boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
I think I prefer just to have a single, proper open network with free speech. Elon has done well with X in this regard.
Mastodon, is that wouldn't that lead to echo chambers? Sure, maybe you can find some place which has an editorial bent that doesn't conflict
with you, but thats just another echo chamber.
I think for public discourse, it is important that people are exposed
to contrary ideas.
fusion wrote to boraxman <=-
i don't recall if it was around here (bbs scene) or elsewhere but
someone had mentioned some of the mastodon clients that would be the
most useful (phone) come pre-configured to ban a collection of various servers for reasons you may or may not agree with.
the problem is you don't really get to choose..
Adept wrote to boraxman <=-
But chatting on FSXnet is significantly more pleasant to me than elsewhere, and whether or not people consider it an echo chamber, I'd vastly prefer it over places where "engagement" means rage bait and controversy.
Here, it feels like we have at least a little more, "consider the
people behind the screen", and thus it feels a bit more human than I
seem to be able to get over much of the rest of the internet.
The Wanderer wrote to boraxman <=-
No... free speech at all costs is not healthy, and X isn't even that.
It's free speech if Elon agrees with you (mostly), but X is now really quite well known as being a toxic shithole.
boraxman wrote to The Wanderer <=-
What do people get banned for? Is there censorship?
Genuinely asking. I've heard people complain and leave because of what
IS said, but I haven't heard of people leaving because they've had a particular point of view blocked. There are some extreme banned
accounts (violence, CP, etc, which is fine)
The Wanderer wrote to boraxman <=-
It's people's right to not be forced to listen to hate speech, racist speech, calls for genocide, disagreeing with people who want to 'other' everybody who's not just like them, disagreeing with disinformation, misinformation, conspiracy theory, people who are just wrong, oh, and
did I mention hate speech?
Nobody has the right to force themselves on others, and free speech
isn't a crutch to try and do that with.
Are you familiar with the intolerance paradox?
Are you familiar with https://xkcd.com/1357/ ?
--- SBBSecho 3.37-Linux
* Origin: Yak Station - Some yakkin' happenin'... (21:3/233)
Jegor wrote to Mike Powell <=-
I wonder if there are any real people left on social media at all, or
just the bot farms? At least FB's UI doesn't give me the impression
it's intended for human beings to use.
It used to be that online services claimed their role as an information distributor, not a publisher. in Cubby vs. CompuServe, CompuServe
claimed that they published content and didn't moderate, as they
Flash forward to present day, where Facebook and X manipulate feeds to show specific content to users, and the old 230 defense falls apart.
I suppose they're "too big to sue" now, or if 230 was breached, it'd
just be a cost of business for a billion-dollar service.
Nobody has the right to force themselves on others, and free speech isn't a crutch to try and do that with.
But, isn't censoring unsavory thoughts and speech by definition forcing
yourself on others?
The Wanderer wrote to boraxman <=-
Re: Re: Social Media
By: boraxman to The Wanderer on Sun Apr 12 2026 01:04 am
Your statement quoted above misses the point that we're speakingI don't know and I have to judge for myself. I don't really trust other peoples opinions, because they could very well be someone that sees some
specifically about X, and it's very clear how the platform has been bent
How is one supposed to see this as anything but "That goes counter to
my opinion and I'm not seeking out detail from credible sources?"
This is cognitive dissonance par excellence.
I heard of this. Is this something particular to Grok, or is it an AI flaw in general? Agree it should be curtailed until it is fixed.
This was Musk's forcing the Twitter team to make Grok "less woke". It's not a flaw in "AI", whatever that would purportedly mean.
The xkcd misses the point of free speech and gets it backwards. Free Speech was NOT about giving you the freedom to say what you like. The reason that Free Speech was deemed important, and as described by Mill, was that it was necessary to determine truth, correct misinformation and challenge incorrect ideas. It was not just to allow you to express
What Mill got wrong was that as described, "free speech" is exploitable
by fascists for authoritarian ends.
