Posts by search_social@neckbeard.xyz
(DIR) Post #ACqyGb1Fwjno3FGUYy by search_social@neckbeard.xyz
2021-10-29T10:08:14.282900Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Mean.nice-remind.jpg
(DIR) Post #ACt1Ax8cQ2cpEz6iVk by search_social@neckbeard.xyz
2021-10-30T09:50:11.070092Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
How to Fix Social Media (Nicholas Carr, The New Atlantis, 2021.10)[0]Like (J&G 2021)[1], Carr opens with historical citations.A 1973-1978 fight over swearing on radio led to the US Supreme Court declaring a 1A difference between “public” broadcasts and “private” conversations. Said difference forms the crux of Carr’s article and of @jlj ‘s suggestion that it corresponds to Reynolds’/Dunbar’s/ @search_social ‘s/ @091719 ‘s numbers/scales of fluids/people/information/labor.Private (Historical)Starting with postal letters, Carr states that Secrecy of Correspondence is a legal principle predating the United States (as is violations of that principle by governments ferreting out dissidents). While (J&G 2021)[1] cited the 1792 (federal) Post Office Act as (among other things) barring public officials from opening personal letters, Carr cites an 1878 US Supreme Court ruling extending 4A protections to letters.Then the telegram, which in contrast to postal letters got its Secrecy of Correspondence promises from private operators and state governments before federal government. And like postal letters these promises were sometimes broken either through private leaks or government subpoenas (which were sometimes resisted; resistors sometimes being arrested, 等). Carr draws an additional parallel to the “privileged (private) communication” between lawyer/client or physician/patient.Then the telephone, and soon after the Communications Act of 1934. Besides promising (and sometimes violating) Secrecy of Correspondence by prohibiting wiretapping (except when it didn’t), it also extended the obligation of Common Carrier from transportation/shipping to “Private” telecommunications. As shippers had already been required to carry all goods under the same terms, now “Private” telecommunications had to treat all telegrams and phone calls the same.Public (Historical)Carr falsely claims “Radio broadcasting had no such precedent”, despite just a few paragraphs earlier having noted that when the 1878 US Supreme Court ruling extended 4A protections to letters “The Justices were careful to distinguish the legal standing of private letters, ‘intended to be kept free from inspection,’ from that of widely circulated documents like newspapers and magazines, ‘purposely left in a condition to be examined.’”. And likewise censorship of heresies “protecting the public interest” on public publishing [sic] predates the United States as well.Returning to true statements, Carr tells a fascinating story 1906 - 1912 of the front end of the adoption curve of radio. Apparently a fraction of the unregulated amateur users were fond of making prank news bulletins and even emergency calls which fucked up boats including the US Navy and even rescue efforts for the Titanic. The publicity of the Titanic helped the Radio Act of 1912 require licensing of radio operators and prohibition of prank calls.But while licensing (assuming that denying a license is illegal) and prohibition of prank calls is understandable, as is reserving a portion of spectrum for government use and even funding some government-controlled broadcasts, as is even the “All Channel Receiver Act” cited by (J&G 2021)[1];;;; the Barons of the State wanted more.Carr openly admits that the Radio Act of 1927, forbidding any radio station that didn’t “serve the public interest, convenient, or necessity”, was “awkward”, the “standard much fuzzier”, the “interpretation left up to the commission, subject to court review”, the “meaning hashed out through dozens of cases, many involving years of debate”. Yet Carr, bootlicker that he is, doesn’t think this is a problem; on the contrary he extols it.As the fraught history of the fairness doctrine makes clear, the public interest standard is not a magic bullet. Its amorphousness means that its interpretation will always be messy, combative, and provisional — as political processes tend to be in a democracy. Some legal scholars and pundits, particularly those with a libertarian tilt, have argued that the standard’s imprecision gives government regulators too much leeway. The standard, writes one typical critic, is “vague to the point of vacuousness, providing neither guidance nor constraint.” But that’s a misinterpretation. The public interest standard is more than just a legal principle. It is an ethical principle. It assures the people’s right to have a say in the workings of the institutions and systems that shape their lives — a right fundamental to a true democracy and a just society. The vagueness of the standard is necessary for a simple reason: public opinion changes as circumstances change.Public (Modern)And now Carr wants to bring this same vagueness to State power over The Internetwork.Second, it would apply the public interest standard to online broadcasting, reinvigorating the FCC’s venerable oversight role.Sovereign is he who decides on the exception. 