YHK - yet another hacker news clone

>The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it

I can put all kinds of words together that are legitimate uses of language, but that doesn't mean they mean anything or have any ground truth. Determining truth is massively more difficult than saying words.

No? Just like they are not able to reliably tell if a piece of text was LLM written or not aside from by having access to the watermarking that some providers and models intentionally embed in the text.

> If crap is indistinguishable from substance, is it truly crap?

The crap is very very distinguishable. But there is so much of it we have to wade through, and it’s only getting worse.

Censorship itself doesn't mean right or wrong, good or bad. It's very likely that you would censor your young kids from watching violent videos of real murders and would consider that a good thing, as an example.

Removing 'illegal' content is censorship in your example. If this is a good or bad thing depends on a great many considerations.

If you are at a stage of "we shoot people on suspicion of them being against The Cause" then indeed, this will not help.

Still, if you are not at that stage, doing something is better than nothing.

But I generally think that trying to solve social problems with technology is a futile endeavor. Someone will always have violence on their side. And violence is the ultimate weakness.

u could likely also readonable tell if someone would be enabling others via their access without even inspecting the actual traffic

Part of the problem here is there are people that think any kind of censorship or moderation is wrong. I will not make any universal statement about the correctness of their position, but I will make a personal statement about their position. "They are fucking crazy".

Now, every once is a while you need a bit of fucking crazy to shock you out of the position you're in and reassess what position you should hold.

That's a big negatory.

>you publish on your site,

And your site gets a takedown for illegal content, or cops show up at your door and drag you out while beating you.

Life is heavily moderated in a million different ways. What we're talking about this point is just moderation or unjust moderation.

I'll make my position clear: many parties try to influence people, and quite a few of them do so with grave consequences. The swing to extreme right politics cannot be seen separate from internet interference. In the words of the article: it's already not "technology serving people", but rather "controlling" them.

If extreme right (or left) parties come to power, your freedom of speech and privacy is over. So it's either moderate moderation, or authoritarian moderation. And if it's up to me, it's not your choice.

"The family had a lot of buffers."

Because this was definitely happening during COVID.

Was this a serious comment? It made me realise that prior to the Internet, information flow was controlled by journalists or through peer reviewed papers and academic forums. People without advanced education would, generally, be limited to people in their local area.