203 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. The real question isn’t whether platforms like Twitter and Facebook are public squares (because they aren’t), but whether they should be. Should everyone have a right to access these platforms and speak through them the way we all have a right to stand on a soap box downtown and speak through a megaphone? It’s a more complicated ask than we realize—certainly more complicated than those (including Elon Musk himself) who seem to think merely declaring Twitter a public square is sufficient.
    2. This tweet, along with the reinstatement of Donald Trump’s Twitter account, has caused a whirlwind of discussion and debate on the platform—the same arguments about free speech and social media as the “digital public square” that seem to go nowhere, regardless of how often we try. And part of the reason they go nowhere is because the situation is both more simple and more complicated than many of us want to recognize.
  2. Nov 2022
  3. Oct 2022
  4. drive.google.com drive.google.com
    1. No, thanks, Mom. I have lots of homework to clear by the end of the week,” he lied

      This suggests that Gregory hides the truth from his parents and he is lonely as a teenager as he has no one to share his true feelings with.

  5. Sep 2022
    1. Working backwards, Google isn’t legally compelled to give Mark a hearing about his digital life (Sixth Amendment); they are wrong not to. Google isn’t legally compelled to give Mark due process before permanently deleting his digital life (Fifth Amendment); they are wrong not to. Google isn’t legally compelled to not search all of the photographs uploaded to Google (by default, if you click through all of the EULA’s); they are…well, this is where it gets complicated.

      Ben Thompson makes the case that although Google is acting within legal bounds, morally their behavior is wrong and incompatible with the spirit of the Fifth, Sixth and possibly Fourth Amendments.

    2. In short, the questions about Google’s behavior are not about free speech; they do, though, touch on other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. For example: The Fourth Amendment bars “unreasonable searches and seizures”; while you can make the case that search warrants were justified once the photos in question were discovered, said photos were only discovered because Mark’s photo library was indiscriminately searched in the first place. The Fifth Amendment says no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; Mark lost all of his data, email account, phone number, and everything else Google touched forever with no due process at all. The Sixth Amendment is about the rights to a trial; Mark was not accused of any crime in the real world, but when it came to his digital life Google was, as I noted, “judge, jury, and executioner” (the Seventh Amendment is, relatedly, about the right to a jury trial for all controversies exceeding $20).

      Ben Thompson argues that questions about Google's behavior towards a false positive case of CSAM does not pertain to free speech or to the First Amendment. But it does pertain to other Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

    3. I found this paragraph in a New York Times article about Elon Musk’s attempts to buy Twitter striking: The plan jibes with Mr. Musk’s, Mr. Dorsey’s and Mr. Agrawal’s beliefs in unfettered free speech. Mr. Musk has criticized Twitter for moderating its platform too restrictively and has said more speech should be allowed. Mr. Dorsey, too, grappled with the decision to boot former President Donald J. Trump off the service last year, saying he did not “celebrate or feel pride” in the move. Mr. Agrawal has said that public conversation provides an inherent good for society. Their positions have increasingly become outliers in a global debate over free speech online, as more people have questioned whether too much free speech has enabled the spread of misinformation and divisive content. In other words, the culture has changed; the law persists, but it does not and, according to the New York Times, ought not apply to private companies.

      Ben Thompson argues that it is precisely culture that has now changed, seemingly in favor of being less tolerant towards the expression of certain opinions.

    4. Munroe, though, assumes the opposite: liberty, in this case the freedom of speech, is an artifact of law, only stretching as far as government action, and no further. Pat Kerr, who wrote a critique of this comic on Medium in 2016, argued that this was the exact wrong way to think about free speech: Coherent definitions of free speech are actually rather hard to come by, but I would personally suggest that it’s something along the lines of “the ability to voluntarily express (and receive) opinions without suffering excessive penalties for doing so”. This is a liberal principle of tolerance towards others. It’s not an absolute, it isn’t comprehensive, it isn’t rigorously defined, and it isn’t a law. What it is is a culture.

