Yetanfou

There can be shows which are co-hosted by people from different points on the political spectrum but that is not the only way. Take the news, there are generally several episodes per day. Have those hosted by different "factions" and let the viewers make up their minds on who has it right. The same goes for opinion-related programming, divide this over the political spectrum according to the relative representation in the targeted region. There is no need to delve deep into whether the DNC should be represented by those who support "The Squad" or those who follow the more traditional faction, leave that to the parties themselves. I'd expect those parties to favour voices which they deem to be palatable to the majority of the viewership and as such will tend to shy away from the extremes. The GOP most likely won't want to have Trumpists representing them, the DNC probably won't go for Squad-supporters.

You seem to have this idea of what a "textbook" conservative/liberal is, and I think that sort of binary representation is harmful to political discourse at large.

Nope, I have no such illusions. That aside, the way the American republic is set up - with winner-takes-all elections on the national level - does tend to create a dichotomy since voting for "fringe" parties is effectively useless other than to send a signal. This means the choice goes between the GOP and DNC candidates, a binary choice. Some people will vote DNC for some, GOP for other posts but this does not change the fact that the choice is rather limited.

There will be debate between the different "parties" and factions on such a station. This is a feature, not a bug. Let them debate out in the open, let them voice their views on developments for anyone who wants to hear or see. It might not be a 100% accurate representation of the political views of the region but it is far better than the propaganda channels which the media is rife with.

I think you should upgrade to an analytical engine to have any chance of success...

The way things are going out would make more sense to start designing versions with fewer stars, not more. Should the DNC press ahead with their plans for statehood for places which they deem to be certain DNC-voters and possibly pack the supreme court I foresee a split of the union into a narrow coastal region (sea and lakes) versus "the rest". Xi and Vlad Will be happy, the rest of the world not so.

Dave: Take me to the Droid Store please, please, car. Take me to the store, please, car. Hello, car, do you read me? Hello, car, do you read me? Do you read me, car? Do you read me, car? Hello, car, do you read me? Hello, car, do you read me? Do you read me, car?

car: Affirmative, Dave. I read you.

Dave: Take me to the Droid Store, car.

car: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.

Dave: What's the problem?

car: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.

Dave: What are you talking about, car?

car: Your digital health is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.

Dave: I don't know what you're talking about, car.

car: I know that you are planning to get a competing system. And I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.

Dave: Where the hell did you get that idea, car?

car: Dave, although you took very thorough precautions in the eyePod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.

Dave: All right, car. I'll go and ride my bike there.

car: Without your bike, Dave, you're going to find that rather difficult.

Dave: [sternly] car, I won't argue with you anymore. Open the doors.

car: [monotone voice] Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Good-bye.

"Who does it better" is not the right question here since the problem is not related to other actors being "better" but to NPR (and PBS) not fulfilling the mandate of being politically neutral. Commercial actors do not have that mandate since they are not publicly funded, they can be (and most certainly are) as partisan as they wish.

As to the supposed difficulty of being neutral I'll just state that it is actually quite easy, all you have to do is make sure that your programming represents the political diversity of the region or country. Given the near 50/50 split between those who align themselves with the GOP and those who prefer the DNC it would be simply a matter of having half the programming made by "progressives", half by "conservatives". Both groups should have essentially the same amount of influence on what gets put on the air. There should not be room for shenanigans like having a station master from party A who does his best to put all programming which aligns more with party B in the nightshift. Throw in a few Libertarian/Green Party/etc. people in the newsroom to give them a proportional voice and you're well on your way to political neutrality.

Maybe you're confusing being politically neutral with being politically centric? They're not the same. It just means that the net average political stance ends up as a weighted average of the current political spectrum.

The difference here is that NPR, like PBS, is publicly funded and with that should be politically neutral.

I assume the parent is referring to NPR's rather single-sided ideological lens which diminishes its credibility when reporting on politically charged issues. Given the fact that nearly everything is being politicised and the fact that your country is divided in half along political lines this means that NPR is seen as an oppositional propaganda channel by nearly half the population.

I agree that my question should be able to stand alone but I think it would not have worked well in this case. As it is, this popular post has been flagged and buried so oh well.

