throwaway894345

Again, this isn’t a US senate race, it’s a Florida senate race.

EDIT: I’m mistaken, this is a US senate candidate. I was confused by the ambiguous wording in the article.

Small candidates have a lot of impact, especially when you want to (for example) build a data center. Not that this is necessary to explain it—the cost of the censorship to Meta is negligible (an employee presses a button or an AI makes an API call), so even a small reward is worthwhile.

> In 2021 we saw a coordinated deplatforming of a sitting president across practically every social media platform.

It wasn’t coordinated, it was a bunch of social media companies responding to the same event, notably the president in question using his social media accounts to try to overthrow the US government.

This is a florida senate race

EDIT: I’m mistaken, this is a US senate candidate. I was confused by the ambiguous wording in the article.

Is there evidence that Facebook meddled in elections to benefit Democrats under a Democratic administration?

It doesn’t help that Zuckerberg is recorded pledging his loyalty to Trump.

Another purely ad hominem comment

> The statistic was not fabricated. You would have to be especially ignorant of internet and specifically HN culture to truly think so.

It's fabricated until you provide a credible source. Even if you provide a source, my criticism of your statistic would still not be "ad hominem".

> The ad hominem was in accusing me of someone trying to dig themselves out a hole

That was never my argument, you pivoted the conversation to my motives, and I told you that I enjoyed watching people try to dig themselves out of holes.

> because you can't accept being wrong. It's the only reason you're still replying.

More ad hominem. It seems to be all you have. :)

> But the observation that I describe does happen in our reality

I don't know what observation you're talking about--you were giving an analogy, right? What am I misunderstanding about your claim?

> It is just like when say, biology have to reach out to chemistry and chemistry to physics and physics to math for deeper explanations for processes and observations that are native to their domain.

Yes, this is emergent complexity and physicists already look into this (e.g., holographic principle). In your game/engine analogy, we're still talking about examining the game, not the game engine.

My reply addressed specific, factual errors (e.g., your fabricated statistic, your baseless speculation about my motives, etc). There was no ad hominem.

> But what ever you do, you can only observe the behavior implemented by the game engine, and not the game engine itself, or the computer that is running it....

Yes, physics is about learning about the rules that the game engine implements. It’s not about learning about some reality outside our own, that’s the domain of metaphysics. Physics can’t answer questions about what is happening outside our own reality, and indeed neither can anything else inside reality because (as you pointed out) we can only test and observe what the game engine allows.

I think you’re asking physicists to pursue a fundamentally metaphysical question, no?

That’s an awful lot of text for a single ad hominem argument. Better luck next time.

This is a bit like saying the universe is made of tiny pink elephants, and arguing that this is only untrue in some “naive sense” because we redefined “tiny pink elephant” to mean “excitation of a field”. It doesn’t seem more naive to me to admit that the world is not in fact made of tiny pink elephants than it is to argue “yes it still is made of tiny pink elephants [but only because we redefined the term to match the evidence]”.

It’s crazy to me that reality is just waves in quantum fields that interact to create the illusion of particles, which interact to create atoms and chemistry and biology and neurology and society.

> That's just not so, friend.

You’re mistaken, and pretty obviously so tbh

> Again, when 99.9% of usernames with the form throwaway+random number string are throwaway accounts

Your entire argument is predicated on this completely fabricated statistic.

> You put the emoticon to indicate a perhaps tongue in cheek response, bur the rest of the text and conversation didn't really support that, nor do the continuing replies.

I’m the authority on my own emotional state, but also as a native English speaker I can assure you that our dialogue thus far comports perfectly with someone who was speaking tongue in cheek, but who also doesn’t mind watching people try to dig themselves out of holes they created for no discernible benefit :shrug: