juniper_strong
Joined 6 years ago
Karma
136
Submissions
107
Member since
Jul 18
Recent submissions
Comment · 6 years ago
Comment · 6 years ago
It is not just much more commonplace but obligatory for print magazines to exercise that control. A print magazine can't say, send me slander, send me libel, send me copyright violations, send me terrorist threats, if they agree with my personal political slant, I will print them all no questions asked.
Why can't a print magazine do that, but a website can? Did 230 say anything about why those are treated differently?
Comment · 6 years ago
Why should someone running a website be able to moderate without fear of litigation when someone publishing a print magazine is not able to moderate without fear of litigation?
Did 230 say anything about that or did the law have no stated reason for that difference?
Comment · 6 years ago
Here's the Merriam-Webster definition of censored: "suppressed, altered, or deleted as objectionable : subjected to censorship".
Government censorship is a subset of censorship. Private citizens of a private company are perfectly capable of suppressing, altering, or deleting material they consider objectionable, which seems to have been what happened in this case.
Comment · 6 years ago
Here's an article by Eugene Volokh on the difference between publishers, distributors and platforms: https://reason.com/2020/05/28/47-u-s-c-%C2%A7-230-and-the-pu....
"Historically, American law has divided operators of communications systems into three categories", he says, and he describes the third category as:
"Platforms, such as telephone companies, cities on whose sidewalks people might demonstrate, or broadcasters running candidate ads that they are required to carry."
His description of the liability rules for platforms:
"Platforms weren't liable at all. For instance, even if a phone company learned that an answering machine had a libelous outgoing message (see Anderson v. N.Y. Telephone Co. (N.Y. 1974)), and did nothing to cancel the owner's phone service, it couldn't be sued for libel. Likewise, a city couldn't be liable for defamatory material on signs that someone carried on city sidewalks (even though a bar could be liable once it learned of libelous material on its walls), and a broadcaster couldn't be liable for defamatory material in a candidate ad."
If you see a difference between that and "common carrier" that is relevant to whether an entity considered a traditional platform would have to carry spam or porn, what is it?
Comment · 6 years ago
Historically the term platform has meant just that, they have a legal requirement to allow all content. Think something like a phone network.
There are rules about what constitutes spam on a phone network - laws limiting robocalls in some situations for example - but it isn't the phone company making those rules.
Comment · 6 years ago
"Hypertension markedly increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases and overall mortality. Lifestyle modifications, such as increased levels of physical activity, are recommended as the first line of anti-hypertensive treatment. A recent systematic review showed that isometric handgrip (IHG) training was superior to traditional endurance and strength training in lowering resting systolic blood pressure (SBP)"
Comment · 6 years ago
>> I'm not sure how new teams can be formed and new staff onboarded with zero human contact or office interaction
The company laptop shows up at your front door and you get on the phone with the hiring manager who tells you how to log in.
I started in April and I've never met any of the people I work with in person. On my team, only one of the people was ever in the actual office.
It isn't a problem. Takes a little longer to build trust with people, that's about it.
Comment · 6 years ago
>> Laborers couldn't really ask for higher wages, because that was politically impossible
Not just politically impossible, illegal:
>> World War II disrupted those trends. As demand for everything — particularly labor — climbed, Congress passed the Stabilization Act of 1942, which allowed the president to freeze wages and salaries for all the nation's workers. A day after its passage, President Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order invoking these powers, which applied to "all forms of direct or indirect remuneration to an employee," including but not limited to salaries and wages, as well as "bonuses, additional compensation, gifts, commissions, fees."
But there was an exemption of massive proportions slipped into a fateful clause: "insurance and pension benefits" could grow "in a reasonable amount" during the freeze."
- https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-obamaca...
And, relevant to today's discussion:
>> By slapping corporations with tax rates of 80 or even up to 90 percent on any profits in excess of prewar revenue, Congress all but guaranteed a frenzied search for loopholes.
Also interesting to note that the change in question wasn't a switch from workers paying for their own health insurance to it being paid for by employers. Prior to WW2 less than 10% of Americans had any form of health insurance, by the end of the war it was close to 30%.
Comment · 6 years ago
That's an application-centric view of development, as indicated by the phrase "the application". If an application is successful, its data will likely end up being used by other new applications, and the data will survive the lifetime of the original application that generated the data. The applications themselves will be rewritten many times as technologies evolve. Think mainframe to client/server to EJB to lightweight J2EE to Spring Boot microservices.
If there is logic or metadata that is common across all those applications, there are a couple choices. You could duplicate that logic across all the applications, and rewrite that logic every time you do a rewrite of the application, or you could keep it one place.
If you keep it one place, one way to do that is to have a service in front of the database that every application that uses the data calls instead of hitting the database directly. That has some disadvantages in that it requires upfront design and planning, the service in front of the database will likely be rewritten in new technologies over time, and it has performance implications. And for the developer, instead of having to deal with logic in an application and a database, now they have to deal with logic in two applications.
Another way to do it is to have common logic for the data implemented in key constraints, check constraints, triggers, stored procedures and other similar tools in the database so that any application that uses the data doesn't need to rewrite that logic, and can't intentionally or unintentionally violate the rules of the common domain. That does have its own disadvantages, and it makes things more complicated for developers who will need to be familiar with an additional set of technologies, but it is a valid use case for stored procedures.
Comment · 6 years ago
Right on.
Comment · 6 years ago
Publisher, distributor, and platform are legal definitions that have been worked out through case law over a long period of time. Blocking content on a political basis as a non-internet content provider would be more than enough to get you treated as a publisher.
In pre-section 230 law, even blocking content for vulgarity was enough to get you treated as a publisher, that decision was Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.
Eugene Volokh has a good summary of this at https://reason.com/2020/05/28/47-u-s-c-%C2%A7-230-and-the-pu.... You might want to read it so you don't make completely uninformed statements on the internet. You should stop doing that.
Comment · 6 years ago
If a poster printing company started making editorial decisions about which posters they printed, they would be at risk of being considered a publisher and as such being liable for the content of the posters they printed.
That isn't true for internet content providers due to section 230.
Comment · 6 years ago
I use JIRA at home for side projects and every job I've had for the last decade used it at work.
Personally, I will worry about replacing it in 2023. Professionally, it's not my problem to worry about.
As for the replacement for people who want to run something like that on their own server, well, anyone down with writing some code? I am.
Comment · 6 years ago
Your only positive statements in that whole thing were "I think a job as a quant or something at a finance firm would be interesting" and "I'd really like to consider starting my own business".
Everything else was I don't I don't I don't I don't.
You've got your answer right there. Go make it happen.
If I want to read about finance, I can read Matt Levine. If I want to read about law I can read Eugene Volokh. If I want to read about about security I can read Bruce Schneier. In every category I care about, there are writers who are experts who make their expert opinions known without me having to subscribe to the Economist, FT, or the WSJ, all of which are great, all of which I grew up reading.
But I think I'm done with their gatekeeping now, I don't need it.
WaPo and NYT are trash and that was made nakedly obvious in 2016. It's more blatant now than it was then, but I guess if you didn't notice it then, you won't notice it now.