      Ben Thompson by highlighting an argument made by Pat Kerr, that free speech (although lacking a widely accepted definition) is about the tolerance we show others in expressing their opinions, equates it to culture.

    5. This Article is a manifestation of Madison’s hope. Start with the reality that it seems quaint in retrospect to think that any of the Bill of Rights would be preserved absent the force of law. This is one of the great lessons of the Internet and the rise of Aggregators: when suppressing speech entailed physically disrupting printing presses or arresting pamphleteers, then restricting government, which retains a monopoly on real world violence, was sufficient to preserve speech. Along the same lines, there was no need to demand due process or a restriction on search and seizure on any entity but the government, because only the government could take your property or send you to jail.

      Ben Thompson makes the point that during the time of printing presses and pamphleteers, when free speech laws were drafted, the threat to free speech could come only from one entity: the government (with its monopoly on violence). Thus, placing restrictions on one entity — the government — would be sufficient to safeguard free speech.

  6. Aug 2022
    1. Indeed, judging from the accounts of the many employees who have now gone on record about this issue, the “debates” that have been happening at Basecamp are precisely the kinds of conversations that happen when you have a diverse workforce. Different issues affect different people differently, and being able to speak freely about those differences is the hallmark of a healthy culture. But by framing these discussions as “acrimonious debates” rather than “challenging conversations,” Hansson has positioned himself not as a peacemaker, but as a tyrant hell-bent on taking his toys and going home; shutting down discussions rather than holding space for growth and discovery.
    1. Correspondingly,the far-reaching studies of language that were carried out under the influence ofCartesian rationalism suffered from a failure to appreciate either the abstractnessof those structures that are “present to the mind” when an utterance is producedor understood, or the length and complexity of the chain of operations that relatethe mental structures expressing the semantic content of the utterance to thephysical realization.

      What are the simple building blocks of thought and speech that make it so complex in aggregate?

  7. Jun 2022
    1. In France, a wealthyvoter giving 7,500 euros (the current ceiling) to his preferred politicalparty has a right to a tax deduction of 5,000 euros, financed by the restof the taxpayers.
    1. One conclusion follows from the opposition between the can-ons of good writing and those of good written speeches: unless youare threatened with jail and a heavy fine, do not allow a writtenlecture to be published without extensive rewriting on your part.

    Tags

    Annotators

  8. May 2022
    1. “It was 2017, I would say, when Twitter started really cracking down on bots in a way that they hadn’t before — taking down a lot of bad bots, but also taking down a lot of good bots too. There was an appeals process [but] it was very laborious, and it just became very difficult to maintain stuff. And then they also changed all their API’s, which are the programmatic interface for how a bot talks to Twitter. So they changed those without really any warning, and everything broke.

      Just like chilling action by political actors, social media corporations can use changes in policy and APIs to stifle and chill speech online.

      This doesn't mean that there aren't bad actors building bots to actively cause harm, but there is a class of potentially helpful and useful bots (tools) that can make a social space better or more interesting.

      How does one regulate this sort of speech? Perhaps the answer is simply not to algorithmically amplify these bots and their speech over that of humans.

      More and more I think that the answer is to make online social interactions more like in person interactions. Too much social media is giving an even bigger bullhorn to the crazy preacher on the corner of Main Street who was shouting at the crowds that simply ignored them. Social media has made it easier for us to shout them back down, and in doing so, we're only making them heard by more. We need a negative feedback mechanism to dampen these effects the same way they would have happened online.

  9. Mar 2022
    1. “As with many of the articles with which these proceedings are concerned, the respondent does not merely identify information, put the material before the public, and ask questions arising from it. He acts as arbiter, presenting the matter on the basis that his belief, opinions and interpretation of the information, assuming that is the right word to use, is “the full truth,”” the judges noted in their opinion [PDF] on March 25.
    2. According to Kerr, Dorrian, who presided over both Salmond’s trial and Murray’s contempt of court proceedings, “has led the campaign to get rid of juries in the cases of sex offenses in Scotland.”

