The liberal cry that everything they don’t like is Russian interference, that every bit of political activism or deviation from the norm in any direction is the result of a proxy war between Russia and/or China and the rest of us.
Huh, do people really say this? I haven’t experienced this online, but yea, I can get why that’s just absurd and harmful.
People desperately looking for tech CEOs to address disinformation by embracing centralized arbiters of truth.
I mean, I think they’re mostly just asking for them to actually remove content that is reported for being misinformation because the amount of it that was going around the last two major elections has been quite a bit. But again, perhaps I may not be running in the right social circles to see how this is framed.
A rather densely worded article which makes some good points, but I don’t really know many people who think of disinfo in the way the author is framing it. Perhaps I haven’t dived in very deeply on how people view disinformation - my take on it is that while there are major interests out there (such as the mentioned Russian troll farms) it’s the day to day misinfo that’s most troubling to me. It’s the fact that shitty articles get re-shared by people who don’t take two seconds to question the information… they look at the article title and go “why yes, the transgenders are ruining sports” and spread along the message. Sure, the person behind said article might be intentionally sharing this to groups on facebook which they know are full of the kind of people who do this, but I don’t see the malicious actors as the source of the problem, but the shoddy education system which allows so many people to buy into bad journalism like this. The people resharing without a thought are how we ended up with Donald Trump, and I think we would have ended up with him even if they weren’t seeded with disinformation because the quality or the quantity doesn’t matter here, only the resonance of the message. They used to share blog posts and commentaries which avoided fact and talked about feeling, disinfo is not a new concept, it’s just happening in a new medium and has a new face.
Exercising judgement is a difficult act, but not one that is black or white. It shouldn’t be painted as something that is or isn’t, either. A slippery slope either existing or not is a false dichotomy trying to shoehorn a complicated situation into an on/off configuration.
Calling the application of social pressure to get cloudflare to stop enabling hate a slippery slope is ignoring that it’s arguably the first instance of something like this to happen, it took an enormous amount of effort for it to happen, while it was not happening the livelihoods of individuals were being harassed, harmed, and destroyed, and it involved a private enterprise making a decision for themselves and is not reflective of how others in the industry will respond.
Of important framing, did we call the workers rights movement a slippery slope? Racial justice? Feminism? I think the more contentious the public perception is of a movement, the more likely people are to call something enabling said movement a slippery slope. However, on the opposite side of things we usually recognize the reduction or removal of human rights or governmental representation universally as a slippery slope when the issue is no longer contentious or is broad enough to apply to all individuals (while nobles may have framed the rise of democracies as a slippery slope away from monarchistic and feudal governmental systems, I doubt the same was said by the majority of individuals who stood to benefit from this paradigm shift). Applying the wording of ‘slippery slope’ to make demons out of issues they simply disagree with seemingly only happens by conservative individuals to protect a worldview that suppresses others.
I’ve been slowly seeing more and more parties booked as afrobeats and it’s slow rise in EDM subgenres. I’m a huge fan of melodic and syncopated rhythms, often finding myself drawn towards DnB, breaks, UK garage, etc. perhaps at least partly because western music so rarely plays with variation in the rhythm and instead plays with melody while keeping rhythm fairly steady.
If students can form associations, does it matter that much what the association is about?
We have laws to protect against hate and harming others. If you freely associate a group to spread hate, this should not be allowed. I disagree with the supreme court here in that they should not allow universities to suppress non-hateful groups. But then again, they want to openly discriminate against pretty much all minorities given their stances on existing supreme court precedence so it’s not surprising the court found the way it did.
Back in 2014 a company I used to work for started plans on building a new office building. The new building was going to be open office, our current building was semi-open, in that it was cubicles but the cubicles actually blocked above the monitor. I got in touch with the committee working with the architect to better understand the request, what the architect was going to do, and to see how I could get involved. This idea of increased collaboration was really taking off in the 2000s after many large silicon valley tech companies had pushed their idea on others, but by the 2010s there was a growing amount of literature explaining just how open offices were problematic and ways to reduce these problems.
Ultimately the simplest and cheapest solution is to have higher cubicles - they block sound, allow people to not feel like they are being watched 24/7, provide enough of a barrier to prevent people from just idly chattering to each other, and for most people don’t encourage them to invest in a set of really nice noise cancelling headphones as a way to fight the noisy environment. I sent the papers, along with an executive summary as both an email and a powerpoint slide over to the architect. I presented all of this to my boss and once again to people higher up than me. Ultimately, they decided to ignore all the evidence and continue to chase their gut feeling that this will be ‘great’. I left that company before they finished their new building and landed at a new company which also had a much more open office space.
I’m glad I work remote now. These layouts suck, and the author does a great job of explaining exactly why that is very early on in the article. People aren’t stupid, and it doesn’t matter if you put them in a fucking empty box together - if they have need to collaborate, they will, and architecture is going to be one of their last concerns
…they decide, individually and collectively, when to interact. Even in open spaces with colleagues in close proximity, people who want to eschew interactions have an amazing capacity to do so. They avoid eye contact, discover an immediate need to use the bathroom or take a walk, or become so engrossed in their tasks that they are selectively deaf
Ah apologies, I use an extension to bypass paywalls. I’ll pay closer attention to the source and pull out a rip next time.
- •
- www.wowktv.com
- •
- 1M
- •
- •
- 1M
- •
I think there’s a good chance for some sampling bias. At the very least there’s some selection bias, in that it’s representative of Australian Gen Z individuals who opted into some ‘willingness to participate in surveys’ on an online website (or seemingly so, it’s possible they may have signed up in person? its unclear in the methodology section exactly how they were recruited, but it does give some high level ideas).
I also don’t think the question was designed all that well
How many should I select if I’m talking about main contributors? I’m sure many participants asked themselves this question when clicking boxes. If I click every box, is that reflective of the “main contributors”? When I hit 5 boxes, is that enough? If I’m trying to disambiguate between the options of “livestock and agriculture” and “big corporations and industry”, I’d definitely side with the latter as more important because you can have sustainable livestock and agriculture but large corporations typically do not. Also the latter is a larger box which holds most of the problems of the former. Do I select both when we’re talking about “main contributors”? I’m not certain how I might have answered, had I been presented the same survey.
In the end, I think the author jumps to more conclusions than is supported by the limits of the methodology employed.