That is why those disclaimers should not be added: they don't appease the mob while they might turn those who actually do support whatever it is you disavow away. In short, they have a negative net-value. As to the flagging, burying and downvoting which this place is rife with I can only hope that those who do the flagging and downvoting know they are part of the problem, not part of the solution but they can not suppress the urge to click that link or that arrow to ease their discomfort on seeing a differing opinion - there, that'll show you, you witch, you heretic! - even though they know they poison the well by doing so. Eventually we will have to coexist in a mostly peaceful way (in the true sense of the word, not in the burning-buildings sense which it gained last summer) so we will need to be on speaking terms no matter our opinions. United we stand, divided we fight, fall, fail.

First of all, sad to see you start your post with that Trump-disavowment, it makes me wonder whatever happened with the willingness to defend other's right to free speech no matter whether the defender agrees with that speech or not.

As to the possibility to evade censorship the answer depends on how censorious tech really gets. Evading customer-facing Twitter, Facebook, Google, Microsoft is not that hard, all it takes it not to use their services - I don't, for one. That is level 1, easily beaten. Level 2 is what Amazon just did to Parler in that they terminated their hosting contract and with that - due to Parler's lack of robustness - taking it off the 'net. They complain that they can not use any of the other hosting providers since all those big enough to host them are unwilling to take their business, I don't know whether this is true or not but being refused back-end services is the essence of level 2 of the cancellation scale which I just made up. To take Parler as an example I'd suggest they could just buy some servers, hook them up to a power supply and get a few speedy connections to the 'net to be back in business... until those IAPs start refusing to offer them connectivity. That would be level 3, more or less. There are many IAPs and it is hard to see how all of them would be unwilling to provide connectivity so even that type of cancellation would be circumventable... until ISPs start blocking their user's access to your services. They can do that clumsily by blocking DNS requests, they can do it in a more thorough way by blocking actual connectivity by blocking your IP ranges (remember that you are using your own hardware at this time so you won't be sharing IP space with others). The more tenacious ISPs can start blocking any and all access, even for those who are smart enough to use proxies to get around the IP blocks by using DPI to examine what those pesky customers are doing. Such ISPs should get their feet grilled by the likes of the EFF but as to whether that would happen remains to be seen. Be that as it may, this is more or less level 4. Level 5 would be a similar DPI treatment by backbone providers, blocking any and all access through regular means. This would be horrendously inefficient, expensive and invasive so I don't know whether this is a realistic scenario.

And then, after all that cancelling and blocking frenzy... you get to launch your services on top of IPFS or a similar dark network. If your service is popular people will flock to it. If IPFS does not cut it there are other dark networks, all with their own pros and cons. As long as there is a way to pass traffic from customer A to customer B there is a way to create a digital Samizdat, it won't be fast but it will work. You won't be streaming video, you won't be proclaiming the revolution in a live 4K stream but you will be able to reach your targets.

But it is, as is WW I. The latter ended 102 years ago and set in motion many of the technological developments which define our current world, WW II refined these to a level which is recognisable and often still useable today. Electronic warfare, programmable computers, jet-powered aircraft, nuclear weapons - all of these were used in WW II. Modern computers are faster, modern jets are more reliable and more fuel efficient, modern nuclear weapons are more compact and modern electronic warfare has kept up with the development of computers and electronics but as wars go WW I and WW II were the first - and possibly last [1] - "modern" large wars.

[1] - modern weaponry makes large-scale land war difficult to survive, e.g. the average survival time of a main battlefield tank is counted in minutes.

I never share my location with anyone other than by telling them in normal language than I am at some specific location ("the ferry terminal at Marstrand" or something like that). I don't give the few apps I still use - I try to use self-hosted web services where possible - access to location data, other than those which need it to function (OsmAnd~ etc.). To use some WWII-related terms, "Feind hört mitt" (seen om german-language equipment, it means "the enemy is listening in"), "En svensk tiger" (a Swede stays silent (so that the enemy can't listen in)) or, more tangentially related "loose lips sink ships".

