news Tech companies declaring "war" and Stop signs + Self Driving Cars

[CakeArmy_Max]

Real quick, new to this section of LTT, please limit hatred <3

Ars Technica: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/tech-companies-are-cracking-down-on-hate-speech/

So apparently people don't understand what freedom of speech means. It means the government will not prosecute you for saying whatever you want. That ONLY applies to the government, not companies. LTT can do whatever they want. If I went on youtube and made a video about why a certain race should die off, they have the right to remove it. It is not censorship. If I was making a video complaining about YT and they remove it, it can be considered censorship, but is still legal as they can do what they want with their own platform.

 

Another Ars technica article actually explains how a stop sign can be covertly changed to make self driving cars not recognize them WITH THESE 5 SIMPLE STEPS! (GONE CRAZY GONE SEXUAL ((NOT CLICKBAIT)) (((((CLICKBAIT))))) ((((((((OMG)))))))

Clickbait aside, https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/09/hacking-street-signs-with-stickers-could-confuse-self-driving-cars/

 

Do note, they didn't actually test this. Its all just a theory based on my TLDR version of the article. 

 

TLDR:

Freedom of speech does not mean anything with companies, stop signs can have a sticker on them and then self driving cars wont recognize them. 

 

[Windows7ge]

I'm amazed that people allow themselves to get triggered by things like this. It makes sense. YouTube is a company. If they don't like something you post. They can remove it. If you want to promote your opinion which may or may not meet the guidelines of YouTube, the LTT forum, Vimeo, or social media platforms like Facebook & Twitter. Buy a domain, and buy a server. Run your own server promoting your controversial opinion. Then unless you REALLY push your luck like by threatening the government or something else crazy then you can have your free speech online.

 

On a less controversial note. Click bate is dumb. It statistically works which shows the level of intelligence of most of the world which is all the more reason I dislike it and if the self driving car thing is true it would kind of make sense. If you obstruct the stop sign with something then the car sensor won't recognise it. Self driving cars have a ways to go.

[Energycore]

Hey there! Remember to include a quote from the source (AT), and keep the news posts to one topic per post (edit this one so it only covers either war on hate speech or stop signs confusing self-driving cars).

 

Cheers!

[ARikozuM]

No self-driving cars in Bradenton, I guess...

[Taf the Ghost]

So, are you an Ars employee? 

 

Also, to the first article, most of the content-hosting websites are in for a world of trouble in the future. They're just careful not to hit anyone with enough money to ruin them... yet. They've been operating in a clearly anti-competitive, coordinated manner. Oh, and YouTube has been illegally supported by Google for a decade, driving competitors out of the industry by cross-subsidization. Which is also illegal.

 

Just remember the phrase "Trust Busting". It's going to be lit. 

[matrix07012]

5 hours ago, CakeArmy_Max said:

So apparently people don't understand what freedom of speech means. It means the government will not prosecute you for saying whatever you want. That ONLY applies to the government, not companies. LTT can do whatever they want. If I went on youtube and made a video about why a certain race should die off, they have the right to remove it. It is not censorship. If I was making a video complaining about YT and they remove it, it can be considered censorship, but is still legal as they can do what they want with their own platform.

Just because you can do something, that doesn't make it right. Companies shouldn't play moral busy bodies.

And their censorship is inconsistent and for example Twitter has a clear political bias.

[mr moose]

O.K

 

1.  don't think of it as censorship, think of it more as companies trying to limit their public image being associated with things they know their customers don't like. It 's just them avoiding bad publicity and losing sales.

 

2. self driving cars.  whatever.   they won't become a thing until they have sufficient fail safes.

 

 

[matrix07012]

2 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Shouldn't be surprising. Guy who likes unfettered capitalism until said capitalism does something he doesn't like also doesn't know the definition of a straw man.

Capitalism doesn't mean I have to bow down to companies and praise everything they do.

1 hour ago, ivan134 said:

The fact that conservatives are worried about a crackdown on hate speech should tell you all you need to know about them. Apparently saying someone with too much melanin in their skin doesn't have the right to exist is an "opposing viewpoint that should be discussed"

This is a straw man.

Quote

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

 

[Teddy07]

I know that my opinion regarding asylum seekers is not popular so I will not express my real opinion in real life especially at my university where left wingers are everywhere. I don´t care what they say and just agree with their political views just to go smoothly through university.

 

 

[Sauron]

8 hours ago, Windows7ge said:

On a less controversial note. Click bate is dumb. It statistically works which shows the level of intelligence of most of the world which is all the more reason I dislike it and if the self driving car thing is true it would kind of make sense. If you obstruct the stop sign with something then the car sensor won't recognise it. Self driving cars have a ways to go.

