2024-08-30


etc

  • Deeper into defining 'Cancel Culture' with Scott Alexander

    The success of a coalition to oppose Cancel Culture won’t be defined by fringe cases. At its core, free speech culture is about tolerating difference; so the ability to disagree about fringe cases and still work together is the great virtue of free speech culture over its alternatives. If, for reasons of conscience or uncertainty, not everyone pulls in the same direction on every individual case, it shouldn’t stop us from fixing the problem overall.

    we want to thank Scott Alexander once again for engaging in this topic so thoughtfully, and for giving us the opportunity to dig deeper into our definition of Cancel Culture so we can, hopefully, all achieve more clarity.

Horseshit


Musk

  • Can Nostr Make Twitter’s Dreams Come True?

    Invented by a pseudonymous programmer and overwhelmingly funded by grants from non-profit foundations, this decentralized, free, and open-source protocol has been quietly evolving for the past three years. Like bitcoin, Nostr is a community-run digital network highly resistant to censorship and corruption. It has 40,000 weekly active users and a growing ecosystem of clients and applications ranging from social media to long-form publishing to payments.

    Nostr is only necessary because our existing internet is so broken. Fifteen years ago, social media seemed destined to decentralize the world and give power back to the people. In 2009, we watched as Arab Spring activists used Twitter and Facebook to organize, coordinate, and help topple several long-standing dictatorships. The promise was that these new social platforms, designed by Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, could help liberate the masses. It was intoxicating—but turned out to be a mirage. The Arab revolutions stalled out when brutal military regimes cracked down. These platforms became tools for spying and censoring their users. X and Facebook have helped journalists and human rights activists reach bigger audiences, but they haven't fulfilled their revolutionary promise.

  • Climate scientists flee Twitter as hostility surges

  • Brazil Threatens to Ban Elon Musk's X

  • Third Documented Tesla Cybertruck Fire in Less Than a Month Raises Questions

Economicon / Business / Finance

Gubmint / Poilitcks / Law Making

  • How California Became a New Center of Political Corruption - The New York Times

    A heavy concentration of power at Los Angeles City Hall, the receding presence of local news media, a population that often tunes out local politics and a growing Democratic supermajority in state government have all helped insulate officeholders from damage, political analysts said.

  • From 'Israel Has a Right To Defend Itself' to 'Immediate Ceasefire': Rep. Susan Wild Caught Sending Contradictory Letters to Constituents, Stating Dueling Views on War

    When two of Rep. Susan Wild’s constituents, a mother-daughter pair, wrote the Pennsylvania Democrat urging her to support Israel in its fight against Hamas, they received not one but two letters in response. One declared support for Israel and its "right to defend itself." The other called for international pressure on the Jewish state and an "immediate ceasefire." The dueling letters, obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, were both sent on May 21 and signed by Rep. Wild herself. They appear to be stock letters drafted by Wild's office. While pushing out such letters to constituents is standard for a member of Congress, Wild's letters provide drastically different assessments of the war that are now public after Wild inadvertently sent one version to the mother and the other to the daughter.

  • Judges Rule Big Tech's Free Ride on Section 230 Is Over

    Want to know why it’s so difficult to touch the business models of extraordinarily powerful big tech firms? Well, for years, a law known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act granted them a de facto Get Out of Jail free card, as long as they could say ‘the algorithm did it.’ I don’t tend to expect good things from the Federal judiciary, but on Tuesday, the Third Circuit issued a shocking opinion rolling that law back, and ending the liability shield that large tech firms use to commit bad actions without consequence. “This is a really substantial and important decision,” wrote legal scholar Zephyr Teachout. I emailed a political contact who has worked in this space and has tangled with big tech for more than ten years to ask how important this decision is. His response? “HUGE.”

    this Third Circuit decision just dropped on a random Tuesday. No one expected three judges to upend the business model of large tech firms, and shake up decades of precedent. But they did just that. For sure, this news will trickle out, every big tech CEO is or will get a briefing from their panicked general counsel. Every law firm in the country is likely writing a client alert about this opinion. Plaintiff lawyers are sharpening their pens and examining new legal theories to go after tech platforms. Academics are ripping up their lectures on internet law. Big tech-friendly scholars are very upset. Supreme Court watchers are or will consider when and how this gets to the highest court. But it’ll take a few days, or maybe weeks, to internalize what just happened.

    Because TikTok’s “algorithm curates and recommends a tailored compilation of videos for a user’s FYP based on a variety of factors, including the user’s age and other demographics, online interactions, and other metadata,” it becomes TikTok’s own speech. And now TikTok has to answer for it in court. Basically, the court ruled that when a company is choosing what to show kids and elderly parents, and seeks to keep them addicted to sell more ads, they can’t pretend it’s everyone else’s fault when the inevitable horrible thing happens.

  • Harvard Professor Has Plan to Persuade Supreme Court Justices to Retire

Trump / Right / Jan6

World

  • New Taliban Law Bans Women From Speaking in Public.

  • Violent Drug Gangs Bring Mayhem to Western Europe

  • French left torn after Mélenchon threatens procedure to remove Macron from office

    In an open letter published in the newspaper La Tribune dimanche, Mélenchon and his top deputies accuse President Emmanuel Macron of an "institutional coup de force" and "abuse of power." In their "solemn warning," they call on the president to "accept the results of the legislative elections" and appoint the NFP's candidate Lucie Castets as prime minister, failing which LFI would trigger Article 68 of the Constitution, which allows the president to be removed from office in the event of a "dereliction of duty."

  • What is Happening in France? - by Cyril Hédoin

    if Macron’s refusal to nominate Castets is not unconstitutional or “undemocratic,” it is probably a political mistake. If the current situation benefits anybody, it is to the far-right populists. They are not involved in the bargain since nobody wants to govern with them. But now it will be easy for Le Pen and Co to argue that the “elites” have conspired to make sure that the RN would not take office while not having any constructive program to propose. The mess that results only strengthens the far-right’s narrative that they are not only legitimate to govern but also the only ones able to do so. It does nothing to lessen the resentment that led a significant part of the electorate to vote for the far-right.

Health / Medicine

  • Type 2 diabetes drug associated with 35% lower risk of dementia, study finds

  • Bugs, mold, mildew found in Boar's Head plant linked to deadly listeria outbreak

  • Nursing doubts: Is breastfeeding good?

    the evidence for breastfeeding is overwhelmingly observational: It’s not based on experiments, but rather looking at the existing population and “observing” that breastfeeding is correlated with having mildly fewer infections (of many kinds) and slightly lower obesity. It may also be correlated with better outcomes in terms of allergies, diabetes, lymphoma, colitis, Crohn’s disease, or later IQ. Observational evidence is disturbing because correlations are bad. Even if breastfeeding did nothing, people think it’s good, so the same parents who breastfeed more tend to have higher socioeconomic status and provide lots of other goodies too. Babies that wear baby Rolex watches are probably healthier on average. But that’s because their parents are rich, not because Rolexes are good for you. Could breastfeeding be like that?

    Why is breastfeeding sacred? Why do I feel so uncomfortable even examining the evidence? I mean, ultrasonic humidifiers might be bad for you, but you run 3 ultrasonic humidifiers in your house and no one bats an eye! I think breastfeeding is different because… public health people decided it should be, and we’ve internalized their messaging. But just because the public health people might be over their skis doesn’t mean they’re wrong.

  • How to Solve Our Obesity Crisis