It's exactly what we see playing out in too many places presently.
The xkcd is referring to the people whining about being cancelled,
which, if you want to talk cancelling, should probably be a little
better defined as to what you mean.
Adept wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Nobody has the right to force themselves on others, and free speech isn't a crutch to try and do that with.
But, isn't censoring unsavory thoughts and speech by definition forcing
yourself on others?
It's the same thing as saying, "I don't invite jerks to my party".
The person is welcome to say whatever they want to say; just not in any place I am, and they don't get to force me out because of some weird "freedom of speech" where they make the place awful.
Certain sorts of places stop existing when you let the jerks run the place.
If he's not banned, or told that he has to not mention those things in this place, I'm not going to go to that event, or that site. Because
it's extremely unpleasant, and I find it odd that people think we
should have to listen to all the jerks because of "free speech".
* My mode of operandi when logging in and seeing the pink banners that there is mail to me, is to read it first. IE: "Scan msgs to me". Then I go back and read all new mail.
I started to notice that when I went to read all mail, it was missing messages - and I assume that my last read pointer was being set because of the read all to me, and thus anything new before the first message to me was being skipped.
* When reading all new messages to me, if I had more than 1 (eg: 3), and I replied to one of them, when I finished reading the 3rd, I then noticed I had more than 3 to read - however the additional ones were duplicates of the 1st 3.
* When reading messages and going to the next group. My laset read message number was being set for the next group, not going to the last read message in the group. (I alerted to you of this issue already).
IE: If I was reading message #5 in sub A, and then went to sub B where the last message I read was #10, it would start me of at message #5, so I was reading old messages again.
This is a test with Renegade color codes. This should appear in green.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
After I went back and read my test message, I saw the same thing; I realize put a black color code at the beginning.. I meant to use the "normal" attribute code.
This is a test with Renegade color codes. This should appear in green.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ha!, I was going to make a joke this was BLACK ON BLACK ... as it showed nothing until I quoted it. That's weird.
Re: Re: Social Media (X)
By: Gamgee to Nightfox on Tue Apr 14 2026 10:38 am
|00This is a test with Renegade color codes. |02This should appear in green. |03This should appear in cyan. |04This should appear red. |09High blue |10High green |11High cyan |12High red
|04|23Nightfox
I almost forgot about Mastodon...
Mastodon is federated right? Is there some central control? I'm wary of platforms where there is undue censorship.
I think I prefer just to have a single, proper open network with free speech. Elon has done well with X in this regard. The thing with Mastodon, is that wouldn't that lead to echo chambers? Sure, maybe you can find some place which has an editorial bent that doesn't conflict with you, but thats just another echo chamber.
I don't understand the notion of forcing extreme speech on people as being a good thing.
exist at all, which is entirely a different matter. If they had a
perfect filter that allowed them not to read anything from anybody they disliked, they would still sit in their little corner of the Internet, sweating and trembling because somewhere, somebody is posting the wrong opinion.
It's people's right to not be forced to listen to hate speech, racist speech, calls for genocide, disagreeing with people who want to 'other' everybody who's not just like them, disagreeing with disinformation, misinformation, conspiracy theory, people who are just wrong, oh, and did I mention hate speech?
I use Usenet as a case study. Try engaging in any debate on usenet, and it is crazy.
What Mill got wrong was that as described, "free speech" is exploitable by fascists for authoritarian ends.
If he's not banned, or told that he has to not mention those things in this place, I'm not going to go to that event, or that site. Because it's extremely unpleasant, and I find it odd that people think we should have to listen to all the jerks because of "free speech".There is a lot to talk about in these two paragraphs.
If being forced to put up with people like that is what people think of "free speech", then I am against free speech. And find it odd that people _want_ that sort of thing, aside from when _they_ are the misogynistic jerk.
I don't understand the notion of forcing extreme speech on people as be good thing.