Being more likely to notice a title written in a certain way has nothing to do with intelligence. The reason it works is that people notice those articles first, and are more likely to click on them to see what it's about. In theory there's nothing wrong with that, as long as the title doesn't lie about the content of the article/video.

[Bananasplit_00]

self driving cars thing is a retoast im pretty sure

[ivan134]

40 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

Capitalism doesn't mean I have to bow down to companies and praise everything they do.

This is a straw man.

 

Which part?

[matrix07012]

Just now, ivan134 said:

Which part?

 

37 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

Apparently saying someone with too much melanin in their skin doesn't have the right to exist is an "opposing viewpoint that should be discussed"

 

[ivan134]

8 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

 

 

How is that a strawman? Lmao.

[cj09beira]

18 minutes ago, Teddy07 said:

I know that my opinion regarding asylum seekers is not popular so I will not express my real opinion in real life especially at my university where left wingers are everywhere. I don´t care what they say and just agree with their political views just to go smoothly through university.

 

 

the fact that in Europe you can't openly talk about such important issues openly without severe social persecutions, is exactly why Europe has some very bad years in front of it.

[ivan134]

49 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

Capitalism doesn't mean I have to bow down to companies and praise everything they do.

 

 

Who said you have to praise them? Unfettered capitalism means companies get to do whatever they want right? Why shouldn't they be "moral busy bodies" as you put it? Why does someone who favors capitalism with no government control have this viewpoint?

[cj09beira]

 

 

 

 

edited as i misunderstood what was said  

[ivan134]

6 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

maybe if you had actually looked at the problem instead of just assuming they are just  racist/whatever else, you would have stumbled across the fact that the problem is that said laws are way to vague and can be applied to almost anything that could be called offensive, thats the problem

????

Lol, do you even know what this topic is about?

[Teddy07]

8 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

the fact that in Europe you can't openly talk about such important issues openly without severe social persecutions, is exactly why Europe has some very bad years in front of it.

Agreed. I already can´t wait to emigrate from Germany but I have to stay to get my degree in CS.

[matrix07012]

25 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

How is that a strawman? Lmao.

The argument is that the definition of hate speech is so vague and subjective that it can be applied to anything.

23 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

the fact that in Europe you can't openly talk about such important issues openly without severe social persecutions, is exactly why Europe has some very bad years in front of it.

20 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Who said you have to praise them? Unfettered capitalism means companies get to do whatever they want right? Why shouldn't they be "moral busy bodies" as you put it? Why does someone who favors capitalism with no government control have this viewpoint?

Should =/= have to

Also I'm not for 100% unregulated market.

[Windows7ge]

25 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Being more likely to notice a title written in a certain way has nothing to do with intelligence. The reason it works is that people notice those articles first, and are more likely to click on them to see what it's about. In theory there's nothing wrong with that, as long as the title doesn't lie about the content of the article/video.

The clickbate I'm primarily referring to is from YouTube although web articles can apply too. I understand the objective is to get a users attention but I would argue that the readers intelligence IS a factor because certain thumbnails and titles ARE obvious over inflated misleading lies and often aren't even information contained within the article or video. The video or article creator is rude for leading people on for the sake of clicks and revenue and the user who cannot distinguish an obvious lie from something that could be true or contained within can have their level of intelligence questioned at least the parts of their brain which are responsible for analyzing, critical thinking, and decision making. So I disagree with your argument I do believe intelligence has something to do with it.

 

If your argument is that you think I'm defining intelligence simply as the amount of usable information one has memorised in their lifetime then you would be correct and I would be wrong but that type of intelligence isn't what I mean.

[ivan134]

7 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

The argument is that the definition of hate speech is so vague and subjective that it can be applied to anything.

Should =/= have to

Also I'm not for 100% unregulated market.

............

so you didn't actually read my post, then decided I was a making a straw man because of some other argument you had in your head?

[ivan134]

9 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

 

And no. There is nothing vague about white supremacy.

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, Windows7ge said:

If your argument is that you think I'm defining intelligence simply as the amount of usable information one has memorised in their lifetime then you would be correct and I would be wrong but that type of intelligence isn't what I mean.

Regargless of the type of intelligence you mean, you will notice clickbait titles first. If you then refuse to click them that's another matter entirely, but eventually you'll run out of sources if you do that.

[Coaxialgamer]

27 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

the fact that in Europe you can't openly talk about such important issues openly without severe social persecutions, is exactly why Europe has some very bad years in front of it.

Excuse me . If you've ever read say , a tabloid , you'd know that this statement is completely false.