sc_griffith

this is discussed in the article

I don't see any reason being trained on writing informed by correct knowledge would cause it to be correct frequently. unless you're expecting it to just verbatim lift sentences from training data

fascinated that you think it would somehow be harder for you to go out and find nazis if substack weren't hosting and paying them. it will always be easy to find and read Nazi content. the reason substack matters is that the platform helps THEM find YOU, or a suggestible journalist, or a suggestible politician, etc. you are not the protagonist here

the site you are imagining, the supposed free speech site? it converges to gab. this dynamic is basic and I can't take you seriously if you don't get this.

• nazis are encouraged to be equal voices on a platform
• they use the platform's reach to radicalize fence sitters
• other users, realizing their digital roommates are Nazis, are alarmed and leave
• now it's a nazi site

what exactly do you think substack will consist of in two years if they don't do a 180? the entire reason we're having this conversation right now is that a bunch of substack writers said they would rather leave than hang out with nazis

wow that's terrible, that they'd circlejerk each other instead of having a mass audience to post propaganda to. I can't imagine a worse outcome

sorry what exactly about banning nazis causes one to ban non-offender pedophile support groups. like what is the actual causal link you're suggesting? if you just mean "I noticed random people endorse this thing I have no opinion on, and also this similar sounding thing I think is bad," that's not super compelling

to be clear, I meant that the reasons you're wrong are discussed in the article. I did not mean that the content of the article is more correct than that of the headline - the headline and article are both are correct. I suggest you read the article

by causal link, I mean how does banning nazis cause support groups for non-offending pedophiles to get banned. like how does that actually happen. please be as specific as you can be

But one of those stoppages is for the purpose of improving the lives of working class people, and in particular involves humans who can communicate with first responders. It's constructive. Those people's children won't live in poverty

The other is a side effect of a shoddy product, one which only operates because it corruptly evaded regulatory consequences for its shoddiness. The stoppage was only intended in the sense that cutting corners is the reason the product is on the market; otherwise it serves no specific purpose

It's true that the robotaxi fuck up is bad and the protest is less bad or good, but fundamentally they're not even the same type of thing

nobody but nazis wants to be on those lol. go post on gab or whatever if you want that. it's free. you can do it. you just don't actually want to

Sorry are you trying to describe a positive outcome

I cited obvious examples where extremist ideology got supercharged and organized through the wide reach mainstream platforms provide and you're like 'uh what difference does it make. disagree.' you are not a serious person

if you don't ban them that just happens on the mainstream platforms. big chunks of j6 were organized on twitter and facebook. qanon mostly spread off the chans, on mainstream platforms. giving extremists access to fence sitters isn't like throwing water on a fire, it's like throwing fuel on it