      Dorisn is the judge that persuaded both Alex's and Murray's trials!

    1. This is what free societies converging on an idea looks like.

      Or political pressure being applied to every company (from people, not the government). Suspending business in Russia costs less than the repetitional hit of continuing there.

      Though arguable that's the same as a "free convergence on an idea" -- since such pressure only exists when many people agree on something.

  10. Jan 2022
    1. We’re not a place—it’s very difficult to come to Xbox Live and say, ‘Okay, I want to go create a political party on the platform’. You could kind of twist the tools and try to get there, but it’s just not set up for general-purpose conversations or community.

      My Xbox 360 display picture is a Libertarian Party one created by the Xbox team for a past election cycle. They had them for GOP and Dem as well.

      There are also a few groups centered around politics for coordinating gameplay together premised on a common interest - so it seems that to that extent he doesn't know his own system?

      I don't know that Xbox as a social platform would be favorable for "creating a political party" whatever that means. Government's control what political parties are created - they only allow the ones they approve of to exist anyway.

  11. Dec 2021
    1. ஒவ்வையாரும் விக்ரமாதித்யனும்

      https://youtu.be/zxZOgz1IjTU?t=337

      • ஏற்றுக உலையே ஆக்குக சோறே
      • இவ்வரி சங்க இலக்கிய மொழியியல் கூறுகளில் இருந்து வேறுபடுகின்றது
      • ஆழ்ந்த படிமங்கள் வகையில் அழகியல் இல்லாமால் நேரடி தன்மையில் உள்ளது
      • classic poetry ∨ romantic poetry
    1. we should not support the institutionalizing of the right to be intolerant. If Eich thinks that same-sex marriage is against his beliefs, that’s fine, even if you (as I) disagree with him. But, by making a commitment to impress that belief upon others, he created a situation where his freedom of expression trampled the freedoms and rights of others. If Eich disagrees with same-sex marriage on religious grounds, that’s also his First Amendment right. But unless there’s a law requiring religious institutions to officially support same-sex marriages, his right to practice a religion is not infringed upon by their legality. And, again, I stress the critical difference between disagreeing with something and campaigning to write that disagreement into law.
  12. Nov 2021
    1. “It’s just unfortunate that these are the circumstances that we’re talking about Mastodon again,” he tells me. “I would much prefer it was something specifically about Mastodon. Rather than, you know, Gab.”

      Rochko (mastodon creator) said that at the closing of the interview.

    1. Yet our investigation revealed that YouTube blocked advertisers’ ability to find social justice content, potentially restricting ad revenue for those YouTubers.

      Check the gif from the Google-Ads blocking #BLM, but not "all lives matter"!

    1. even if you share a photo of someone who was like killed by an Israeli soldier you go to jail and you go to jail for the amount of like

      Small difference between Israel's law on Palestianians publishing on the internet & Saudi Arabia…

    1. «Νομίζω ότι είναι καιρός για τον λαό και τις ελίτ της Γερμανίας», δήλωσε προ ημερών σε συνέντευξή του στην Deutsche Welle o Παλαιστίνιος αναλυτής Αλί Αμπουνιμάχ, «να σταματήσουν να τιμωρούν τα παιδιά στη Λωρίδα της Γάζας για τα εγκλήματα που πραγματοποίησαν οι ίδιοι εναντίον των Εβραίων της Ευρώπης». Το αποτέλεσμα ήταν ότι ο σταθμός απολογήθηκε στους τηλεθεατές γιατί του έδωσε τον λόγο και διέγραψε τη συνέντευξη.

      Pravda-like censorship and cleansing of historical tracks!

    1. με την εξαίρεση του συναδέλφου του που δήλωσε ότι η προβολή και μόνο του φιλμ ειναι «πράξη ρατσιστική, ανεξάρτητα από τις προθέσεις του καθηγητή [Σενγκ]»

      Inconceivable that accusators want to ban art works back-in-time. It's like burning books, but virtually.