越vagueness,越exceptions;;越exceptions,越power.I already object to the 51% having the vagueness-power to fuck with my speech through voting; giving that vagueness-power to the FCC which doesn’t even need voting is even worse.As alternative I, as always, recommend a public broadcasting UBI. A publisher valued by 100 readers can easily support itself on the public broadcasting UBI of those 100 readers, regardless of if some other publisher is valued by 1,000 readers. (Whereas under a State Power model the 1,000-reader publisher would murder the 100-reader competitor posthaste. After all, 1000>100 it’s the public interest.) There is no Echo Chamber because those 100 readers can switch their public broadcasting UBI to a competing organization at any time, if ever such a startup should try to meet their needs instead of talking down to them like it’s too good to need their support since after all 1000>100 it’s the public interest.Carr cites the 1930 federal FRC radio [sic] ban of Dr. John Brinkley selling surgeries implanting goat testicles into men as a treatment for impotence as an example of the benefits of “the public interest” preventing disinformation. Having just read (Bauer 2021)[10] with @jlj certainly it is not possible to successfully argue 反 a course of action that saves lives (assuming it actually does), regardless of the Force involved, State or otherwise.∴ the 反-proposal of public broadcasting UBI is that any citizen that notices the broadcasting of potentially-fatal disinformation has the OPPORTUNITY to 反-broadcast a rebuttal and the INCENTIVE that the people thereby saved will show their gratitude with their public broadcasting UBI. (If no such citizens exist, then the State has noone to hire for the job either, so there is no advantage there.)In general, UBI类 solutions provide INCENTIVE or motive force; while something like (Masnick 2019)[2] provide OPPORTUNITY or market 配matching.Private (Modern)As for “Privacy”, you already know my opinion. Carr tries to pull some mumble jumbo that since it’s illegal to rifle through someone’s private mailbox and rip open their envelopes, that therefore somehow if a 100-follower Twitter account publicly broadcasts something it should be illegal for me to read it, take notes on it, analyze statistics on it, talk about it with someone else, 等. (This is not hyperbole, Carr directly stated “An Instagrammer with a hundred followers can be assumed to be engaged in conversation; an Instagrammer with a hundred thousand followers is a broadcaster.”)A deliberate Sapir-Whorf sleight-of-language was pulled here by randomly interchanging the fairly objective “private/one-on-one” with completely meaningless “personal”, along with associated vagueness-power that even though “when all types of speech go through the same medium, some confusion is inevitable — and in many cases welcome“ that somehow “the intent of the communicator can often be gauged through proxies [BY WHOM? MONKEYS?] such as numbers of followers, views, likes, or comments”.To be fair, Carr’s sleight is well-cited.<”In a seminal 1890 Harvard Law Review article, “The Right to Privacy”, by Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren.”The common law secures to each individual the right of determining, ordinarily, to what extent his thoughts, sentiments, and emotions shall be communicated to others…. Even if he has chosen to give them expression, he generally retains the power to fix the limits of the publicity which shall be given them.<”Brandeis and Warren warned that as new “inventions and business methods” invade “the sacred precincts of private and domestic life,” society will need to renew its legal and institutional defenses against the incursions.”The problem stems directly back to Carr’s quote from earlier: “The public interest standard is more than just a legal principle. It is an ethical principle.“ I assert that The Letter (Legal) of the Law CAN NEVER capture The Spirit (Ethical) of the Law. Whenever it does, that just means that The Spirit (Ethics) of The Enforcer, The Sovereign Whom Decides On The Exception, will Rule. And that I 必反 (whenever it is not me).In this micro-privacy example, it means that women can gossip widely about men’s “abuse” all day long but if a man ever looks at a woman he will be executed for violating her privacy, because that is the Ethics of the Enforcer. Returning to the theme of medicine as a macro-privacy example, it means that State-Sanctioned big hospital and big pharma and big science will have all your medical data regardless following the Letter of the Law perfectly, while small or independent medical care or research will be completely illegal for violating your privacy.