Unity had the same in its license. But they changed it without notifying and when you updated the engine the new license applies even if it's a minor version so Unreal can do the same thing.
I have an android TV using armbian with a nextcloud instance, transmission, pydownloader, radarr and sonarr. I have another running a quake 3 server. They are cheap raspberry pi alternatives with a nice case and a very good power supply using 12v instead of 5v, which is more stable.
You can't say that after the same Elon bought Twitter for 55 billion. If he can get that money using his stock as collateral then he does have it in cash.
>If he can get that money using his stock as collateral then he does have it in cash.
The literal opposite is true. If he has to sell his stocks it means he does not have it in cash. If you are using your house as collataral, you do it precisely because you lack the money in cash.
The only way to reduce his networth bellow a billion is seizing stock in his companies grom him. Him paying money is the exact same thing, just with an additional (likely devastating, for him and the company) step.
The real question is whether you want the government seizing corporations from individuals.
> First, none of our policies have changed. Our approach to policy enforcement will rely more heavily on de-amplification of violative content: freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach.
They recently unbanned many controversial accounts based solely on Twitter polls. Who do they expect will believe these statements?
I'm having a hard time thinking that anyone should be called a journalist -- without mocking quotes -- at this point. After the past couple of years of "reporting" about COVID, vaccines, protests, Ukraine, China, Twitter, etc., et. al., EVERYONE has taken positions at the "fringe."
For 20 years, I've made sense of the news by looking for the pieces of the puzzle where people agree. That is now literally impossible. There is ZERO overlap on ANY issue between the two sides now.
The few actual journalists remaining are known by name, and moving from newspapers to Substack.
Sure, the truth doesn't exist and reality is an illusion.
But Andy NGO has an especially concerning history of misrepresenting facts, using misleading cuts, and closely associating with far right insurrectionary groups such as the Proud Boys.
> Sure, the truth doesn't exist and reality is an illusion.
I don't know who Andy Ngo is, and I don't care, but if we're talking about misleading cuts, let's talk about the ENTIRETY of the mass media making out like Trump said Nazis were "fine people." All it took was 2 minutes of looking at the transcript when the furor broke out to understand that's NOT what he said, but half the country still believes he somehow came out in direct support of them. And this is precisely the back and forth I was alluding to when I say that there is literally no overlap on what is considered truth any more.
First the article says Chad Loder was recently suspended because his name was provided to Musk by far right accounts. Several paragraphs later it backs off and says it might be that he was suspended because he was supposedly on a right wing list of people they were trying to mass report (suddenly this isn’t about Musk any more but the standard reporting mechanism). The evidence for this is an archive.ph snapshot of an obscure Substack by a username in Japanese characters who alleges on Nov 7 that Loder was on a list, maybe, when you actually look at the text it’s not at all clear what exactly the person is saying. The article makes no effort to explain this or confirm the information. It’s a pretty shoddy piece of journalism.
Even when Loder is quoted he openly speculated about what happened and says he doesn’t know. The piece is just a tissue of insinuations.
It is interesting you focus on just one of the banned accounts, glossing over the case of CrimethInc, for example:
In the 14 years that CrimethInc has been on Twitter, the account has never violated Twitter policies and has never been suspended. This changed last week after a Twitter exchange between Musk and Ngo.
Ngo asked Musk to suspend the CrimethInc account, calling it an “Antifa collective” and falsely claiming the group had “claimed a number of attacks.” Within hours of Ngo’s request to Musk, and without citing any specific violations of policies, Twitter suspended the @crimethinc account.
You can call this piece "a tissue of insinuations", but the evidence, taken together, is quite damning. A pattern emerges. At least for anyone who does not have tissues in their ears.
Ya I looked at their lead example and the one they talk about the most and they made serious errors. I see the CrimeInc case has slightly more evidence, like at least we know they asked for them to be banned.
