Just them going after Adobe is enough for Kamala to get my vote. Fuck Adobe.

Lego has shifted (or is trying to shift) towards a more plant based, biodegradable plastic. They have to put a big effort because their entire product line is based on a material that has (rightfully so) negative connotations.

Poor guy, just another "victim" of Russian financing. What a tool

Well... I meant train in on a larger data set going back for republican/Dems a long way back

I'm curious if at this point it would be possible to train an LLM on this type of estimation. But I don't understand Ai really well or if they are even good at predictive work. Im going off of research that involved predicting disease (I think it was diabetes)

Man, the straw man was about having access to the internet as an example of uncensored access to information invalidating book moderation. It wasn't about equivocating between different degrees of offending narratives. I was just following the principle to its final conclusion.

It doesn't have to be a snuff film. That was an example or meant to be a hypothetical to further the discussion. I don't see how nitpicking it is constructive if it sidesteps my point.

Now we get to an actual strawman -Finally! My position has never been the banning of all books, but rather questioning if moderation is useful or not. You can't say that the logical conclusion of some moderation is total banning because it doesn't follow.

The person I replied to said internet exists so banning books is worthless anyway which is not a terrible argument. I think it's worth considering it 2024. I was just taking the hypothetical to its extreme conclusion to test if it was still a principled position to have. I think we all agree at this point.

Anyway. I'm not pro banning and I appreciate the convo so thanks.

Cheers!

I totally agree. Thanks for contributing your perspective. I really appreciate it. I think the only factor perhaps to consider is liability. The internet is completely decentralized so the onus is more spread out maybe? I'm gonna think on this a little but I do concede that you make a good point in that the info is already out there. Twenty years ago our conversation might have sounded totally different.

Thanks!

It's called "reductio ad absurdio". It's a method in philosophy to examine arguments/principles by taking to the most extreme example and it's what came to mind. Again, I personally am not for banning. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

So far all the arguments brought by repubs in favor of banning have not convinced me. The only thing so far has been conversations with my wife who is a teacher.

To be clear, I'm just musing on an internet forum because censorship is an interesting topic to me. I'm not on the "pro-ban camp".

Edit: also it's not a "straw man" if it logically follows from the original premise. People : stop throwing this expression around unless you really understand how logical fallacies work.

I honestly think it's just a resource issue. If there are enough staffers and teachers around then there really should be a problem. The main counter my wife (a teacher) gave is that most school districts just don't have the necessary staff to moderate/work with the kids.

I expected people would bring up personal anecdotes to justify things.

I'm sorry about your experience. I'm glad you didn't kill anyone. When we talk about policy, we're talking about something that can be scaled. That's why when we pass legislation it's not helpful to look at single individual examples but at the broader picture.

I have nothing against kids exploring moral quandaries. We are talking about who takes the responsibility of delivering the content.

When my wife was a teacher, a 12 year old commitei suicide at home, which is insanely rare. Now, this kid was completely neglected at home. Should we allow kids to check out books that encourage suicide? Should the school district take on that liability? I know this is also an anecdotal example, but it's interesting to explore the other perspective no?

Eh. Have you been around Lemmy much...? If there ever was a single issue voter, it's Lemmy. And to be clear: what is happening in Palestine is horrible. I just get the sense that Lemmy users-at least the ones that are so vocal about Palestine- don't actually want a solution.

I got into arguments where even the concept of a ceasefire was unwelcome. That's right: I got push back for encouraging work towards a ceasefire because apparently it wasn't enough.

You know, stopping the bombing that is actually hurting the Palestinians?

In a country of 300 million people. You calling this some kind of achievement?