∴I still 必 agree with (J&G 2021)[1]‘s thesis that societies are more successful when their governments invest in Infrastructure.I heard recently that a “society” is a group of people that share a territory AND a culture; or, equivalently; a culture AND a territory.The Game Theory gets complicated since in a nested fractal semi-lattice (Alexander 1965)[11] of societies any given two will simultaneously be cooperating and competing with each other in various aspects.Merely distinguishing (optically resolving) the factors at play is dizzying by itself, much less triaging/prioritizing them.After considerable consternation, a vernier muse whispers to me that differential comparison is way easier to feel informative than some kind of floating score unconnected to ground.Differential ObservationsCarr includes history of media in civilization = goodCarr is pro-government = very badAmong pro-governments, Carr is detailed = goodMy goal, then, is to explore the 追随 multi-rhombant and adopt the 界点 stances.So in this case, as Axis #2 is strongest, feel out its inertia first. Where its inertia is relatively low, push hard. Where its inertia is relatively high, shift to pushing on Axis #1 and Axis #3 as consolation.Determining the inertia is a rhombant in itself. It’s worth pushing on something you have a lot of (relative) power over, even if it’s not heading in the right direction. Conversely, it’s worth pushing on something that’s heading in the right direction, even if you have little (relative) power over it.Furthermore the inertia will not be constant. There will be bounded regions where (for you right now) it will be higher or lower than average, and planning ahead to stop or start pushing at those boundaries will 有效.The attached rhombant is for the inertia of Axis #2 only. Rhombants for the other Axes and the multi-rhombant multi-plexing them are left to the imagination.Compression等于Summary Stats: 3:1 (42k chars -> 14k chars)[0]How to Fix Social Media (Nicholas Carr, The New Atlantis, 2021.10)Source: https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/how-to-fix-social-mediaReview: https://readup.com/comments/thenewatlantiscom/how-to-fix-social-media[1]A “Full Stack” Approach to Public Media in the United States (Sanjay Jolly & Ellen Goodman, The German Marshall Fund of the United States: Technology and Democracy, 2021.07)Source: https://www.gmfus.org/news/full-stack-approach-public-media-united-statesReview: https://neckbeard.xyz/notice/AB7oOYFwQVy7ZxZPyS[2]Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech: Altering the internet’s economic and digital infrastructure to promote free speech (Mike Masnick,Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University: Free Speech Futures, 2019.08)Source: https://knightcolumbia.org/content/protocols-not-platforms-a-technological-approach-to-free-speech[3]Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics (Nicole Hemmer, University of Pennsylvania Press: Politics and Culture in Modern America, 2016.1)Review: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29780905-messengers-of-the-right[10]I Have Been Through This Before (Ann Bauer, Tablet Magazine: Arts & Letters, 2021.10)Source: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/i-have-been-through-this-before-bauerReview: https://blog.nfld.uk/on-bauer-on-covid-19[11]A City Is Not A Tree (Christopher Alexander, Architectural Forum: The Magazine of Building, 1965.01)Source: http://en.bp.ntu.edu.tw/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/06-Alexander-A-city-is-not-a-tree.pdfReview: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32950884-a-city-is-not-a-tree#rhombant .rhombant-inertia.pnghyperacuity.png
(DIR) Post #ACtRD5e4MFBt0rUvZ2 by search_social@neckbeard.xyz
2021-10-30T14:41:59.367410Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
pitfalls of CATEGORY THEORYwho likes CATEGORY THEORY?warning.png
(DIR) Post #ACtq5iywicHrYDqbBI by search_social@neckbeard.xyz
2021-10-30T19:20:46.646155Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
<Better start learning how to use and influence it@tester @guttersessionsmicrophones.png
(DIR) Post #ACv2xHxOo26hypOKjQ by search_social@neckbeard.xyz
2021-10-31T09:19:37.553988Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
dark
(DIR) Post #ACx83GTw5kp5EHCPey by search_social@neckbeard.xyz
2021-11-01T09:26:09.890118Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@BigDuck @Tam @Oven_Dodgerarcanum.jpg
(DIR) Post #ACxIjeLOlHsewP3U1I by search_social@neckbeard.xyz
2021-11-01T11:25:51.962202Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
<pretending she has tourettes so she can get a free n word pass, sympathy and money handed to her on a silver platterAbsolutely. Her soyboy enablers are at least explainable because it's the only way their religion allows them to say nigger. Other enablers have no excuse.<i think she's hamming it up for the cameraThat's what celebrities do. But ultimately her message is "saying nigger is wrong tee-hee" which is an inferior message to That Vegan Teacher.@PrettyHateMachine @beardalaxynaturally-intelligent-gorgeous-generous-exemplary-radiant-2.mp4
(DIR) Post #ACxSTBoy2cFRO1fxfU by search_social@neckbeard.xyz
2021-11-01T13:14:56.656257Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Which heavily monetized shitshow of a network did the r/nonewnormal moderators shill?numbers.mp4
(DIR) Post #ADL3ABlnMpy2wENYP2 by search_social@neckbeard.xyz
2021-11-12T22:24:27.897969Z
3 likes, 0 repeats