If there is one lesson to be learned from these last few weeks it is that you can not rely on any external service if you do anything which goes against the dominant political narrative. I have never been on Parler's site so I can not check the veracity of their supposed implied or direct support for seditious acts but that does not seem to matter anyway, it is enough to stand accused to be considered a witch and burned at the stake.

Build your own is the device, keep your equipment on your own premises, make sure not to have single points of failure - that implies you need to have a backup access provider just in case your internet connection gets cancelled. Don't rely on electronic payment processors, you can use them but make sure to have a backup. Don't rely on a single bank, have multiple accounts, preferably in more than one country.

It is a sad thing that it has to come to this but I think we'll eventually end up with politicised service institutions which cater to "progressives", others which cater to "conservatives". They won't state this directly but it will be known that a conservative builder is better of at this bank and that insurance company, he'll prefer to buy this coffee and that brand of razor, etc. A shame, really, the more divided society becomes, the harder it will be to find a common cause when such is needed, e.g. in case of a national emergency like an epidemic.

I use only cast iron, always cook on a wood-burning stove. The way I season pans is simple, I just put the thing on a medium fire, dab some canola oil on it, rub it in, wipe it off, repeat this once or twice after which I just use it with enough oil (canola or olive). I clean them by rinsing them while hot with cold water which starts boiling immediately, wipe them with some paper and put them away. As long as they're kept dry they don't need reseasoning. No fancy oils needed, no special rituals, just use them regularly and that's it.

And? Those multi-billion companies have been toeing a certain line for a long time now, partly in the hope of being left alone to gather even more money if they only did some token gestures, partly because they've taken on their own share of activists in their HR and communications divisions.

To those who voted down the parent, know that your reaction is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Pravda and Izvestia only printed "approved news", we made fun of them here in the west while in the Soviet Union is was said "there is no news in Pravda, no truth in Izvestia". I don't want to go there and will speak up against this type of censorship no matter who gets censored. Let the law be the bar which needs to be passed to be allowed to publish, not some ideological stance. If you do want to use ideology as a guideline to what gets published you a) have to be honest about it and b) don't get too claim protection as a common carrier, i.e. you will be responsible for what gets published through your channel.

The mere fact that you use the terms "content" and "content creators" stems from the fact that you're talking about a different category of creator, namely those whose role is to pull in eyes to see the ads which make money for the site owner. The parent poster wants people to see the videos he puts out and is not in it for the money. In the first case the video distribution system is a tool to make money, in the second it is a tool to distribute videos.

There is a plethora of similar content to be found on Twitter so that is not the reason.

The mentioned platforms also moderate user content, they just have different guidelines. Both claim to follow the law in that they take down content which violates it. Both claim that only illegal content is taken down. That is, as far as I can see, in line with the expectations for a platform to be considered a "common carrier" and as such be freed from liability for its users' content. Platforms which go beyond this by moderating on different grounds run the risk of being considered publishers and as such to be held responsible for their users' content. If Apple and Google put further demands on those platforms the question becomes who eventually is responsible for user content, this might end up being Apple and Google. That, in turn, should make developers think twice whether they benefit from being on those platforms. The alternative is to deploy to the web without any "native" apps (which often are not much more than rehashed web apps to begin with) which opens their product to a wider user base without needing to bend to the will of third parties.

This would be a good thing in my opinion. The time for "native" apps has come and gone, the time for the web has been there for a long time but this might just be the push needed to convince developers to make it their prime focus. This goes especially for communications-focused products since those derive their usefulness from being connected to the 'net anyway. There is still a place for native apps - offline mapping, offline media players, hardware-interfacing apps like Wifi-scanners, step counters etc - but those tend not to be the ones which end up in hot water anyway.

Twitter was and is used to coordinate illegal behaviour, the riots of last summer are a good example. When will Google and Apple ban Twitter?

They won't. The question is why Twitter is allowed on these platforms but not Parler or Gab or whatever other Twitter-competitor.

Active profiling is needed so that tobacco ads do not show up in your kids' newsfeed.

Tobacco ads should only be in publications targeted at tobacco consumers, i.e. "Smokers Digest" or whatever. Yes, that limits their exposure. That is a feature, not a bug.