The issue I have is the sort of people who bans servers because they
have some user who is an extremist are typically extremists themselves
and therefore they get to lecture nobody as to the need of banning extremist views.
I like the BBS style approach.
It's people's right to not be forced to listen to hate speech, racist speech, calls for genocide, disagreeing with people who want to 'other' everybody who's not just like them, disagreeing with disinformation, misinformation, conspiracy theory, people who are just wrong, oh, and d mention hate speech?
Just how does X force you to listen or read anything these days?
As far as I know you can block anything you dislike, being in X doesn't force you to interact with anybody else in the platform in particular.
My hypothesis is that people complaining that they have to deal with certain opinions on a platform are not really bothered because they actually have to interact with them. What bothers them is those opinions exist at all, which is entirely a different matter. If they had a
perfect filter that allowed them not to read anything from anybody they disliked, they would still sit in their little corner of the Internet, sweating and trembling because somewhere, somebody is posting the wrong opinion.
That is a very good point.
I wish I could bring Forocoches to the discussion. It is the biggest Spanish web forum. It is geared towards cars and car mechanics, but
their off-topic section is highly popular and it is known for an
anything goes policy.
There is no algorythm there promoting posts or content. It is as vanilla as you may expect a forum to be.
It is both glorious and depresing at the same time. There are lots of moronic people mixed with people who has interesting and well argumented things to say. There you can find all the unpopular opinions that used
to be blacklisted from curated social media and their counters. I like using it as an example of what society is actually like when it is not being curtailed. It takes all the ideas they told you are extremist and held only by a minority of derranged individuals and shows you about
half of the population actually backs them.
When you move into a curated social media in which only your opinion is acceptable, you are shielded from this reality. No wonder you can't
handle different opinions when you walk outside and it turns out your ideas are not half as opular as you used to think.
Arelor wrote to The Wanderer <=-
Fascist also benefit from water. Therefore, in order to fight Fascism,
we must ban water. No matter the cost of society as a whole.
What Mill got wrong was that as described, "free speech" is exploitable by fascists for authoritarian ends.
Just how does X force you to listen or read anything these days?
boraxman here has already explained by somebody would prefer having to deal with "unacceptable" ideas in a free environment than deal with the opposite scenario and I think the argument is well built. In face of it
my hypothesis is the people who does not want it is people who can't manage the fact somebody, somewhere, has an opinion they don't share.
If my work can force me to sit through some "diversity" training, then yes, I'm having someones views forced on me.
That's why I only drink pure rainwater and grain alcohol.
If my work can force me to sit through some "diversity" training, the yes, I'm having someones views forced on me.
To redirect this a bit, this reminds me of how an upper-level person in
my company is pushing something that involves "AI".
And I'm reading it, and wondering what the heck he's talking about, because the words are meaningless. As in, I don't know if they're
talking about machine learning or LLMs, much less what these things
would actually do.
It mostly just reinforces for me that the guy is not a person with technical abilities, even if he and his buddies are making multiple millions per year.
Yet if I'm assigned to one of these projects, I'd attempt to help make it happen, even if the goals wind up being tremendously unclear and/or misguided.
boraxman wrote to Arelor <=-
They say no one should be forced, but then expect us all to sit
throught their training and being indoctrinated with their ideology.
If my work can force me to sit through some "diversity" training, then yes, I'm having someones views forced on me.
NuSkooler wrote to Arelor <=-
X has and is used by top officials around the globe. Pretending it's
"just a form" is either incredibly ignorant, or intentionally side stepping the fact.
Adept wrote to Arelor <=-
The original context was people complaining about the Fediverse and
that some people would ban x servers because of y reason.
boraxman wrote to Arelor <=-
They say no one should be forced, but then expect us all to sit throught their training and being indoctrinated with their ideology.
If my work can force me to sit through some "diversity" training, the yes, I'm having someones views forced on me.
