IF we proceed from the hypothesis that X is "a hate site, filled with conspiracy theories, radicalization and racism"
AND we want to ban the whole platform X,
THEN it would be logical to ban also all the layers down the technological stack: AWS, Google Play Store, Telecoms that transported the traffic etc.
Indeed, X platform has approximately the same responsibility as other platform layers and hence they all should be punished.
Another idea is to punish them proportionally to their ability to check the content published on the platform so that telecoms probably will not be punished at all because they are not able to read encrypted traffic.
The question can be reformulated as whether non-existence (nothingness) exists which is obviously a contradiction. Nothingness is the opposite of existence and hence it does not exist by definition.
Very clever. A whole article (book?) could no doubt be devoted to that logical trick; how a seemingly reasonable argument can lead to such absurd conclusions.
Maybe it was covered in the article, which I didn't read yet (either?). I might have to though, because it touches on a subject which interests me more and more; that of language, perception and meaning vs reality. For example, in the case of "nothing" I would propose that it has a meaning in everyday language that doesn't make it into the dictionaries or thesauri: that it partly means (or can mean) that which has not been discovered yet.
This type of definition differs from a strict logical definition (in which nothing would mean absolutely nothing, void, emptiness, non-existence). Much confusion can be had from mixing the logic of language (terms that are logical/mathematical in nature if you will), with meaning, which is has to be the essence of language.
> The government controlling social media platforms is vastly different from a collection of companies controlling social media platforms that they built
If the difference is measured by the effect produced then in many cases it is zero, that is, there is no any difference. For example,we frequently see collective censorship which effectively means the absence of freedom of speech.
In fact, there exist also other interesting forms like collective (or democratic) racism or collective (democratic) totalitarism. For normal people, the origin of these rules does not really matter.
Freedom of speech is specifically freedom from the government interfering with your speech. Freedom of speech does not mean you can compel others into carrying your message forward.
Take your argument to its logical conclusion. Say I want everyone you come in contact with to hear my personal thoughts on government. Are you ok with being compelled to pass along a card with my diatribe on it to all of the people you interact with on a daily basis?
> Freedom of speech is specifically freedom from the government interfering with your speech
Yes, it is an important point but somewhat old. Nowadays it can be generalized: freedom of speech is a protection of the stage from monopolization by anyone (being it a government, company or private person). I would say, now it is more important and much more difficult to protect the communication channels from giant companies which are much stronger than most governments (and in many cases actually control the governments).
I agree in principle that corporations shouldn’t have the power to shut people up, but these social media companies also enable a much larger set of ideas to be broadcasted than when the principles of free speech were written into the constitution. How do we prevent the fascism and bigotry of yesteryear and even new forms of bigotry and fascism from being shared on these platforms as well?
I am afraid that it is not limited by police. You can see it everywhere. For example, downvoting a post with an alternative opinion and trying to have one opinion is a sign that you will be a good policeman. People like diversity only if it is a minor deviation which in this sense only confirm the dominance of one opinion. And this behavior is visible almost everywhere: police, governments, protests against police, forum moderation etc.
> If Hetzner ( Also from Germany ) cant / isn't competing with AWS, why does Lidl thinks they can?
Probably they want to repeat the success of AWS and apply the same pattern. Their retail businesses will provide base load for the cloud. Their own services can be developed in such a way that they can sell them to other retailers as cloud services. Or they develop a market place and switch to platform business.
Develop their own tools and get people locked in? Yeah, I don't see that happening, unless maybe they lobby for further EU-wide Internet regulations aimed at keeping US/foreign companies out.
Good question. I think it does if downvotes result in inability to express an opinion (as opposed to simply having downvotes shown).
If downvotes are used to suppress freedoms then downvoting is a means of censorship. In other words, there is no big difference between prohibiting something by one person (dictatorship) or by 10 persons (collective dictatorship) (if it is not prohibited by law of course).
> Yeah I agree that most in China don’t think much of it (or often don’t even realize censorship is happening on their exchanges). But it’s still tragic.
Hm... Why is it tragic? Simply rephrase it: most Americans do not even realize there is censorship". Is it tragic? If yes then for whom? Probably not for them but rather for external observers.
