> In other words, the relationship with hundreds of countries has been very one-sided for a long time. US industry needs to export to thrive, but if countries like Turkey impose 140% tariffs on our autos and trucks, markets are de-facto shut down.
These comparisons (and conclusions of one-sidedness) always leave the greatest benefit the US has enjoyed: access to a massive labor force willing to do work most Americans aren't[1] at wages lower than are Legal in the US.
Context matters. In a vacuum, the 85% rule is fine. In reality, it excludes a single company whose CEO not only holds a position in the administration making the rules, but who clearly holds enough influence that the president himself shot a Tesla ad in front of the white house.
Given such visible conflicts of interest, the administration should be bending over backwards to dispel perceptions of impropriety. The fact that they aren't, and that these coincidences keep occurring, should be telling.
They give you a unique URL associated with your account that you can use without manually logging in. It does somewhat defeat the purpose of private browsing mode depending on what you're using it for though.
The myth of the rags-to-riches, by-their-bootstraps entrepreneur is foundational to so much political philosophy in the US. It informs popular opinion on a wide range of public policy. Building a more accurate understanding of the nature of wealth and class mobility allows individuals to make more informed decisions both in their personal lives and at the ballot box.
That's the whole point. Permabanning on the first offense ignores the reality that these large-scale moderation systems (automated or human) tend to lack nuance and context-awareness, leading to false positives. A system of escalating warnings adds slack to protect good-faith users from those sorts of moderation failures.
So if someone shares CP on discord you think they should be given a warning and not permabanned? The justice system isn't going to give them any slack so why should a private entity? Where do you draw the line? I asked in my initial comment, "What's egregious to you". No one will answer that...
You say "CP" like it's a clearly evil category, but there's people out there that insist that fanfic about characters in a kid's show kissing is in that category. So, no, I don't really trust moderators to permaban that.
That said, yeah, actual CP should still be a permaban. We all agree on that. But treating it as a cut-and-dried example illustrates exactly what hnaccount141 was saying when they said "these large-scale moderation systems (automated or human) tend to lack nuance and context-awareness, leading to false positives"
Say I post a picture of my young child running around in a diaper to a family/close friends discord channel.
It gets flagged as CP because algorithms lack nuance.
Should I be permabanned for this?
Are we just not allowed to share photos of children online at all unless they are clothed head to toe? Maybe that's our current cultural norm, but that seems like an excessive measure for a society where most people aren't child predators.
> So if someone shares CP on discord you think they should be given a warning and not permabanned?
"Think of the children" is consistently used as an escape hatch to avoid actually doing due diligence in enforcement and moderation. You aren't protecting anyone by lazily granting root to content moderation / surveillance / whatever system is under discussion. You're just making those systems worse.
> People got up, admitted they were Progressives and that they were wrong about the ideals of rehabilitation instead of punishment.
People asked for rehabilitation instead of punishment. All politicians did was stop punishing (some) property crimes and call it progress. No meaningful attempt at building a rehabilitative system was ever made.
That's not what GP is saying. The (potentially) copyright infringing part is the reproduction of copyrighted material, not the encoding itself. In the same way that learning the lyrics to a song isn't copyright infringement, but performing that song live without permission would be.
These comparisons (and conclusions of one-sidedness) always leave the greatest benefit the US has enjoyed: access to a massive labor force willing to do work most Americans aren't[1] at wages lower than are Legal in the US.
[1] https://www.cato.org/blog/americans-think-manufacturing-empl...