Yes, private enterprise can force people to perform certain tasks as a
provision of employment. When the government does so, we have a
different situation altogether.
Although, now, awareness training in federal jobs seems like a sticking
point. Although, again, you can pass on the government job if it's an
issue.
Our most recent administration has taken to making announcements on Twitter first.
boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
We need to adapt our framework for the modern world and close this loophole.
Companies should have no right to do this. Employment contracts which state they can do this, should be considered invalid.
I'm amazed that section 230 of the USA Communications Decency act has held up - that was a section of the code that held "online services" protected from lawsuits.
I suppose they're "too big to sue" now, or if 230 was breached, it'd just be a cost of business for a billion-dollar service.
It's people's right to not be forced to listen to hate speech, racistI agree, wholeheartedly. Who's forcing me to listen to that? If I'm
Just how does X force you to listen or read anything these days?
Unfortunately, free speech is exploitable by any group for any ends. You
boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
We need to adapt our framework for the modern world and close this loophole.
Companies should have no right to do this. Employment contracts which state they can do this, should be considered invalid.
As we all know, HR doesn't exist for the betterment of the employee,
it's to keep the company out of the courts. You'd need to remove ADA
and all employee protections to create a workplace environment where
the workplace doesn't provide behavioral guidelines while THEY PAY YOU
TO WORK.
Re: Re: Social Media
By: Mike Powell to The Wanderer on Wed Apr 15 2026 09:53 am
Unfortunately, free speech is exploitable by any group for any ends. You
Therefore it should be allowed at all costs? I'm not sure of your point.
The Wanderer wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
I guess they're finding out they're not too big to be sued for some things. I agree with not holding common carriers or ISPs responsible
for data flowing through their networks, but when you run a website,
which is all twitter, meta, et al do, and they seek profit off of it,
they should be held liable for the content on it, user-generated or
not.
I've always felt like some of the concepts and distinctions of what
makes a service vs. publisher lost on the lawmakers.
boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
It's simpler to comprehend than that. Simply put, we come to
understand that our rights to freedom of speech and freedom of mind are inalienable, and therefore cannot be traded away by a contract.
The problem is that people think that as long as you sign a contract,
it is valid, but that is not the case. A contract cannot be valid if
it violates law (i.e., a contract of slavery is not valid and not enforceable)
An employment contract, which requires you to surrender freedom of mind
or freedom of speech is not enforceable, and not valid. So if the
company decides to fire you because you disagree with some ideological position, then you can have them for wrongful termination if they fire you.
Mike Powell wrote to The Wanderer <=-
Maybe don't hit reply and delete a bunch of the message before reading
it all?
boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
It's simpler to comprehend than that. Simply put, we come to understand that our rights to freedom of speech and freedom of mind a inalienable, and therefore cannot be traded away by a contract.
Inalienable in the context of government writing laws that restrict our
freedom of speech. Private enterprises are free to set whatever
requirements they want within reason and employment is at-will in most
places.
Although government employment is a sticky bit.
The problem is that people think that as long as you sign a contract, it is valid, but that is not the case. A contract cannot be valid if it violates law (i.e., a contract of slavery is not valid and not enforceable)
In the context of free speech and enterprise, they don't tell you you
can't say anything - rather they say something along the lines of can't
say anything that would harm the company's image or reputation if
attributed to an employee of the company, or something like that.
Usually with some disclaimer needed - "my opinions aren't necessarily
those of my employer", that kind of thing.
There's no law against that.
An employment contract, which requires you to surrender freedom of mi or freedom of speech is not enforceable, and not valid. So if the company decides to fire you because you disagree with some ideologica position, then you can have them for wrongful termination if they fir you.
Whether or not this is true, you'll probably still walk away with a
settlement, no admission of fault by the company and an NDA. It's
cheaper to pay out than to litigate.
Twas Wednesday, April 15th when Arelor said...
Just how does X force you to listen or read anything these days?
