AlexMax

> We're at 12 years of Wayland and counting and the thing still isn't really usable outside a very narrow use-case.

Must be a wide narrow you're talking about. I've been using it as my default session across two different distros and the only problem I can recall having was strange mouse-grabbing behavior in Firefox, and I don't even think that was Wayland's fault.

Good for them. Does this mean we're going to get a GNOME 4 as well? I'm quite curious to see what neat things the new version of GTK enables in practice.

Regardless of the bike-shedding over the exact syntax, this would be really cool to see. I have no clue how C/C++ made it into 2020 without this language feature - and yes, I know about incbin and xxd, and Go having it ahead of those languages would be ironic given how new and conservative of a language it is.

The goal of climate change denialists is to deny climate change by any excuse necessary. If the hot button topic wasn't the existence of different gender identities, they'd find something else as a wedge issue.

Sorry, but I think this is a poisonous, thought-terminating cliche.

Python has had multiple ways of doing many things for a very long time, and the longer you program in any language, the more you realize there are often many solutions to a problem and the "best" approach either depends on context or you realize there is no one "best" approach and go on preference.

I think the idea should be judged on its own merits without having to consult the Zen. That said, I seriously don't see the point of it. Python 3 already forced everybody to convert all their print statements to look like function calls, and now GVR wants to bring the old style back as an option? It's just parenthesis, what's the point?

If he wants to put that new parser to work, how about taking another look at multi-line lambdas?

> You seem to lack empathy for people who's content is being removed from these platforms.

I lack empathy not because I disagree with their politics, but because "getting booted out of a social space on the internet" seems like a strange non-problem.

Keep in mind that Twitter moderation is a joke no matter what side of the aisle you're on, and people leave not only because they got banned, or somebody they liked got banned, but also because of the perception that the moderators are asleep at the wheel and are too slow to take action - if they ever do.

Thing is, this is the internet. There are other sites out there. Most of them are accessible from typing something in your web browser. If there is a social space out there whose moderation you find more agreeable, why would you hang out someplace you're not welcome?

> We have to continue to protect peoples' ability to express themselves universally as technology evolves and provide platforms where they can't be bullied and destroyed by a riled up mob or institutionally silenced and de-platformed for dirty content.

You're not going to find that platform on Twitter. But you shouldn't have expected to find it on corporate-owned advertiser-friendly Twitter in the first place. The revolution will not be televised; brought to you by Xerox in four parts without commercial interruptions.

> What that signals to me is that practically they should be considered a speech platform

I'm not really sure what problem you're solving here. The social space is too big to moderate effectively, so hamstringing what little power the company chooses to exercise over its own space is supposed to somehow make things better? I don't see it.

> How can filtering infringe free speech? People can say whatever they want, but why should I have to hear them?

Simple. There's people agitating for free speech on idealistic terms, and then there's people agitating for free speech because they have an agenda and want a captive audience.

You can even see it in this comment thread. Take a look around and see if you can find any greyed-out comments that are arguing against the pro free-speech crowd. Down-voting is censorship via mob rule, so that should be twice as distasteful, but yet you see greyed out comments. The folks doing that are the latter, and not the former.

> And yeah, we also need usable and effective filtering, so everyone can choose what to see.

I'd be careful about mentioning filtering.

I just remembered that there was a Reddit Masstagger that helped folks with that filtering, but people got really upset about how it infringed on free speech and might have even gotten Google or Mozilla to remove it from the extension store.

I think there might have also been some for Twitter, which I imagine would have elicited a similar reaction.

> I am saying that the concession that we need to moderate "dirty" behavior is, in and of itself, the rhetoric that validates the mob behavior we're seeing.

I think that's a stretch.

The problem with Twitter isn't the moderation or the "leaning", it's the sheer size of the thing. Any sort of decent moderation is completely impossible at the scales of Twitter, and I voted with my feet a long long time ago and frankly don't feel like I'm missing anything.

On the other hand, there are plenty of smaller social spaces out there that are well moderated, do not treat all viewpoints equally, but at the same time somehow manage to prevent their users from anti-social mob justice.

To be clear, are you saying that if I don't agree with preserving the abstract freedom of expression on private social spaces, I am pro angry mob destroying peoples lives?

> Exactly. Because once everything isn't protected, someone gets to choose. So what we need are systems where content can't be removed, and users can't be banned, by design.

This is naive at best. I know of no social space on the internet that has light moderation, no moderation, or primarily user-driven moderation that isn't also a dumpster fire.

This is the internet. There are uncountable social spaces on it, and the fantastic thing is that the owners of each social space are free to enforce rules as they see fit. If you are unhappy with the moderation of a social space, or if you get booted, find another one. Or, you could even create your own.

Heck, because this is the internet, you are likely keeping up with many of the people you know from a social space through multiple other platforms, and if you want to peace out from one, you can coordinate a migration.

And? What did people expect would happen? You cannot trust large corporations with those kinds of discussions.

The thing is, I don't think the solution is to force Reddit to host those kinds of subreddits - the solution it to find or create a different social space. Alternatives to those spaces exist, you just have to look for them.

Actually it does matter, if we want to be honest about why we're even having this conversation.

Deplatforming and banning doesn't happen because of some abstract whim, so defending it in abstract terms sans context seems like it's overlooking a large chunk of the conversation.