  13. Oct 2021
    1. Facebook could shift the burden of proof toward people and communities to demonstrate that they’re good actors—and treat reach as a privilege, not a right.

      Nice to see someone else essentially saying something along the lines that "free speech" is not the same as "free reach".

      Traditional journalism has always had thousands of gatekeepers who filtered and weighed who got the privilege of reach. Now anyone with an angry, vile, or upsetting message can get it for free. This is one of the worst parts of what Facebook allows.

  14. Sep 2021
    1. I've got serious reservations about this Gerst fellow. His answers are too vague and contain too many bald assertions. The form of his answers fits what I've noticed to be a "style" of regressives seeking to promote obsolete traditions and social norms.

      Granted, it's difficult to present precise information in "interview format" articles like this one, but education is too important to get get wrong - again.

    1. Humans perform a version of this task when interpretinghard-to-understand speech, such as an accent which is particularlyfast or slurred, or a sentence in a language we do not know verywell—we do not necessarily hear every single word that is said,but we pick up on salient key words and contextualize the rest tounderstand the sentence.

      Boy, don't they

    1. Klarg received a messenger goblin from King Grol a few days ago. The messenger told him that someone named the Black Spider was paying the Cragmaws to watch out for the dwarf Gundren Rockseeker, capture him, and send him and anything he was carrying back to King Grol. Klarg followed his orders. Gundren was ambushed and taken along with his personal effects, including a map.

      "Klarg got a message from King Grol the other day it was. Some bloke named the black spider was payin us to look out for that dwarf fella. We was spose' to capture 'im and send 'im and 'is stuff to King Grol. I remember when we was lookin at 'is stuff there was some fancy bits and bobs an a map."

    2. The dwarf and his map were delivered to King Grol, as instructed. The dwarf’s human companion is being held in the “eating cave” (area 6)

      "The dwarf an the map is gone already but his 'uman friend we got locked up in the eatin' cave"

    3. Their leader is a bugbear named Klarg. He answers to King Grol, chief of the Cragmaw tribe, who dwells in Cragmaw Castle. (The goblins can provide basic directions to Cragmaw Castle. It’s about twenty miles northeast of the Cragmaw hideout, in Neverwinter Wood.)

      "If you're lookin for me boss it's this stinkin' bugbear Klarg. He's answerin' to King Grol though, He's our chief, 'as a castle in the Neverwinter Wood. I can show you were it is, all of us 'ere can."

    4. Fewer than twenty goblins currently dwell in the lair.

      "I reckon there's no more than 17...18..19..20, no more then 20 goblins in there"

    1. Personalized ASR models. For each of the 432 participants with disordered speech, we create a personalized ASR model (SI-2) from their own recordings. Our fine-tuning procedure was optimized for our adaptation process, where we only have between ¼ and 2 h of data per speaker. We found that updating only the first five encoder layers (versus the complete model) worked best and successfully prevented overfitting [10]
    1. The researchers found that the model, when it is still confused by a given phoneme (that’s an individual speech sound like an “e” or “f”), has two kinds of errors. First, there’s the fact that it doesn’t recognize the phoneme for what was intended, and thus is not recognizing the word. And second, the model has to guess which phoneme the speaker did intend, and might choose the wrong one in cases where two or more words sound roughly similar.
  15. Aug 2021
    1. The First Amendment precludes lawmakers from forcing platforms to take down many kinds of dangerous user speech, including medical and political misinformation.

      Compare social media with the newspaper business from this perspective.

      People joined social media not knowing the end effects, but now don't have a choice of platform after-the-fact. Social platforms accelerate the disinformation using algorithms.

      Because there is choice amongst newspapers, people can easily move and if they'd subscribed to a racist fringe newspaper, they could easily end their subscription and go somewhere else. This is patently not the case for any social media. There's a high hidden personal cost for connectivity that isn't taken into account. The government needs to regulate this and not the speech portion.

