achimwar.bsky.social
136 posts
265 followers
178 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
I argued with people and got put on weird lists and got blocked.
Also, I was right
comment in response to
post
I'm telling everybody over there the only obvious suspect is Elon and they all think I'm crazy
comment in response to
post
People tried really hard to run End Wokeness off BlueSky but we are so blessed we get these screencaps
comment in response to
post
your argument lacks a basis
comment in response to
post
Yikes! what a blunder… my legal team is going to kill me! this sets us back at least decade.
comment in response to
post
Temporarily it could suck, but market incentives could force people to create better solutions like using third parties (who aren’t allowed to get ad revenue) for curation, which might reduce some of the perverse incentives that currently exist.
comment in response to
post
Ok so even if the process of maximizing ad revenue goes through a data gathering process which exposes vulnerable teens to bullies in order to get the largest informational gain, the platform is not responsible for the bullies.
Is the process of gathering data easier to regulate?
comment in response to
post
That’s some gainz.
If I’m 5 antisemitic today I could 1.3 million antisemitic in a few days. Remarkable!
comment in response to
post
Thanks, I appreciate this.
My uneducated claim is that at the end of the day, X is selling ads, not expressing their own political or religious beliefs, so doesn’t qualify for highest protection.
I’m curious about test 2. Would say 100,000 teen suicides traced to a social media app suffice?
comment in response to
post
How does this square with not allowing cigarette ad?
comment in response to
post
Ok so if the government somehow nationalized part of the internet infrastructure… could they make more restrictive laws about what it can be used for?
comment in response to
post
Expanding is funny word as it’s against moving targets. Nobody (at least, left of DeSantis) is proposing the government restrict pamphlets or newspapers or blogs
comment in response to
post
OK indulge my hypothetical law :
——
Any corporation, which
a) shares a million pieces of content per day
b) earns ad revenue
c) collects private data from users
d) uses said private user data in an algorithmic feed
is not protected under section 230.
___
Does this violate 1A?
comment in response to
post
that government should never curtail speech ever is an ideology
comment in response to
post
The chrysalis metaphor was a bit unduly forthright
comment in response to
post
This is brilliant I'm a little jealous of this clever idea. I'll bet you can even sell parts of the NFT over time to maximize the impact of your loss
comment in response to
post
I guess we're not ready for the real conversation. I'm less concerned about cultural grievance book banning and more about a situation where all newpapers are owned by Gannett, and other platforms are enshittified so that 99% of our news and information is filtered through some Altman/Musk run LLM
comment in response to
post
Yes, the New York Times has existed since 1851 thanks to section 230
comment in response to
post
sigh.... is there like a "remind me in" bot here? I'd like to revisit in 20 years when Sam Altman is filtering everything
comment in response to
post
We're talking about 230 though, right?
Maybe I could use more education here, but does strengthening the requirement for 230 protection run into 1A issues?
Not having 230 at all wasn't a violation of 1A
comment in response to
post
OK Rick Perry
comment in response to
post
Yes, indeed, and I think the bigger point here is that we are hurtling towards a situation where we get most of our information through curated algorithms and it will become a matter of the survival of liberal democracy to revisit how broadly 1A is interpreted. This will be needed.
comment in response to
post
So how are laws against advertising cigarettes on TV legal? ... serious question.
comment in response to
post
this one is the wurst
comment in response to
post
I making a claim that taking a data set of people whose data profiles make them appear like gambling addicts and handing this over to a online gambling platform in exchange for money should not be "speech"
comment in response to
post
Very good - we're not talking about speech, we're talking about selling attention.
Otherwise we just get into this conduct is speech nonsense
comment in response to
post
Yes, this. It think there are basic safeguards that could be identified and implemented.
You can't advertise cigarettes on TV. Who decided this?
comment in response to
post
Who decides if we should prosecute drivers for running over pedestrians in crosswalks? Lawmakers?
comment in response to
post
I don't know where precisely to draw the line, but this wouldn't be the first time in history people drew lines through complicated territories.
comment in response to
post
First, I would make this not a purely 1A issue, but rather an issue about the industry of selling data and selling attention.
Facebook (via their algorithm) promoted anti-vax material aggressively to people who leaned conspiratorial during the pandemic.
comment in response to
post
We have gazillions of pages of laws about incredibly complex issues, and yes, someone is always trying to outsmart the laws, but none the less, we still have laws, because it's almost always better to have them than not
comment in response to
post
Doesn't fit 300 characters, but there are way to distinguish between algorithms geared toward rapidly spreading unhealthy content, and those that aren't. Easiest solution is put an agency in charge of making sure corporations satisfy basic trust and safety rules in order to stay on "230 safe" list
comment in response to
post
The first obvious corollary of this would be that if you're not getting paid to deliver any customers to advertisers, you're good.
comment in response to
post
I would like to see the whole of social media be discussed in terms of the business that it actually is, namely the business of selling attention and data about people, not "free speech." It makes sense to devise rule around what you are allowed to do in the selling attention business.
comment in response to
post
I don't think that was the claim by OP: The claims was limiting the protection. There are a lot of reasonable ways to limit the worst types of algorithmic curation without opening up the entire internet to liability.
comment in response to
post
Tbf there is a material well actually here but i don’t know if I have the energy for it today
comment in response to
post
It’s tough because anti-Zionism is a is a dog whistle.  I’ve tried to engage people on the other place as to why they hate Soros, and the word salad they provide usually involves billionaires and Zionists. 
comment in response to
post
This is a simulacrum of basically everything
comment in response to
post
I see so many statements which are just factually wrong, and I don’t want to be the reply-guy who well actuallys in as I already have more blocks than Christian McAffrey.
This place has no sense of decency.
comment in response to
post
I really have no idea what Nostr relays do to protect themselves against, say distributing CSAM for sats
comment in response to
post
I get skeptical of the economics. Over a long period of time what keeps relays motivated to run? There’s no NGU
comment in response to
post
Including the ‘single central relay that moderates content’ part?
comment in response to
post
His name is Keith Olbermann