> USSR took back territories that Poland took from USSR in the 1919-1921 Polish-Soviet war
Essentially, Poland was occupying these territories between 1921 and 1939. Also, Poland had a dictatorship (quite typical in Europe at that time) and they were highly aggressive with respect to their neighbors: Polish-Ukrainian War (1918–19), Polish-Lithuanian War (1920, culminating in Żeligowski's Mutiny), Polish-Czechoslovak border conflicts (beginning in 1918).
It had authoritarianism (with many democratic elements in place) since 1926 (way way more liberal than that of Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany). Before that it was fully democratic (though, chaotic).
As for the conflicts you'd decribed, some of them were conflicts without clear aggressor (e.g. Polish-Czechoslovak conflicts of 1918) typical of those times, some were misdeeds of Polish state (annexation of Vilnus and Czechoslovakian Zaolzie in 1938).
Not only a smart move but also quite typical for that time. Note that Pilsudski was a kind of dictator and the Polish government was rather aggressive with respect to all its neighbors. Therefore, the war between Germany and Poland was a collision of two dictators - Hitler and Pilsudski.
You can't be serious comparing Pilsudski to Hitler. Poland had very good historical reasons for having an aggressive stance toward her neighbors, since it was still within living memory that their neighbors had carved them up and made them disappear from the maps. It happened again shortly after this, along with both the Nazis and Soviets committing gratuitous atrocities during their respective genocides.
I would go so far as to say that it is completely rational for Poland to doubt the intentions of Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Russia to this day.
Well, after losing in the Great War, Germany, too, "had very good historical reasons for having an aggressive stance toward her neighbors." Which is the reason Hitler came to power in the first place.
Well Intel has faced Nokia and Kodak moments literally 6-7 times in the past and survived. Granted not always because their tech was better. But survival has nothing to do with just cheaper prices and better tech. Evidence of that is all over the place.
Intel has mostly just had issues with a specific design, the core approach of better process = better chips is failing for the first time. If being a 18 months ahead means their chip is 5% faster that's not going to maintain huge margins by default. Without those margins they can't stay 18 months ahead.
Which means they need to compete on design for the first time in decades and I have plenty of doubts they can do so.
I don't think that's a good summary of Intel's past approach. The Pentium 4 to Core and Core 2 by way of Pentium M for example - Intel abandoned raw clock counts (what process bought them before) and started targeting IPC, which requires more engineering than pure process improvement.
Yes, there are still gains from getting more transistors for your buck, but you still have to put those transistors to work, and Intel hasn't been a slouch here. The process improvements didn't give them their advantage over AMD.
A large part of why Core/Core 2 worked was very large caches which take extreme transistor counts, but not much else. If they had been forced to cut them in half their performance would have been significantly worse.
P4 Willamette was 42M transisters December 2000, i7 2600k from January 2011 (almost exactly 10 years) is arguably the peak of their Core dominance as progress dropped to a standstill over the last 7 years had 8 MiB of cache. That's 4 cores for 1.16 billion transistors or 290 Million each.
After 1Ghz it's really just a latency game, faster ram does not do much so CPU's without massive caches just starve. Which is why the P4 eventually moved to 130 Million transistors and a relatively large cache.
> Well Intel has faced Nokia and Kodak moments literally 6-7 times in the past and survived.
It's ironic, Kodak invented the Kodak moment but in the end the real Kodak moment was not the positive kind of thing they envisioned when they coined that term in their marketing.
I'm optimistic that they'll be able to almost solely based on their poaching of Jim Keller. If there's a major revolution in instruction sets or architecture to support ML or energy efficient HPC, he's one of the few people with the technical experience and political clout to change the future of Intel.
AND we want to ban the whole platform X,
THEN it would be logical to ban also all the layers down the technological stack: AWS, Google Play Store, Telecoms that transported the traffic etc.
Indeed, X platform has approximately the same responsibility as other platform layers and hence they all should be punished.
Another idea is to punish them proportionally to their ability to check the content published on the platform so that telecoms probably will not be punished at all because they are not able to read encrypted traffic.