<In Wisconsin, you can also be charged with murder if anyone dies as a result of your crimes even if you didn’t actually pull the trigger.Glad we agree that all the rioters are guilty of murder now. You too for enabling them (in lawyer-speak, that's "aiding and abetting"). Into the chair you go.@AmericanChampion @NNYLiberty @Cousin_Isobel @senryu @sunspot2a.webm
(DIR) Post #ADL4z8TrSLgLSYqcD2 by search_social@neckbeard.xyz
2021-11-12T22:44:52.721919Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
If shitpisscum.mooo.com did not add 205.185.121.146 neckbeard.xyz to its /etc/hosts then I have no idea how you managed to see this post. @Bajax
(DIR) Post #ADLAMW3eSiT90xYY4W by search_social@neckbeard.xyz
2021-11-12T23:45:03.061847Z
3 likes, 2 repeats
@grumbulon @sjw @sjw @shitpisscum @Bajaxall-wings-report-in.mp4
(DIR) Post #ADLKhs9uUAY3BMJ1SC by search_social@neckbeard.xyz
2021-11-13T01:41:02.764559Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
<The correct take on education spending is that it really doesn’t matter for negros.No one has ever tried. All money allocated was for Patrisse Cullors-type grifting and active sabotage. https://quillette.com/2019/02/10/public-educations-dirty-secret/For an example of someone actually legitimately trying (and therefore actually legitimately succeeding), please take a look at LeBron James’ I Promise School. Half an hour at 3x speed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuzDfEEzhfoThe curriculum is anti-woke. The motto:NOTHING IS GIVEN. EVERYTHING IS EARNED.Family values and stem curriculum.The word “race” isn’t mentioned a single time.Paid for with his own sportsball money.Does not cherrypick easy cases.Takes lowest 25th percentile students from Akron.Openly addresses the massive behavioral problems.It even helps White kids (Scout - 1:20:53) (Vince - 1:17:31).i-promise-school.jpg
(DIR) Post #ADLPpIxfjRrg6gweHo by search_social@neckbeard.xyz
2021-11-13T02:38:23.875161Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
*.neckbeard.xyz ?
(DIR) Post #ADQBrMjsZVMqbVqqIa by search_social@neckbeard.xyz
2021-11-15T09:55:28.103130Z
11 likes, 8 repeats
<In the 80s a Swedish beekeeper created a local currency to see his little village through cash-strapped times. One Clover (the name of the currency) is worth the same as (and exchangeable for) a 0.7kg jar of honey. Honey stores forever and its value fluctuates extremely little.buzz-chain.jpeg
(DIR) Post #ADTTuXQMdXiVkD6KfY by search_social@neckbeard.xyz
2021-11-17T00:01:52.087191Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freedcreative "I talk politics" is generally something that can only be said by people who are not negatively impacted by dominant politics.And in my observation it's very often said by people who benefit from dominant politics, whether they know it and acknowledge it or not.It's the least consistent a statement when said by people making significant political actions in one area, but ducking it in another.@carl Your post reeks of exactly the privilege @carl was talking about
(DIR) Post #ADTU9QIpOf7S07fqZE by search_social@neckbeard.xyz
2021-11-17T00:04:33.763287Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
<with the principle of subsidiarity (only decide about things that affect you) Sounds nice but impossible to implement, everything affects everyone, sovereign is who decides the exception, arm up.@ArneBab @matrix @freedcreativeQuis-custodiet-ipsos-custodes.jpg
(DIR) Post #ADTo7Cva9Ss91W1PQu by search_social@neckbeard.xyz
2021-11-17T03:48:15.060667Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDzC3fmWm4s&list=PL9cJRl8EYnLd8HR_YKQH7S0xlBcz5Kudi@AmericanChampion @AGARTHA_NOBLE @Crankenstein @Eris @Aether @Christ_is_Lord @skylar
(DIR) Post #ADvArg4b6cFpYkY18y by search_social@neckbeard.xyz
2021-11-30T08:40:21.961697Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
<quadrants#rhombantsrhombant-people.pngrhombant-inertia.pngrhombant-technocracy.pngpublish-quadrants.png
(DIR) Post #ADwcXXgzXzD5eMeZN2 by search_social@neckbeard.xyz
2021-12-01T01:25:11.389023Z
2 likes, 4 repeats
>With free books banned, prisoners are forced to rely on the small list of “approved vendors” chosen for them by the prison administration. These retailers directly benefit when states introduce restrictions. In Iowa, the approved sources include Barnes & Noble and Books-a-Million, some of America’s largest retail chains—and, notably, ones which charge the full MSRP value for each book, quickly draining prisoners’ accounts. An incarcerated person with, say, $20 to spend can now only get one book, as opposed to three or four used ones; in states where prisoners make as little as 25 cents an hour for their labor, many can’t afford even that. >With e-books, the situation is even worse, as companies like Global Tel Link supply supposedly “free” tablets which actually charge their users by the minute to read. Even public-domain classics, available on Project Gutenberg, are only available at a price under these systems—and prisons, in turn, receive a 5% commission on every charge. All of this amounts to rampant price-gouging and profiteering on an industrial scale.
(DIR) Post #ADwfMc8F06GQ60saky by search_social@neckbeard.xyz
2021-12-01T01:56:49.683878Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
<patience@Vril_Oreilly @PonyPanda @matrix @DerSauerkrautblood_rape.mp4