So yes, in addition to clearly misreporting and making misleading and false statements about their lead example Loder they seem to have other examples where there is circumstantial (but zero actual) evidence Musk may have done something.
Personally I like much more rigorous journalism than this even when it’s about people like Musk who I dislike.
Ok but groups like the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club are not a trivial account (or frankly even a journalist). They're a radical antifa group who follow people (include government agents) officials around with guns, openly assaulting them, and has been part of deadly riots. It's like the proud boys x2
I also wouldn't call Andy Ngo, a gay asian journalist who's spoken in front of congress, far right. He basically records riots in Portland and uploads them to twitter, and he's only right wing in the sense that more republicans watch his videos than democrats
You have not presented any evidence that any John Brown Gun Club chapters have assaulted or killed anybody.
The Gun Club arms itself to defend against far-right violence and often appears as a security force at protests to protect against expected far-right violence.
To date, Gun Club members have reportedly not engaged anyone with their weapons during one of these protests.
Perhaps. Let's look at Andy Ngo's invitation in context. Republican lawmakers asked him to testify during hearings about the January 6 insurrection attempt. His testimony mainly aimed to downplay the feeble insurrection attempt, and shift focus to riots. Of course, he fails to mention that the riots were often directly caused by police action.
Well right, because Jan 6th was a peaceful protest until cops started murdering protesters. The only deaths were of protesters, and the only murderers were the cops. Nobody was arrested for bringing a gun/weapon into the capital, and the guards unlocked the doors to let protesters in. I mean the fact republicans weren't allowed to appoint anyone to the Jan 6th committee should tell you everything you need to know
So banning right wing users for having right wing opinions are OK…
But banning antifa-accounts, that is accounts held by people taking part in month long riots and looting and political real-world violence… that is bad?
Is this satire? Is this an honestly held opinion? Or am I missing something?
This is a false premise. Without understanding why each account was banned and what infraction was cited we can't make a clear comparison or judgment about either case. Otherwise it's just more outrage-porn.
I read the Intercept article, and clicked through and read some the screen captured tweets from the “antifascist” accounts that were banned that the article did not care to include.
The Intercept article is not journalism. It’s a PR piece for the accounts that were banned and quotes spokespeople for the impacted groups totally uncritically.
Calling them antifascists seems a misnomer too, they seem to me to be actually anti-capitalist rabble-rousers and professional rioters. Educating, equipping, funding and inciting violent riots seems a clear TOS violation to me.
The “no true antifa” arguments sounds like the sort of ploy that was used when these riots kicked off and democrats in Congress and MSM talking heads were trying to laugh off the idea of “antifa” as a violent domestic terrorist organization simply because they don’t have an org chart.
Ah, classic. So this is actually all just shitposting and looking for ideological battle then.
The “antifascists” literally wore the mark themselves while committing upwards of a billion dollars of property damage over the course of a year+ of riots.
But seriously, please just take it elsewhere. Your innuendo is borderline if not actual libel.
> Calling them antifascists seems a misnomer too, they seem to me to be actually anti-capitalist rabble-rousers and professional rioters. Educating, equipping, funding and inciting violent riots seems a clear TOS violation to me.
So I take it you think everyone involved in the January 6 riot including Donald Trump should be banned from Twitter then?.
> So banning right wing users for having right wing opinions are OK…
What views?
I saw some of the tweets people got banned for. Are you okay with me associating those views with right wing views?
> that is accounts held by people taking part in month long riots and looting and political real-world violence
So, you are saying that your alleged criminal activities off Twitter should feature into whether you are banned? (Note, you never claimed they violated ANY of Twitters rules in your comment)
Is this satire? Is this an honestly held opinion? Or am I missing something?
You are missing the fact that no-one was getting banned merely for having an option or for their actions outside of the Twitter platform. They were banned for continuously violating the terms of service e.g. inciting violence, racist or xenophobic content, doxxing etc.
