rjf72

I'm sure you'd agree that there would be a substantial amount of support for these protests, and similarly more for any country or executive that would align itself with the protesters. How much support in mainland China do you think the Hong Kong protests have? How do you think mainland Chinese would respond to the US overtly aligning itself with the protesters?

I fully agree that of course nobody would support censoring a view or political ideology that they agree with. The big question is what happens when the view or ideology is one we not only dislike, but condemn?

I think you make a great point. From my perspective there are some things that cannot be reasonably proven that people may have different views on. For instance I'm sure you'd agree that social media "platforms" (as well as various other "platforms") over the past ~6 or so years have been engaging in increasing censorship. And that censorship has been not only accepted but applauded by some segments of the population. So where we probably diverge is on who are these segments of the population? How big are they? What are their views on this recent censorship?

I've been unable to find any sort of polling or other objective data (for that matter even poll data on Hong Kong is basically nonexistent) so we're left to rely on anecdotal data. When stories of censorship against unpopular topics came out in times past, what was the zeitgeist in your view? In the Hong Kong story as of today, does that vary? I took as an assumption people sharing a roughly similar view on this question. But I think it's a fair point that perhaps this is an invalid assumption. If I've learned anything on the internet it's that we all live in our own little bubbles, try as we might to escape them.

Of course I'm certain I could dig up plenty of examples of people contradicting themselves but that no more proves your [implied] view incorrect anymore than you finding a examples of people remaining consistent would prove my view incorrect.

The original post I was responding to was pondering what would happen if the NBA pulled out. In order to try to predict this it's important to try to accurately characterize how people would behave in response. In the US we ostensibly value free speech, but especially in modern times this is increasingly often set aside faster than you can blink when it becomes an issue where somebody says something we disagree with. See for instance practically every major social media platform that has been censoring increasingly loosely, largely to stabilize (and ideally increase) their profit by satisfying advertisers. When people dislike the groups censored they not only could not care less, but are often genuinely enthusiastic about it.

Think of the countless times people have, rather enthusiastically, argued that 'free speech doesn't mean you're free from the consequences of your actions'. Yet when it's a group that individuals ideologically align with they rapidly segue from free speech being a technical legal requirement as defined by the first amendment of the US constitution, to a value - an ethos. And we are not speaking in hypotheticals - this is happening, right now.

In modern times people increasingly seem to not like defending the right of groups they disagree with. We could debate the reasons there, but I suspect a large part is because we now live in an era of never-ending social media virtue signaling. That's actually what makes what I wrote above so easy to show. If you are genuinely arguing in good faith and do not believe people are engaging in wide-spread hypocrisy, you could go obsessive-compulsive and digging through people's post histories and find many of the same people upset about corporate censorship today cheering it on not long ago. Because they felt that by cheering on nasty groups getting censored, that they were showing their own virtue in being so adamantly against such things. We are, in effect, living out the "First they came ..." poem. As always, what's new is old.

That's awesome to hear, but I expect you must see you would be a very small minority. Most people now a days seem to base their worldview not on any system of consistent ethics, but instead on who's being benefited and who's being hurt.

For instance on what precipitated this particular issue (the Blizzard stuff), many are framing it as an issue of free speech. But that's incredibly disingenuous because there's no doubt that many of the same people outraged ostensibly about a violation of free speech would have been the first ones lining up to cheer and rejoice had Blizzard chose to ban a player who chose to show up in a MAGA hat and screamed "Build the wall!" in an identical venue. It's safe to assume they also would have taken it further and done all they could to try to get said player banned from any other gaming venue as well, in an effort to kill his livelihood and, by proxy, him. In other words, they couldn't care less about free speech - but only speech that they support, or oppose.

This example here (in our reverso world China) would take this to an even bigger extreme since you would be expressing support not only of a group with next to no national support, but simultaneously expressing support of a deeply unpopular foreign government which could be framed as borderline treasonous. And all of this being done in a highly nationalistic nation? That's a tall order for sure.

I'd distinguish between prepping and doomsday types. Prepping can be as simple as having some basic supplies and nonperishable goods such that you're not going to die if, for any reason, you need to survive independently for some period of time. It's not like some lifestyle or even dependent upon an assumption that you'll even ever need these things. So it's a relatively low cost decision to be able to be at least somewhat prepared for an eventuality that, though extremely improbable, would have disproportionately negative consequences if you were of the 'do nothing' extreme on the other end.

To put it mathematically, if I said there was a 1 in a million chance of you losing a billion dollars sometime in your life, and you agreed with me, it'd certainly be logical, if you could, to provide insurance against that eventuality for $1. In fact it'd still be mathematically sound to spend $1000. But this is for an event that you are literally 99.9999% sure will not happen. I think the big difference is in seeing reality as a neverending stream of probabilities as opposed to seeing reality as a neverending stream of certainties. The probabilistic mindset can lead you to conclusions and decisions that look peculiar to a deterministic mindset. By contrast doomsday types are those who have a deterministic mindset and have decided that the world (as we know it) is going to end and thus make that a part of their persona and worldview. Granted, they could also be of a probabilistic mindset with a different weighting but, at least in my experience, that's not usually the case.

Reverse the situation and imagine how you would feel.

