"Tolerate" might be a better word to use for their analogy. I can hate you and all you stand for, but I can still tolerate you. Meaning, I let you be and don't try to curtail your actions according to my personal beliefs.
Nah. The error is the royal "we". We tolerate <subjective judgement>, We enforce <subjective judgement>. And above all, We require everyone to be nice and cultured.
The actual power-wielder who regulates these things is a government (or rather its justice system), a warlord, nowadays maybe an AGI, but definitely not society and not "We, users of orange social media". These mechanisms work for thousands of years, paradoxes gonna paradox.
What you quoted is just the person restating the paradox of tolerance. It's totally nonsensical once you get past "one-dimensonal evil" cases (or perhaps cases like software, a category is more narrowly and cleanly delineated).
He's right that freedom requires restriction. The problem with the paradox of tolerance is that it masquerades as a meaningful principle while leaving the actual restrictions unnamed.
P.S. it also is worth noting that, to the extent that the GPL works, it's precisely because it doesn't rely on vague principles. It's specific about what's restricted, when, and how.
I don't think the Paradox of Tolerance intends to be a principle. It is a statement of the problem, for which principles could be proposed.
If there is anything prescriptive to it, it's the implication that no principles will ever suffice. In which case you need to find a way to reframe the problem.
What is the general take on the ethics of using AI as a much more powerful search engine? For example, "Find all occurences in the text where Odysseus' will is overridden by the Gods." The question is not something that would be directly set by an instructor, but might be required to substantiate an interpretation that a student is aiming for.
Finding something like this is difficult and requires reading the text closely. But with AI, you could get away by reading around the passages returned by AI.
Let's say sufficient instances for the student to prove his/her point - the student used "all" in the AI prompt, but really meant as many as possible from which they could pick and choose. Is it ethical or should it be viewed as cheating?
From India, and cloudflare to my website resolves to the same ip block. The 172.67.198.x is very much reachable. In fact I can ping and access the exact ip in the article. Not sure what the OP's problem was, but it does not seem to be cloudflare or a govt block.
Just a blank page with "No Signals" in the center. Only when I allow stripe.com to load, do I see the webpage. I get it that stripe is required for subscription, but to prevent the site loading if stripe isn't enabled is not exactly nice I think.
Note: jquery.com, jsdeliver.net, and prismic.io allowed to load. licdn.com and stripe.com disallowed.
Is "activism" against the employer protected under anti-retaliation laws? I thought these laws protected employees for things like reporting workplace discrimination, harassment, being a witness in such an investigation, etc. Can you indulge in activism against your employer and claim that you need to be protected from retaliation if they fire you?
A good example of this success, is the muslims of India today. A successive train of islamic invaders have forced multiple generations to take up the religion. Invaders raised towers of skulls of the "kafirs" they killed, and imposed "jizya" (a kafir-only tax) on generations of them. The result today is a large population of their descendants that is completely assimilated in islamic culture.
The problem with anything to do with social media in regards to free speech, censorship, and elections, is that no side is able to define and agree on a common framework that should be applicable to all parties without bias.
The same people who cry murder over censorship will turn around and outrage at provocations against their point of view, label it hate-speech or fake-news, and demand that Facebook/Twitter/Whatsapp take stringent actions against perpetrators who are "trying to influence the outcome of elections."
The problem is that misinformation, fake-news and hate-speech are ill-defined continuums that occupy a fuzzy space - there's no well-defined point at which a news story crosses the line and becomes misinformation or fake-news. Everything about a news story is tinged by bias and political narrative - the choice of words, the tone, the sources, the timing, and even what to cover. Even the most neutral sounding ones cannot escape tinging the story with a hint of what the author believes.
Given this, blocking social media by governments during elections is not so bad after all. Unlike other solutions that try to regulate it, the blocking is uniform across ideology and party.
Either that, or open it up fully and stop trying to regulate it in any way. There's no in-between point that is fair.
>Given this, blocking social media by governments during elections is not so bad after all. Unlike other solutions that try to regulate it, the blocking is uniform across ideology and party.
Your intended effect wouldn't manifest unless this occurred for all forms of media. With social media blocked, political factions still have radio and television, and it's not a good situation when these are all tilted towards a particular side. The goal of internet access is that people have the choice and ability to view whichever party they wish. The problem comes from relying too much on specific social networks that are dominated by partisan voices. A better solution would be to even the playing field rather than ban entirely.
If we were to accept and enforce this rule, billions of followers of some major religions would not be eligible to be part of a free and open society.