X has and is used by top officials around the globe.
The original context was people complaining about the Fediverse and that some people would ban x servers because of y reason.
Not, "we should ban all x people from the internet".
As we all know, HR doesn't exist for the betterment of the employee,
it's to keep the company out of the courts. You'd need to remove ADA
and all employee protections to create a workplace environment where
the workplace doesn't provide behavioral guidelines while THEY PAY YOU
TO WORK.
By: Arelor to The Wanderer on Wed Apr 15 2026 03:44 am
Just how does X force you to listen or read anything these days?
You've missed the context, that's not what was said.
I am aware but that is orthogonal to my question.
Agreed, but my theory is the "y" in "y reason" is certain administrators want to ban all x people from the internet (and I dare say from existence).
Twas Monday, April 20th when Arelor said...
I am aware but that is orthogonal to my question.
No, it's not.
Your claim is "No one is forcing you to listen to official White House statements".
Re: Re: Social Media
By: poindexter FORTRAN to boraxman on Sat Apr 18 2026 12:21 pm
As we all know, HR doesn't exist for the betterment of the employee,
it's to keep the company out of the courts. You'd need to remove ADA
and all employee protections to create a workplace environment where
the workplace doesn't provide behavioral guidelines while THEY PAY YOU
TO WORK.
The whole idea a company needs to provide behavioral guidelines in such
a way that it makes a significant cut in your workhours is absolutely bonkers IMO.
Doctors here used to pay me in order to complete such courses in their name and I can assure you most workplace behavior courses are a scam in order to stuff the pockets of the organizations giving them. More often than not they try to train employees into interacting with compliance departments who serve no purpose.
In Spain those courses are usually paid with tax money, at which point it becomes a serious issue because the government is wasting money in something which is not needed, and that is before we start considering whether it contains propaganda or not.
His claim is valid. No one, other than yourself, is forcing you to watch or read anything. Just because it is being broadcast on all normal broadcast channels simultaneously, does not mean you have to watch/ listen/ read it. I watch no normal broadcast channels unless there is something specific I desire to see. Most of those I can watch on a re-stream online. My choice. If your psychological state requires you to watch, read, or listen to all things that all elected officials post/say, then that is on you, not on the officials or the networks. No one is forcing you. The last official Presidential address I watched was Richard Nixon resigning. Ever since I either change to a streaming service, a movie channel, or just leave the room if someone else is watching.
Officials running the country put out official statements, and now do so via 'X' or 'Truth Social'. Those statements affect your dailyi life, including laws which "akcually...since we're doing that", matter to you. Your ignorance doesn't hold up in court.
NuSkooler wrote to John Richards <=-
On Tuesday, April 21st John Richards was heard saying...
His claim is valid. No one, other than yourself, is forcing you to watch or read anything. Just because it is being broadcast on all normal broadcast channels simultaneously, does not mean you have to watch/ listen/ read it. I watch no normal broadcast channels unless there is something specific I desire to see. Most of those I can watch on a re-stream online. My choice. If your psychological state requires you to watch, read, or listen to all things that all elected officials post/say, then that is on you, not on the officials or the networks. No one is forcing you. The last official Presidential address I watched was Richard Nixon resigning. Ever since I either change to a streaming service, a movie channel, or just leave the room if someone else is watching.
Oh please, this is about as childish as you can get. Yes, we're all
aware no one is physically forcing anyone to do pretty much anything. Congrats on burrying your head in the sand?
Officials running the country put out official statements, and now do
so via 'X' or 'Truth Social'. Those statements affect your dailyi life, including laws which "akcually...since we're doing that", matter to
you. Your ignorance doesn't hold up in court.
Would you mind stopping with the political garbage? It's a known rule in here, and you've been asked before, recently.
NuSkooler wrote to Gamgee <=-
Would you mind stopping with the political garbage? It's a known rule
in here, and you've been asked before, recently.
Yall want to be the last word eh?