And what happened here is that those left-wing accounts were banned without any such violation i.e. it was purely arbitrary and the very thing you claim you don't want.
> You are missing the fact that no-one was getting banned merely for having an option or for their actions outside of the Twitter platform. They were banned for continuously violating the terms of service e.g. inciting violence, racist or xenophobic content, doxxing etc.
Where's the evidence for this claim? Twitter did not publish rationales for bans and there was no clarity or consistent enforcement of what did or didn't constitute a ToS violation.
What's odd to me is if this question came up a few months ago we would see lots of "it's a private platform" and "freedom of association" comments that aren't as prevalent all the sudden.
Those left wing people that were banned, very likey supported the system that just got them banned.
No one in this thread is arguing that people who violate the rules shouldn't be banned. We are discussing the hypocrisy of what Elon is saying vs what he is clearly doing.
He is free to do this all he wants. We are free to laugh and mock as he flails around, lying and making stuff up.
You just wanted to quickly jump in and make this comment because you "got 'em" but really you just missed the mark.
I don't think people care if left wing or right wing people are banned. People want consistency, safety and the rules applied equally.
Right wing people seemed to act like shitheads more often so they are banned more often.
I'd continue arguing however, conservative law, jurisprudence and overall culture seems to always boil down to that there are in groups who the law protects BUT does not bind, and out groups who the law binds but does not protect.
You can pretty much view all of twitter's new moderation capability through that lens and then it starts to make perfect sense.
There you go. Not a problem when right-leaning accounts were banned on the same ToS violations of inciting violence and impersonation, and now somehow it is a problem when it is applied to left-leaning accounts doing the same thing.
> Those left wing people that were banned, very likey supported the system that just got them banned.
Exactly, and the rules must be applied equally, which wasn't the case before.
If both sides are now angry over Twitter's moderation system and are building their own echo-chambers, then Twitter (2.0) will remain as a site for a more balanced discussion without either extreme screaming on the platform.
At the end of the day, I'm still laughing at the entire Twitter chaos and the screeching minority who are pretending to leave Twitter whilst keeping their accounts and screaming about Elon Musk elsewhere rent free unable to ignore him in their own echo chambers.
The right-wingers that got banned presumably broke one of Twitter's rules - maybe they said "I wish someone would shoot (insert politician they don't like here)". Even if you take "pre-Musk Twitter had a left wing bias" as granted, that doesn't mean the right-wingers were wrongfully banned.
>But banning antifa-accounts, that is accounts held by people taking part in month long riots and looting and political real-world violence… that is bad?
The only way to boil this down to a politically neutral rule is if we banned every right-winger who was at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 alongside everyone who went to a BLM rally that turned violent in 2020. And as far as I can tell neither behavior alone was a violation of Twitter rules as they stood at the time. The rule was no inciting violence on-platform, not no being involved in violence whatsoever.
As far as I can tell, pre-Musk Twitter had two biases:
- Their moderation team was understaffed and overworked because Twitter was too big of a target to effectively moderate. Twitter moderation would overprosecute easy-to-detect cases (i.e. LMG staff getting banned for months because of them sarcastically saying "I'll kill you") and underprosecute difficult ones (i.e. everyone harassing Twitter's villain-of-the-day).
- As a direct consequence of this, right-wingers were more likely to be banned. This is because their rhetoric is inherently more violent[0] in ways that were easier to detect.
Musk has basically decided to cut the moderation team in half and unban all the right-wingers in the name of "balance". All this does is say "we are now letting right-wingers break all the rules, but left-wingers must be on their best behavior, if we let them stay on the platform at all".
[0] Specifically, left-wingers were saying to smash windows, right-wingers were saying to smash people.
> their rhetoric is inherently more violent[0] in ways that were easier to detect.
Do you have any evidence for this generalization? The only overt violent threats I’ve seen on Twitter are men encouraging rape and murder of JK Rowling and other supporters of women’s rights. I don’t know if they’re “right wing” or not, but their surrounding rhetoric is what’s usually associated loosely with the “left”.