Say China was running extensive media in favor of an increasingly China-friendly group within the US equally unpopular with both average US citizens and the US government, but quite popular with Chinese citizens and the Chinese government. And now a Chinese executive in charge of a Chinese product popular in the US, spoke out in favor of this group. Following US pressure with implied economic threats, he not only refused to retract his statements but chose to completely pull his company's product from the US - perhaps iPhones, which we'll pretend could be made nowhere other than China for the sake of the hypothetical.

Are you going to be mad at the US government? Most likely this would just work to further evangelize anti-China and anti-China-friendly group sentiment within the US. And I think this is true without even getting into the cultural differences in terms of things like nationalism. I think in your comment you're probably transplanting the average US citizen worldview onto the average Chinese citizen. In that case your idea would very much work, but that's not the case here.

Why would it be hidden away in some settings instead of right in your face with a nice fat button "Change how my videos are recommended..."? Even beyond that though, most online platforms today offer very limited general customization - and so there's not much reason for users to go digging through settings. They are designed to work primarily with the default configuration, and so that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

There's a very simple solution here that avoids any and all bias and hidden agendas: simply make everything transparent.

- Users get to create their own profile. For instance in your profile you get to selected whether you would like to see content geared towards men/women/any. And this would follow for a whole slew of other topics, similar to the opaque profile companies are creating on users today without their consent or input.

- All recommended videos have all their profile tags openly shown. And the reason for recommendation is also completely open.

The cool thing about it is that this also works really well with the current neural network based recommendation systems since they output a weighting of things. Simply transform those weightings into a nice output and the user can see exactly what's going on and exactly how they're being viewed. As a nice aside this would also remove a big chunk of the incentive for increasingly aggressive spying as companies try to get ever more extensive profiles on each and every person that uses their products.

One downside here is that users might not be consciously aware of their own preferences. This could again be resolved transparently. "Hey PhilWelch, we've noticed you like videos about underwater basketweaving. Would you like for this interest to be ticked in your profile? [Yes, No, No + Never ask again]

I'm curious why people aren't seeing China as, at least potentially, a very big customer. They have hundreds of millions of people with limited to no internet access, in spite of a rapidly increasing level of national wealth. Their government could change that, instantly, with a check.

Not that I'm in favor of a censored internet but it's a reality of China and it would perhaps work even better with something like the Starlink. Satellite internet relies on ground stations to know what to beam out on requests. China would operate their own regional ground stations resulting in a complete centralization of all access from China.

Only reason I see this not happening is if China chose to develop their own similar solution, which is perhaps a real possibility.

Obviously yes it is possible for DDG to determine that result G is "better", and prioritize accordingly. "Better" of course is subjective, but this search is a pretty clear example that they're doing something right. They do source results from Bing yet their engine determined, quite accurately, that Bing's results are really quite bad.

But beyond that, consider the bias in your statement. You're claiming, by definition, that anything that doesn't match Google results is "inferior". I found Google's results here to be much better than Bing (not a high bar to pass) but much worse than DDG. Here are the results I get for Google, though I think it's also worth mentioning the hassle. For the privilege of being able to search I was required to go through a captcha. This is presumably because I prefer to use TOR when directly using Google. Then there's some giant "privacy reminder" at the top that requires me to agree to have all my data hoovered up and combined across services to generate a profile on me. Presumably a GDPR related thing since each time this happened it was on an EU exit node, though it used dark patterns to coerce consent which was supposed to be unlawful to my knowledge. Anyhow, after that nonsense I get:

- 4 monetizable links (Amazon 'space taco' lighter, 2x space taco restaurant facebook pages, some soundcloud 'space taco' band)

- 4 nonsensical links of google linking to its own books.google service

- 1 link to FT.com where Neumann raised $700m through share sales.

I changed my IP a couple of times and got similar results - the monetizable ones were always the same (order varied - though always at the top), so I expect this is probably at least similar to what you got. Of course it's silly to debate what results should be returned for an intentionally nonsensical query, but nonetheless I think this inadvertently ends up emphasizing what each engine's priorities are. DuckDuckGo tries to return whatever results are likely most appropriate for what you searched for. Google tries to return whatever it can make the most money from. And Bing... well Bing is "special."

--

I do fully agree with you that being tied to the partnerships is potentially exploitable by the partner. And as DDG continues to grow this could become an issue if, for instance, Microsoft decides they have more to gain by undermining DDG than they do by continuing to partner and profit alongside them. My "only" was in reference to the quality of the search, which is what we were discussing.

What would you suggest is the minimum evidence necessary to support the view that an ideology promotes violence?

- Isolated incidents of violence on behalf of the ideology?

- A "sufficiently large" number of incidents on behalf of the ideology? If so, could you elaborate on "sufficiently large" as you see it?

- A general tacit approval of violence?

- An explicit approval of violence?

- Something else?

The problem I think that many see is there tends to be extensive cognitive dissonance. People apply one set of standards to groups they like, and another to ones that they don't. I think you'll find that in trying to answer my above question it becomes quite difficult to include the groups you don't like, while excluding the groups you do like. That's even when my framing above which is unrealistically softball. For instance I didn't even mention things like harassment, destruction of property, etc which I think we should also generally be intolerant of - even when it's a group we like engaging in such things.