Massive tax avoidance and lobbying
I bet I’m missing a ton, but these things quickly came to mind.
- Comment on What a TikTok Ban Would Mean for the U.S. Defense of an Open Internet 2 weeks ago:
I skimmed the article and I see your concern, but my skepticism remains because of the inherent assumption that instagram is trustworthy and not already tinkering with their own algorithms. Just because the company is American owned doesn’t make it any more or less trustworthy in my opinion. I think the framing is flawed, but that doesn’t discount the concerns with things that are pro-taiwan having such a small presence
I do think a big reason why tiktok is now being held to the flame is the fact there is so much dissent on it. Younger Americans are becoming increasingly anti-israel and more critical of the US’s stance on foreign policy.
Instead of reacting hastily and banning tiktok I think a better action would be placing the same criticisms on domestic companies. Instead, I think we should make companies much more transparent in how they use their algorithms and filter content.
- Comment on Tankies hate this one simple trick 4 weeks ago:
I’m not surprised I don’t see any birds here, considering the only thing I do see is men made of straw.
- Comment on The House will vote on expanding warrantless wiretapping authority 5 weeks ago:
On one hand I’m worried that this will get through because neither party has historically been strongly against expanding police powers, but on the other hand the house is an absolute mess
- Comment on Hooooooooooooooooooot 5 weeks ago:
Give buskers the acoustic guitar with a link to the grid and every time they play they’ll generate a ton of electricity (in relative terms…)
Electro-Acoustic guitars use piezos to pick up the audio if you didn’t know
- Comment on acceptable screws 1 month ago:
It’s funny because I’ve opened those screws on something else using a bit of effort and the scissors on my swiss army knife.
- Comment on Intel accused of inflating CPU benchmark results 2 months ago:
Wait, people trust corporate benchmarks?
- Comment on Unnamed island 2 months ago:
Ireland
- Comment on Millions can no longer afford their rent 2 months ago:
Democratic serfdom. Unless we fall into autocratic governance before that, or (hopefully) liberate ourselves instead.
- Comment on How a 27-Year-Old Codebreaker Busted the Myth of Bitcoin’s Anonymity 3 months ago:
The main way criminals are caught is when they transfer their crypto to an exchange so they can convert it to cash. Law enforcement will subpoena the exange and ask “Hey, who exchanged 0.7886 bitcoin for cash on this date?” and they will get their identity. Using the public ledger, they will be able to trace the transactions done and show that this person sent money to an address advertised as belonging to a trafficking site, an illegal market, or recieved money from the bad wallet address.
The address owner is anonymous until there is a source of data that ties information the wallet, and often transactions can be used to do that, just as any way to advertise a wallet belongs to you can, or any way to exchange crypto to cash can.