      Social media should be considered a common carrier and considered as such. It was an easier and more logical process in the telephone, electricity and other areas to force this as the cost of implementation for them was magnitudes of order higher. The data formats and storage for social should be standardized (potentially even in three or more formats) and that should be the common carrier imposed. Would this properly skirt the First Amendment issues?

    2. Francis Fukuyama has called "middleware": content-curation services that could give users more control over the material they see on internet platforms such as Facebook or Twitter.
  16. Jul 2021
    1. "For example, human annotators rarely reached agreement when they were asked to label tweets that contained words from a lexicon of hate speech. Only 5% of the tweets were acknowledged by a majority as hate speech, while only 1.3% received unanimous verdicts."

      This seems shocking to me.

    1. The point of a pluralistic society, however, isn’t to find a single, absolute, dogmatic ideal. It is rather to discover ways of coexisting productively, despite and perhaps even in celebration of our differences.

      Very good point. Should look for plurality in ideals.

  17. Jun 2021
    1. Το ότι αποτελούν αντικείμενο ρύθμισης δεν είναι κάποια ριζοσπαστική θέση, είναι η θέση που έχει εκφράσει στο κογκρέσο των ΗΠΑ ο ιδρυτής  και ιδιοκτήτης του Fb Mark Zuckerberg: «Η θέση μου δεν είναι ότι δεν πρέπει να υπάρχει ρύθμιση. Πιστεύω ότι το πραγματικό ερώτημα, καθώς το διαδίκτυο γίνεται ολοένα και πιο σημαντικό για τις ζωές των ανθρώπων, είναι ποιος είναι ο σωστός τρόπος ρύθμισης, και όχι αν είναι απαραίτητο να υπάρχει ρύθμιση»

      Τσακαλώτος στα καλύτερά του, επιχειρηματολογέι εναντια στην ιδεολογία της ιδιώτευσης στο Fb.

    1. οι «ψηφιακοί καθαριστές» που δουλεύουν στα ελληνικά γραφεία της Teleperformance, η οποία έχει σύμβαση συνεργασίας με τη Facebook από τον Σεπτέμβριο του 2018, εστιάζουν μόνο στις διαφημίσεις και όχι στις προσωπικές αναρτήσεις κάθε χρήστη.

      Άλλη μια εταιρεία (teleperformance) που εμπλέκεται στην λογοκρισία του facebook.

  18. May 2021
    1. Ασκείται όμως από τις 11 (μέχρι πρότινος) ομάδες σε όλο τον κόσμο που συμμετέχουν στο Product Policy Forum, το οποίο διεξάγεται κάθε δύο εβδομάδες online προκειμένου να επιθεωρήσει την εφαρμογή των κανόνων κοινότητας,

      Το "Εφετείο" του fb.

    1. At the very least I would have expected the Court to have held back from making sweeping conclusions about his intentions and desires without first hearing from him under examination and on oath on the witness stand during his trial.

      Condemning someone on an accusation that has not been formally addressed to the accused, and never given the opportunity to apologize, is a tell-tail of an injust trial.

    2. In saying this it is essential to stress that the protection of witnesses and complainants in sexual assault cases is a paramount priority, and that the need to take steps to provide them with protection by securing their anonymity is not at issue.  However, to use this obligation to prevent balanced reporting of a case, especially one like Salmond’s, which had important public and political implications, seems to me to go too far and looks oppressive.  It appears to extinguish the right to a fair and open trial, which can only be secured by fair and balanced reporting. 

      The balance between the protection of the anonymity iof secret witnesses (eg in cases of sexual allegations), and the publicity of the trial (guaranteeing its fairness), is a tough one.

    1. Offense, insult, and hurt feelings are not particularly important

      Not only is it not important, you do not have the right to be offended.

      See here (Salman Rushdie), here (John Cleese), here (Jordan Petersen), here (Stephen Fry), and...well, you get the point.