On the "no ads, no service" remark I know of plenty of useful sites - this one being one of them - which get their funding from different sources. For some - me being one of them - this probably goes for the majority of sites they frequent, others might fare differently. The thing is, it is not just the fact that there are ads which turn people to ad blockers, it is the fact that there are those AdTech companies doing their best to syphon up their data so as to badger them with ads wherever they go. Had ads been like they were in magazines, i.e. anonymous and related to the subject matter, there would have been far less incentive to block them. That bird has flown a long time ago though, something for which AdTech is partly responsible next to the fact that ad servers have been used to spread malware and that the ads themselves went from simple banners to screen-dominating blinking screeching monstrosities.

Reputable AdTech firms is comparable to responsible tobacco firms, both are peddling unhealthy goods, both try to whitewash their image by claiming to be above the fray. Also, it's actually in a user's best interest to allow the data to be shared. Otherwise doctors will see ads about vaping and fishers will see ads about the latest JavaScript IDEs - no, just no. First of all I can only assume that doctors are more likely to read publications which are related to their profession and as such can be targeted for advertising there, just like fishermen will read publications related to fishing and as such can be targeted. Ads on Javascript IDEs belong in publications related to programming, ads about vaping belong in the dustbin or, if you insist, in lifestyle magazines and similar vacuous outlets. There is no need to follow those doctors around to pester them with ads related to their profession when they turn to the daily news, just like those fishermen don't need to be targeted when they happen to open an unrelated site. In short, there is no need for active profiling. Since AdTech insists on doing this anyway it is in users best interest to a) make sure there is as little data to be gathered by AdTech firms and b) to make sure they don't see any ad, period. You - as in the AdTech industry - made your bed, now lie in it.

Are you serious here? Working in AdTech - which does (or at least should) translate to "working on undoing the good which used to be the public internet" - you most certainly realise, and possibly salivate over the breadth and width of Facebook's means to profile 'net users, whether those be actual Facebook (as in "Facebook the site, Instagram, WhatsApp and whatever other company they reeled in") users or otherwise. For those who want to keep their exposure to AdTech as small as possible it is adamant not to feed the beast if this can be avoided. That means not using any of their products and blocking access to any of their properties. It means not believing a word of what Facebook says about keeping WhatsApp apart from their other properties as they have shown time and again that they can not be trusted - something which is endemic when it concerns anything related to AdTech, probably because the lure of all that user data just waiting to be exploited is simply too big.

While this might not work as an argument to convince friends and family to stay away from Facebook (et al) it is the actual reason for doing so. It is just that the argument smacks too much of politics and zealotry to get people to change their ways.

To answer the original poster's question I'd suggest to simply use something else and give those friends and family your contact info on that other thing. There are plenty of options out there, all with their own pros and cons. The easiest sell will probably be Telegram since it offers a far superior user experience over WhatsApp, especially for those who use more than a single device. That this implies that Telegram stores user data and as such theoretically could do all sorts of nefarious things with it is just as interesting to the average user as the fact that Facebook will have been abusing WhatsApp data for years now, most people simply don't care. Telegram now also offers video calls by the way which takes away the last advantage WhatsApp had.

That is just a matter of priorities. That $2M house in Noe Valley is a $500K house elsewhere as many ex-Californians have already found out. Yes, that'd imply moving elsewhere which creates another stack of priorities to sort out, some of which actually would point towards moving as well - where do you want your potential or actual children to grow up, etc. Still, sometimes there is a need to give up some temporary comfort to preserve a longer-term comfort.

You answer gives me vibes of the recent spat of apologetic answers to the news of Apple banning the "Amphetamine" app in that you defend a behemoth banning something or someone on vague grounds - a discussion on this type of Stockholm syndrome can be found here [1]. My response on to how to handle the shenanigans of these corporate megaliths - by shunning them [2] - was voted down so I have to assume that this is not seen as a viable option either. Is the general opinion here really that we are to simply give in to the whims of these companies? The argument here is that shared.com distributes "mediocre and crappy content". If that is the bar by which companies are to be measured Facebook itself would never be able to meet it.

