Bay 12 Games Forum

... I mean, I guess you can try to downplay the amount of death and suffering full-bore right-wing policy would bring about by trying to go with it not being literally country destroying. We're probably considering different definitions of widespread death.

Right-wing policy would very, very much cause a very noticeable increase in the amount of dead Americans, particularly among our most vulnerable populations, regardless of whether or not it's equivalent to some kind of modern day black plague. This is especially true if, again, you let loose the fuckers that were lynching people when my still living grandfather was a kid. Which is part of that full-bore would entail.

Any case, if you want a less contentious death rate comparison, just think "significantly more than normal for our populations". It's not been difficult to notice over the years we're still pretty rough on some of our people, or that pursuing policy that actively targets them -- which right-wing policy very much does, just for lgbt folks as a general example -- wouldn't exactly make things better on that front. Far as I've noticed the shit's not exactly gentle to our immigrant, religious minority, or remaining native populations, either, just as a sort of start.

The only way you're going to maybe be able to frame a strong right-wing dominance as not getting a lot of people killed is if you don't think anything except male WASPs count as people. Even that's not guaranteed when you consider shit like the opioid epidemic or how the general mess of folks in question want to handle healthcare and basic please-don't-poison-our-drinking-water regulation.

I'm not so sure about widespread death, but, yeah, if the far right did dominate politics I think there definitely would be at least widespread misery for minorities.

You can be absolutely damn certain about widespread death. Beyond the economic shitpiles the groups in question wallow in that would see QoL and life expectancy tank for basically gorram everybody or the environmental bullshit they like to peddle that could end up being functional or literal species scale suicide, we already have minorities in the US with fatality rates on par with or higher than fucking frontline soldiers in the middle of a battlefield.

Let the fuckers that were cheerfully lynching people in living memory and their allies/rough ideological compatriots go balls out on policy and that shit is going to get very much worse. People have already been dying a hell of a lot more than they need to and far right policy just as a general ruddy thing sets itself out to exacerbate that on just about every front it can get its hands on.

There's damned unfortunate reasons right-wing policy in the US is a legitimate existential threat for portions of our population, even if you're trying to be bloody charitable to it. If you're not, thanks to the environmental positions that heavily dominate that side of the US political spectrum, they're explicitly trying to kill literally sodding all of us.

Huh. I never knew that bebop and rocksteady almost broke the universe multiverse in the tmnt comics (some of the more recent ones?). But apparently they just about managed it. Ran into some critter with a time scepter and proceeded to cause so much havoc reality nearly went kaput.

... I noticed because I was watching a LP of Ymir, which has as a leader customization option, well. Bebop.  And subsequent curiosity lead me to bebop and rocksteady's wikipedia page. Game dropped a pretty major ball not having the foot clan symbol as a potential flag, though. I can guess why they didn't but come on, don't do this thing half way...

Well I'd rather have 81F and no snow than a range from 26-40 every day and a skating rink for a neighborhood.

The problem is it's that or hotter every other part of the sodding year. A month or two of 26-40 (well, it's more like 50-70 and like two or three weeks at "worst" for most of it) would be the only goddamn relief you get over a twelve month period. The rest of it you get sodding cooked if you go outside.

Also that cold period is like the one time of the year the bugs (and snakes, for that matter) largely fuck off. So... yeah. No cold period, mosquitoes become entirely rather than mostly omnipresent

I was thinking a client-side content recognition plugin, with a soft approach to data it is not sure about (think minimizing posts but leave them expandable, and boilerplate thumbnail hiding images or other media until you click on them). The user can choose to generate his own data for the plugin or he can subscribe to someone else's data. Websites can opt-in to provide relevant data (tags, user feedback, etc.) to aid it and users can opt-in to make use of it. And of course, users can also block other users on their end.

But the filtering is all client-side, in the browser.