But surely this depends on what one happens to see. That’s why I’m wondering if you have any kind of random sample from which you can draw your conclusions.
> Sp banning right wing users for having right wing opinions are OK…
Maybe! Being part of a group that also holds certain opinions isn't really relevant to whether expressing those opinions violates a policy. But which opinions did you have in mind?
> First, none of our policies have changed. Our approach to policy enforcement will rely more heavily on de-amplification of violative content: freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach.
This is bullshit on its face. The first sentence and the second sentence directly contradict each other.
I think they're referring to their legal policy (like the one you sign with twitter when you sign up), and there's no reason that would have had to change for the changes he's implemented.
On November 23, Twitter stopped enforcing its "COVID-19 misleading information" policy.
The previous policy received acclaim from medical professionals: In an advisory to technology platforms, US Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy cited Twitter’s rules as an example of what companies should do to combat misinformation.
When journalist Kara Swisher in September 2020 confronted Musk with the possibility that many people could die if they didn’t follow public health recommendations, the man who believes he is making cars safer and saving mankind by going to Mars replied bluntly: “Everybody dies.”
The argument could be made that Elon cares more about virtual, future people than actual people living today.
And note how Musk through simply engaging with these people gives endorsement to this ridiculous and baseless link between pedophiles and left-wing accounts.
The antifa fueled BLM riots were some of the most damaging riots in the country’s history.
The national guard was called out in dozens of cities during these months long protests… Portland and Seattle were basically under siege. City blocks were literally occupied for many days leading to inability of police and medical services to respond on those areas.
The policy has catch all clauses in it (like "we can do what we want whenever") to avoid lawsuits, so if they ban people who otherwise aren't explicitly in violation of a policy it's easy to unban them without changing policy.
Down here there was a murder case recently. The suspect always replied prompt on his messages, except for the 2 hours during that murder. His phone was supposedly at home with him being out.
There were many more juicy bits in that case, but this part is somewhat in the context of the discussion. The message seemed to be, plan better next time :)
Joke aside, your car probably has a mobile connection by now and even the dealer/manufacturer has access to the data which means authorities don't need more than to purchase it. So you might want to leave the car at home too. And the smartwatch.
This gives me a morbidly hilarious mental image of someone trying to dispose of a body using a bike trailer or cargo bike. Perhaps the rider might even feel a little self-satisfied about how environmentally friendly they're being by doing so.
I suspect the cameras on buses can used to track where you're taking the body. Maybe also where you tap in/out with the extra fare for the bulky cargo.
Exactly, it means we won't throw you in jail using the state. But Musk argues otherwise, that Twitter must let people use their platform to say whatever they want. And at the same time, people working for him cannot say whatever they want about his company.
You're twisting things a bit. He views Twitter as a virtual extension of the real life town square. Namely that the government/Twitter can't remove you from that real/virtual town square for what you say.
SpaceX isn't, nor will it ever be, a town square so the rules don't extend there. (Nor do they extend to Twitter the corporation itself.)
This is highly deceptive. Musk is on record saying that for a town square, you should be able to say whatever you want so long as it is within the letter of the law. Which means, gone will be the days of getting perma-banned for offending some woke crybaby.
Musk's companies are not town squares. They are private entities and employees can be fired for insubordination, harassment, or abuse of company resources.
He dismissed her feelings, she did communicate that it annoyed her but he thought "it shouldn't annoy her, it's really not a big deal". He tried to reason about her feelings from his own and came to the conclusion that he was right and she shouldn't feel the way she did. And that kind of thinking surely doesn't stop with dishes. He must have done that on all aspects of their relationship
One thing I thought regarding the new iOS IDFA rules is that someone could fingerprint people by using accelerometer and touch gestures to create some sort of new IDFA shared across apps.