    1. Το 2017 πάρθηκε μια στρατηγική απόφαση και είναι δηλωμένη επιλογή του Ζούκερμπεργκ να μειώσει στην πλατφόρμα τον χώρο όπου διενεργείται πολιτική συζήτηση γιατί μια τέτοια δραστηριότητα δεν είναι ιδιαίτερα επικερδής αλλά δημιουργεί προβλήματα στην εταιρεία.

      Unfair: limiting political talk means that only mainstream players are allowed to disseminate political messages.

    2. Η Facebook φορολογείται στην Ιρλανδία, αλλά κάνει μπίζνες με τις διαφημίσεις χωριστά σε κάθε χώρα.

      The 1st step to check Facebook is to demand to be taxed wherever its ads are shown.

  19. Apr 2021
    1. Μια σειρά δημοσιευμάτων έδειχναν πως οι λογοκριτές δεν ήταν άλλοι από τους υπαλλήλους της Teleperformance, της εταιρείας που, όπως είχε αποκαλύψει η «Εφ.Συν.» σε συνεργασία με το Investigate Europe και το Reporters United (30/4/2020), ανέλαβε εν κρυπτώ τη διαχείριση της γραμμής του ΕΟΔΥ για τον κορονοϊό («Η μυστική συνεργασία ΕΟΔΥ - Teleperformance και τα 6 σκοτεινά σημεία της»).

      Πόσοι γνωρίζουν ότι η εταιρεία που λογοκρίνει το ελληνικό Facebook έχει ολοκληρωθεί από την ελληνική Κυβέρνηση?

    1. “child-directed” or “caretaker” speech.

      Child-directed speech (CDS) refers to speech from a caregiver directed towards a child, as opposed to overheard speech - for example "Is lil'timmy ready for a nappy wappy?" Speech acquisition in children is an area of particular interest for linguists because it has significant implications for later childhood development and socialization. This article is not directly concerned with language acquisition, but rather the sense of forced infantilization that users of many major applications such as Venmo or Yelp feel is being imposed on them. Still, this is an interesting way to frame the topic of app design and the implications it has for the relationship between users and companies.

      Source: Shneidman, Laura A., and Meadow, Susan Goldin. “Language Input and Acquisition in a Mayan Village: How Important Is Directed Speech?” Developmental Science 15, no. 5 (September 2012): 659–73. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01168.x.

  20. Mar 2021
    1. Βλέποντας τις μεγάλες ιδιωτικές πλατφόρμες (φατσοβιβλία κ.λπ.) στις μέρες μας, αντιλαμβανόμαστε ότι δεν διαμορφώθηκε απολύτως καμία αθηναϊκή αγορά (το ιδανικό), αλλά ενισχύθηκε απεριόριστα το «Ολα για την κυκλοφορία» (η πραγματικότητα).
    1. One person writing a tweet would still qualify for free-speech protections—but a million bot accounts pretending to be real people and distorting debate in the public square would not.

      Do bots have or deserve the right to not only free speech, but free reach?

    1. restrictions on free speech

      Restrictions of free speech on the internet occur in the US and are not limited to the examples provided here. Have you encountered, experienced or read about restrictions on internet based speech lately? Examples

    1. In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech ... Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom, and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech, which is the right of every man ...

      It’s interesting to see this being debated today with the fight over freedom of speech in social media. You could argue that social media is today’s version of the earlier pamphlets.

    1. Αναλυτικοτερη απαντηση του Fb για τα κοωιματα των άρθρων και φραγες σε λογαριασμούς.