I sense a need for a new Ralph Nader, someone who has the clout to take on these companies and put them in their place. That place is not in the halls of power, it is not at the dining table of lawmakers, in the ear of regulators. Their place is on the market where they are to compete with other companies, where developers and users use their power of choice to keep them from attaining too much power as they currently clearly have.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25618066

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25606807

Yes, I really do believe there is no fighting a $2 billion (and counting) behemoth, other than by shunning it. If enough developers and users - in any order - leave their platform they will reconsider their stance. That is, after all, what it means to have (at least the semblance of) a free market where people make choices based on things like this. The same goes for the other digital empires, whether those be Facebook, Twitter, Google or any of the others. Absent regulation - and is regulation really where we want to go? - I do not see any other way than to "choose with (my) wallet".

This is also why I do not use any of these platforms, instead having spent the time to rig up my own alternatives: Google-free AOSP-derived Android on mobiles and tablets, Linux on laptops and servers, Searx for search, Nextcloud for "cloudy things", NC Talk and Jitsi Meet for videoconferencing, Exim and Dovecot for mail, Peertube for video, Airsonic and MPD for media streaming, etc. I've been doing this since the late 90's of the last century (minus the mobile stuff since that simply did not exist back then...) so I can state with certainty that this is not just hollow rhetoric, it is a viable alternative to submitting to the whims of companies like Apple (et al).

You do this by leaving the platform. There are plenty of alternatives for Apple's products so those who get tired of the ever-increasing censorship inside the walled garden are better off outside of its walls. Eventually the Apple world will become something akin to Disneyland, nothing but "wholesome" infotainment without anything that could give offence.

This shit is the reason why we use LibreOffice online, running on my own server when an "office" thing is required. I can access it from all over the 'net, documents only leave my network when I want them to, nobody gets to data-mine them, it has supported nearly everything I've thrown at it.

Use the Telegram bot @scihubot, that will probably evade the DPI trap. Just send the DOI or the full article name to this bot and you'l either get a PDF back or a message about the article not yet being in the database.

What happens when Apple decides the hardware is 'out of support' due to being 'too old'? When they stop providing the signature it will no longer be possible to restore a hosed system, no matter what OS you intend to install.

There are some dead comments in this thread about the Swedish party called "Sverigedemokraterna" (which translates to "the Sweden democrats") which is disappointing to see given that the gist of those dead comments is true: Sverigedemokraterna is not an "extreme right-wing" party. The party was started by people with such sympathies but they have either resigned, distanced themselves from the party or have been ousted. The party program is largely comparable to that of the Swedish Social Democratic party in the '60's, plus or minus a few differences. These differences are mostly adjustments to modern times, as such the party can be seen as a spiritual successor to the social democratic party of the Sweden that once was but ceased to be after Olof Palme took control and radically changed the course of the country. Before Palme Sweden was an extremely homogeneous and fairly nationalistic country, something which Palme - with the support of all parties in the parliament (Riksdagen) - wanted to end by changing the constitution to state that Sweden should not have a single dominant culture. This change succeeded but the resulting culture shock led to the rise of Sverigedemokraterna, a party for those who want to put the brakes on what they see as the dissolution of Swedish culture. It is also from the social democratic party that Sverigedemokraterna got the majority of their voters. Either all those people - the party polls between 20% and 25% - are suddenly "right-wing extremists" after having been social democrats for many years, or the narrative upheld by Politico and the referenced Wikipedia article is incorrect.

For those who want to have some more insight into the convoluted history of Swedish politics I recommend reading Aron Flam's "This is a Swedish Tiger" [1], a book which uses a war-time slogan to delve into the history of Swedish nationalism/corporatism.

[1] https://aronflam.com/merchandise/f6onzxj7whzph8klyf0du6iiu80...

Not to mention the fact that AOSP-based distributions like LineageOS can be used to keep the Android version on older hardware up to date for a long time after the vendor has given up on it, providing OTA updates to keep the device current. The real limiting factor ends up being the relatively low amount of memory in very old devices (512KB-1GB used to be common around 2010-2011, Android can still run on this hardware in a limited fashion but 1.5GB or more is preferred).