I'm just replying.
Oh I know the rules, I've been here since day 1, thanks for the tip.
fsxNet really has become FidoNet proper. Super unfortunate.
Twas Monday, April 20th when Arelor said...
I am aware but that is orthogonal to my question.
No, it's not.
Your claim is "No one is forcing you to listen to official White House statements".
Newsflash:
No you are complaining about missing context in other responses to you but then deleted what all else I said from my response... you know, about it being a two way street and the person listening needs to know how to filter out garbage (rather than having a government that infringes upon free speech)?
Maybe don't hit reply and delete a bunch of the message before reading it all?
The argument is pretty much that Twitter sucks because it has awful people in it AND it sucks to have to interact with that people.
Therefore I think it is legit to ask in which way you are forced to read or follow anybody, because if you are not being forced to interact with those awful people the whole argument grows weak.
You go to twitter and try to get started you'll have Elon and devisive crap thrown in your face often, whether you've asked for it or not.
NuSkooler wrote to The Wanderer <=-
You go to twitter and try to get started you'll have Elon and devisive crap thrown in your face often, whether you've asked for it or not.
And of course, this type of stuff, too!
https://en.democraticunderground.org/100221186209
While at the same time, re-inviting all the actual self-proclaimed fascists. Neat.
The Wanderer wrote to Arelor <=-
Nobody says you're going to have to interact with them, but they're forcing their interactions upon you.
You go to twitter and try to get started you'll have Elon andcrap thrown in your face often, whether you've asked for it or not.
devisive
And of course, this type of stuff, too! https://en.democraticunderground.org/100221186209How many times must you be asked to stop with the political garbage?
You said previously that you know the rules... but you continue to do it. Why?
One thing I like about the fediverse is being able to go back to a chronological sort. If you haven't looked at it, it's definitely worth a look.
NuSkooler wrote to Gamgee <=-
And of course, this type of stuff, too! https://en.democraticunderground.org/100221186209
How many times must you be asked to stop with the political garbage?
You said previously that you know the rules... but you continue to do
it. Why?
It's cute that you only respond to me, but not the original posters.
suppose it's that I don't respect you, since you're a constant forum warrior jerk?
No you are complaining about missing context in other responses to you b then deleted what all else I said from my response... you know, about it being a two way street and the person listening needs to know how to filter out garbage (rather than having a government that infringes upon free speech)?
Yes, it was pointless and no, it's not a two-way street.
You push disinformation, misinformation, lies, propaganda and hate on an igno
Yeth mathtuh.
It's YOU that keeps it going, and YOU that has to keep injecting politics into everything you say. That's why.
One thing I like about the fediverse is being able to go back to a chronological sort. If you haven't looked at it, it's definitely worth a look.
So, after getting on me for supposedly trying to control free speech, that is exactly what you want?
Free speech is a two-way street. If you are too dumb to filter stuff out that is not everyone else's problem.
Yeth mathtuh.I am not the one arguing for curtailing free speech... so, in this scenario, I am not the one arguing for a "mathtuh" to control us all.
I've been part of the fediverse for years! It's got a lot going for it and keeps getting better.
The one advantage that it has in this particular era is usability from mobile devices. I do like ye olde and ye newey BBSes, but I haven't yet seen a real usable way of using it from mobile... nor would I really want to, I don't think.
And yet, look around you. It is exactly everyone's problem. You can keep claiming it, but no, free speech isn't a two-way street.
So, after getting on me for supposedly trying to control free speech, that
is exactly what you want?
Que?
Yeth mathtuh.I am not the one arguing for curtailing free speech... so, in this scenario, I am not the one arguing for a "mathtuh" to control us all.
Mike, you can't seem to stick to the message. You were pointlessly bossy because you believe with your heart & soul that you're right and people better bow down before you. I responded. Stick to the message.
NuSkooler wrote to Gamgee <=-
It's YOU that keeps it going, and YOU that has to keep injecting
politics into everything you say. That's why.