... aren't you're talking something that would end up ubiquitously included in base browser configurations, if in some odd manner they ended up the only/primary means of content filtering. I.e. handing the keys to most people's filtering to Microsoft, Mozilla, etc. (If you shuddered a little on the inside at that though, I'm kinda' with you) Because they would unless, once more, you had someone suppressing the practice pretty hard. Most people ain't got the time, much less the interest, to fiddle with stuff like that to keep kiddie porn and goatse off their monitor, and the browser that fixed that problem would prooooobably come out ahead.

Like. Again, I'm not quite sure if I'd be comfortable guessing that would actually bring some kind of improvement on the subjects we're talking about, heh. It might, but your words make me pretty intensely skeptical it'd change much, especially in a way that could be called beneficial.

Quote from: Frumple on January 04, 2019, 08:55:15 pm

-snip-

I don't see why it's so difficult to simply regulate that user-generated content hosting services (or whatever) must be content-blind. We regulate companies all the time. If you want editorial control, become a publisher and accept all the liabilities thereof.

Like, they can't be content blind simply because some content is straight up illegal?

Beyond that, you could, but again, shit would change and probably pretty drastically. We have little experiments at full on content-blind hosting services all the time and they pretty invariably run themselves to shit, usually in impressively short order.

Any case, you could try to run an ISP style payment method (i.e. subscription based), but... it's not going to work at all, heh. Near as I can recall people have tried it, and unless you're making stuff like current!facebook actively illegal there's no chance in hell anything happens to a new incarnation that's different from older ones (i.e. you've never heard of them and probably never will ). Even if it's pennies per month or year or whatever you're not going to generate nearly the same user base unless there's massive barriers to alternative setups. Which, I mean. There could be some put up. But you're getting into all sorts of weird who-the-hell-knows-what-will-happen territory.

Quote from: MorleyDev on January 04, 2019, 08:15:29 pm

-snip-

Quote from: Dunamisdeos on January 04, 2019, 08:19:15 pm

-snip-

The fact she was using the thing they paid for and continue to pay for, the town's streets, to ends they don't support was the essence of the argument against her. She certainly wouldn't have had trespassing charges levied against her if she hadn't been proselytizing. It costs marginally more to store a piece of user-generated content but the principle is the same - both people are making use of resources a company owns but has made available to the public to do something that is not only legal but a constitutionally guaranteed right.

I'unno, there's probably more wiggle room involved in these cases, as you don't generally enter explicit contract to use a street or whatev'. Pointedly, you do with stuff like facebook. The companies in question very much have limits -- and up front ones, for that matter, even if bloody no one reads them -- on what sort of access they allow and how you're allowed to use that access. You're going to be fucking with contract law as much or more than civil/speech law if you're going to override how they host material. Probably a host of freedom of association issues, too, since however open the gates are on these websites they're still much closer to a gated community than a public facing street (well, the parts that aren't actually public facing, anyway).

Even then there totally are realistic ways to express your 1st et al without them... just not to as wide an audience.

... still, part of me finds turning stuff like facebook public to be sorta' hilarious. Can anyone here imagine how things would change with a legislative mandate to enforce stuff like hate speech protections and copyright versus functionally lackadaisical private administration? I'd imagine shit like safe harbor stops applying for something government ran, and the clusterfuck that would ensue from stuff like that would probably be tumblr nipple-ban tier.

As someone that doesn't really use the stuff the shitshow would be incredible to watch from the sidelines.

E: Honestly, now that I'm thinking about it why the hell do we seem to think making these services public would entail a better end result to begin with? Public utilities cut people off for misuse all the time and are under threat of much bigger sticks when it comes to policy enforcement, and then there's the cash et al side of things. Wouldn't it be some fuckhuge massive problem to be running a public utility that's funding itself off ads and whatnot? Would you be running this stuff with taxpayer money instead?

E2: christ on a pogo stick all I can think of when I think public facebook now is commercialized NSA data mining operation

E3: which, I mean. At least then it'd be paying for itself? Maybe it would actually be an improvement...

E4: Alright, okay. That's our plan. We give social media over to the NSA. There's no way this can end horribly.