      ΔΕΝ ΔΟΥΛΕΥΟΥΝ τα annotations :-(

    1. Lori Morimoto, a fandom academic who was involved in the earlier discussion, didn’t mince words about the inherent hypocrisy of the controversy around STWW. “The discussions of the fic were absolutely riddled with people saying they wished you could block and/or ban certain users and fics on AO3 altogether because this is obnoxious,” she wrote to me in an email, “and nowhere (that I can see) is there anyone chiming in to say, ‘BUT FREE SPEECH!!!’” Morimoto continued: But when people suggest the same thing based on racist works and users, suddenly everything is about freedom of speech and how banning is bad. When it’s about racism, every apologist under the sun puts in an appearance to fight for our rights to be racist assholes, but if it’s about making the reading experience less enjoyable (which is basically what this is — it’s obnoxious, but not particularly harmful except to other works’ ability to be seen), then suddenly our overwhelming concern with free speech seems to just disappear in a poof of nothingness.

      This is an interesting example of people papering around allowing racism in favor of free speech.

    1. Careful wording by Fb to evade criticism for en-mass censorship on greek users, some of them, journalists covering demos for Koufontinas.

  21. Feb 2021
    1. Ries suspected Voulgarakis of the leak. Calling him “a less reliable ally,” Ries said Voulgarakis “has allowed rumors to circulate that the U.S. is behind [the] major eavesdropping case in Greece.”

      Ο Βουλγαρακης δεν τα'χε καλα με τους Αμερικανους.

    2. Minister of Public Order George Voulgarakis and several other officials finally held a televised press conference in February 2006.

      Ο Βουλγράκης ανελαβε την παρουσίαση του σκανδάλου στα ΜΜΕ.

    1. απαγορεύουμε σε μέλη τρομοκρατικών οργανώσεων, όπως ο κ. Κουφοντίνας, να χρησιμοποιούν τις πλατφόρμες μας, καθώς επίσης, αποκλείουμε δημοσιεύσεις που επιδοκιμάζουν ή υποστηρίζουν αυτά τα άτομα και τις ενέργειές τους κάθε φορά που λαμβάνουμε σχετική γνώση.

      Στην απάντησης της Fb δεν αναφέρεται καμία εξαίρεση για ιστορικούς, δικηγόρους, fair use, απλή φίμωση.

  22. Jan 2021
    1. n the mid-1920s, he had speech therapy for a stammer, which he learned to manage to some degree.
  23. Oct 2020
    1. usually overwhelmed by misconceptions (the charitable interpretation) or lies and propaganda (the more accurate one). Some of the most prominent politicians in the country — notably Senator Ted Cruz — routinely lie to the public about what the law says and how courts have interpreted it.

      LOLGOP

    1. This is the story of how Facebook tried and failed at moderating content. The article cites many sources (employees) that were tasked with flagging posts according to platform policies. Things started to be complicated when high-profile people (such as Trump) started posting hate speech on his profile.

      Moderators have no way of getting honest remarks from Facebook. Moreover, they are badly treated and exploited.

      The article cites examples from different countries, not only the US, including extreme right groups in the UK, Bolsonaro in Brazil, the massacre in Myanmar, and more.

      In the end, the only thing that changes Facebook behavior is bad press.

    1. Many of the book’s essayists defend freedom of expression over freedom from obscenity. Says Rabbi Arthur Lelyveld (father of Joseph, who would become executive editor of The New York Times): “Freedom of expression, if it is to be meaningful at all, must include freedom for ‘that which we loathe,’ for it is obvious that it is no great virtue and presents no great difficulty for one to accord freedom to what we approve or to that to which we are indifferent.” I hear too few voices today defending speech of which they disapprove.

      I might take issue with this statement and possibly a piece of Jarvis' argument here. I agree that it's moral panic that there could be such a thing as "too much speech" because humans have a hard limit for how much they can individually consume.

      The issue I see is that while anyone can say almost anything, the problem becomes when a handful of monopolistic players like Facebook or YouTube can use algorithms to programattically entice people to click on and consume fringe content in mass quantities and that subtly, but assuredly nudges the populace and electorate in an unnatural direction. Most of the history of human society and interaction has long tended toward a centralizing consensus in which we can manage to cohere. The large scale effects of algorithmic-based companies putting a heavy hand on the scales are sure to create unintended consequences and they're able to do it at scales that the Johnson and Nixon administrations only wish they had access to.

      If we look at as an analogy to the evolution of weaponry, I might suggest we've just passed the border of single shot handguns and into the era of machine guns. What is society to do when the next evolution occurs into the era of social media atomic weapons?

    1. Refusing advertising is refusing to privilege moneyed speech. The increasing equation of money with speech—that is, those with the most money can be the loudest and most persistent voices in contemporary media—is denied when advertising is refused.
  24. Sep 2020
  25. Jul 2020
    1. Defamation law walks a fine line between the right to freedom of speech and the right of a person to avoid defamation. On one hand, a reasonable person should have free speech to talk about their experiences in a truthful manner without fear of a lawsuit if they say something mean, but true, about someone else. On the other hand, people have a right to not have false statements made that will damage their reputation.
    1. when some listeners hear poets read with one or more of these characteristics—slow pitch speed, slow pitch acceleration, narrow pitch range, low rhythmic complexity, and/or slow speaking rate—they hear Poet Voice.”
  26. Jun 2020
    1. Just as journalists should be able to write about anything they want, comedians should be able to do the same and tell jokes about anything they please

      where's the line though? every output generates a feedback loop with the hivemind, turning into input to ourselves with our cracking, overwhelmed, filters

      it's unrealistic to wish everyone to see jokes are jokes, to rely on journalists to generate unbiased facts, and politicians as self serving leeches, err that's my bias speaking

    1. Such is the security of this architecture, that it has prompted law enforcement agencies around the world to complain that they now cannot access a user’s messages, even with a warrant. There is no backdoor—the only option is to compromise one of the endpoints and access messages in their decrypted state.
  27. May 2020
  28. Apr 2020
    1. Python contributed examples¶ Mic VAD Streaming¶ This example demonstrates getting audio from microphone, running Voice-Activity-Detection and then outputting text. Full source code available on https://github.com/mozilla/DeepSpeech-examples. VAD Transcriber¶ This example demonstrates VAD-based transcription with both console and graphical interface. Full source code available on https://github.com/mozilla/DeepSpeech-examples.
    1. Python API Usage example Edit on GitHub Python API Usage example¶ Examples are from native_client/python/client.cc. Creating a model instance and loading model¶ 115 ds = Model(args.model) Performing inference¶ 149 150 151 152 153 154 if args.extended: print(metadata_to_string(ds.sttWithMetadata(audio, 1).transcripts[0])) elif args.json: print(metadata_json_output(ds.sttWithMetadata(audio, 3))) else: print(ds.stt(audio)) Full source code
    1. DeepSpeech is an open source Speech-To-Text engine, using a model trained by machine learning techniques based on Baidu's Deep Speech research paper. Project DeepSpeech uses Google's TensorFlow to make the implementation easier. NOTE: This documentation applies to the 0.7.0 version of DeepSpeech only. Documentation for all versions is published on deepspeech.readthedocs.io. To install and use DeepSpeech all you have to do is: # Create and activate a virtualenv virtualenv -p python3 $HOME/tmp/deepspeech-venv/ source $HOME/tmp/deepspeech-venv/bin/activate # Install DeepSpeech pip3 install deepspeech # Download pre-trained English model files curl -LO https://github.com/mozilla/DeepSpeech/releases/download/v0.7.0/deepspeech-0.7.0-models.pbmm curl -LO https://github.com/mozilla/DeepSpeech/releases/download/v0.7.0/deepspeech-0.7.0-models.scorer # Download example audio files curl -LO https://github.com/mozilla/DeepSpeech/releases/download/v0.7.0/audio-0.7.0.tar.gz tar xvf audio-0.7.0.tar.gz # Transcribe an audio file deepspeech --model deepspeech-0.7.0-models.pbmm --scorer deepspeech-0.7.0-models.scorer --audio audio/2830-3980-0043.wav A pre-trained English model is available for use and can be downloaded using the instructions below. A package with some example audio files is available for download in our release notes.
  29. pypi.org pypi.org