Let's see, I responded to a thread about Elon Musk with information on Elon Musk. Perhaps we should define what "politics" are, since you seem
to think anything you disagree with falls into that category. Last I checked, X is a private company, and Elon Musk isn't a political representative.
On Friday, April 24th The Wanderer said...
And yet, look around you. It is exactly everyone's problem. You can k claiming it, but no, free speech isn't a two-way street.
Free speech has a lot in relationship with the Paradox of Tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Yes, you can think and say whatever you want. Yes, there can still be reasonable limits on such speech and still remain "free speech"; Yes,
the lines are alwasy grey.
Its like the "Turing Test". One guy spitballs an idea, and people treat it as an ironclad law of the universe. Turing was wrong (to be fair, he couldn't have known at aht time). A machine CAN appear to hold a conversation yet not be intelligent.
Popper's Paradox of Intolerance may have made sense, and had an audience in 1945, just after WWII, when THAT was what is on everyones mind, but the world had moved on, has changed, and that concept has issues with it now.
The Wanderer wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
The one advantage that it has in this particular era is usability from mobile devices. I do like ye olde and ye newey BBSes, but I haven't yet seen a real usable way of using it from mobile... nor would I really
want to, I don't think.
ENiGMA 1/2 BBS just "shipped" ActivityPub/Fediverse support. Seems thus far to fit in with BBS's quite well. I've only added the bread and butter, but it seems like there are some great opportunities to add some "BBS extentions" that boards could use to interop with (sorta like FTN ofc, just another one on the pile...)
Yes, you can think and say whatever you want. Yes, there can still be reasonable limits on such speech and still remain "free speech"; Yes, the lines are alwasy grey.
Popper's Paradox of Intolerance may have made sense, and had an audience in 1945, just after WWII, when THAT was what is on everyones mind, but the world had moved on, has changed, and that concept has issues with it now.
I think you might be misunderstanding the two highly used 'Turning' - the Turning test, and Turning complete. Even modern AI "fails" the Turning test (it's a measure), and Turning complete is absolutely critical to CS.
I'm not sure I can disagree more. This is still higly regarded. The time period in which someone "coins" a term or concept or how old it is, is
in fact pretty irrelevant. Consider Einstein, around the same time you point out.
It's held up well, and in fact is referenced more & talked about more because it's exactly as relevant. I'm curious what "issues" you believe the conept to have?
Popper's Paradox of Intolerance may have made sense, and had an audie in 1945, just after WWII, when THAT was what is on everyones mind, bu world had moved on, has changed, and that concept has issues with it
How few messages ago was it where you're touting the free speech awesomeness from something Mill wrote in...
1859...?
Like it matters when the thing was written?
The paradox of intolerance is pretty straightforward, clear, and absolutely fits with how things are playing out these days.
home, always in a darkened room.
Maybe one of those old desk lamps
illuminating the room.
Lately, it's been a first thing
in the morning, cup-of-coffee
kinda
thing. And, by lately, I mean the
last 30 years or so. :)
[...] I do like ye olde and ye newey BBSes, but I haven't yet
seen a real usable way of using it from mobile... nor would I really want to, I don't think.
I saw your post about what you've done for the latest release and my eyes kind of bugged out.
Let's see, I responded to a thread about Elon Musk with information on Elon Musk. Perhaps we should define what "politics" are, since you seem to think anything you disagree with falls into that category. Last I checked, X is a private company, and Elon Musk isn't a political representative.
So much of this free speech zealotry that comes up is so absolute, no matter how stupid or dangerous it is. (I also see it as a pretty regional issue...)
| Sysop: | John Richards |
|---|---|
| Location: | Escatawpa, MS |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 494730:24:11 |
| Calls: | 22 |
| Files: | 10,775 |
| D/L today: |
115 files (9,999K bytes) |
| Messages: | 9,921 |