Why would there be an expectation that a public school would teach biblical nonsense? That's not censorship, it falls under a different high level principle of separating that from the state. It's also not censorship that schools don't teach pickpocketing. Stretching the word censorship doesn't make your case, it's transparently specious.
> Why would there be an expectation that a public school would teach biblical nonsense? That's not censorship, it falls under a different high level principle of separating that from the state. It's also not censorship that schools don't teach pickpocketing. Stretching the word censorship doesn't make your case, it's transparently specious.
Exactly, it's not censorship when you approve of the restriction, it's only censorship when you disapprove, and you've made up categories and divisions to obscure what you're really doing.
And that's what this is really about: jockeying between opposing groups to use power to determine what norms are taught in schools. And at least one side isn't being honest about what they're doing, and wraps their actions in soaring but false language.
Equating both of these things is dangerous and wrong. It’s not as if these are the same things. Creationism is factually provably wrong by all standards of modern science. Pretending that the position of “we ban teaching things that are known to be wrong” and the position that “we ban teaching things that are by modern standards correct, but uncomfortable to our world view” is a large part of the problem.
> Equating both of these things is dangerous and wrong. It’s not as if these are the same things.
What's really going on is you seem so caught up in your own biases that you can't even see what you're doing.
> Creationism is factually provably wrong by all standards of modern science. Pretending that the position of “we ban teaching things that are known to be wrong”
Do you really think the reason teaching creationism in American public schools is banned is because it's "factually provably wrong by all standards of modern science?"
I kinda get the impression you may be someone who has a hard time distinguishing between your subjective view and objectivity. This controversy isn't in any way shape or form about "book bans," it's really about the political decision about whose subjective view will prevail in schools. But at least one side won't admit that, because there's power in gaslighting people and power in mischaracterizing things to hit certain buttons. Regardless of who wins, the same types of "curation" activities will occur in school libraries.
AI-native disruptors are designing products and experiences around AI from inception, rapidly capturing value and reshaping customer expectations. In the near term, for some, that is a raising red flag.
It's like being mad that women can vote or that blacks can go to white schools, just time shifted. Why spend your life being mad about social progress that's going to happen whether you want it to or not? What's the value proposition? (I mean for the people buying it, not the people selling it.)
The value proposition is that the people selling it are telling the buyers that trans and gay people will corrupt their children. Not that it might turn out their children are trans or gay, but that trans and gay people will cause them to be trans or gay. Amp this up with hoaxes like schools having cat litter boxes for children who identify as cats.
There are people out there afraid to learn or change and are keen to blame and keep things the same to protect themselves
You can listen to their thought process by asking them if they got their way politically for 15 years what would be better about living in their country
So one one hand we have Nazi ideas[1] being platformed by the ruling political party which has barely disguised its support for ethnically cleansing the country of all non-white people[2]. And on the other hand we have radical democratic socialist candidates proposing stabilized rent[3]. What am I missing here?
The main cases I've seen against people on the left (non-exclusive) are:
- Lots of them in Epstein files
- Mass importations of unchecked non-citizens
- Trying harder to look cool to Europe vs helping Americans
- Overregulation (things like California Coastal Commission)
- Massive fraud (LA -> SF bullet train, tens of billions for "homelessness" that don't go towards homeless at all, building permits, etc)
- Antifa burning down 3rd party businesses for reasons unknown
- Attempts to squash 1st amendment, particularly on gender
Since you linked sites like the Guardian and Atlantic, I figured the bar was low enough that you can just google any of these points and find an opinionated piece of similar quality.
The bubble I refer to is the fact that seemingly all you see is the bad on one side and good on the other. As easy as you claim one side are Nazis trying to kill off non-whites, the people on the other side claim the left is trying to force movie/music propaganda to eradicate all white people. Both sides have millions of posts from terminally online people wildly claiming outrageous things. Both "sides" have bad people. If you can't agree to that, you are in a bubble or just lying.
Forcing other people to use desired pronouns, requiring new signs on all single-stall bathrooms. You'll have to Google it, you're not going to get a great argument/stance from me personally. I don't dive much deeper than the headlines/parts of my feeds where these are thrust upon me.
Especially when it comes to ethnic cleansing, peoples' terminally online claims don't factor in from any side; this isn't about partisans or discourse. We are talking about official government policy and statements. This is substantiated, without any constitutional precedent, and extremely dangerous.
The equivalent actions on the left that you posed, increasing non-white representation in media, a) is not government policy and b) is fair assuming proportional representation for the existing 1 out of 3 non-white Americans. And the actual Biden policy allowing what you call "non-citizens" to enter the US is simply the international treaty for asylum seekers; these are all people going through the immigration system.
Regarding my sources, ESIWeb is a European think-tank that rigorously and objectively evaluates claims. The Atlantic and The Guardian are respected for their journalism world-wide. These aren't op-eds; I have been following this story for a while and choose my sources carefully.
There are a few other dubious items on your list--e.g., "Antifa" which doesn't represent mainstream Democrats, isn't an organization, and hasn't been linked to "burning down businesses". Epstein? At least a dozen people in this administration are implicated, with Trump being one of the principal pedophiles. "Massive corruption"? The list would be too long for this message if we got into the Trump administration.
It's the knee-jerk reactions to "look at the other side!" that makes me think you're in a bubble. Also your references to certain small groups on the right-side spectrum as the whole while claiming (rightly) that other small groups on the left-side don't represent the mainstream. I was just trying to give you a few examples as a starting point for research since you seem to be completely oblivious to them, I am not here to argue with you or back them up.
Guy, you're talking about groups that comprise social discourse whereas I'm talking only and specifically about the concrete policies and practices enacted by the Trump regime. The counter-examples you provided are not parallel mappings.
That's cool, keep talking about it I guess. Why you're expecting me to provide "parallel mappings" is totally beyond me. You're in a bubble because although you seem great at researching one side, you seemingly cannot apply those same skills for the other. You just want a dopamine win from discarding whatever I say based upon whatever moral framework you've set up in your head that's gotten you to this point.
The bulk of the traffic will stay quarantined on the major sites like these because most people are passive and undiscerning. The new generation of smaller, higher quality sites doesn't have to worry about the Eternal September coming over and attracting the scammers, slop merchants, etc.
Lol, naive in the extreme. The majority of the slop is not eternal September noobs, it’s commercially motivated, people selling things, PR, like farming, bots astroturfing public opinion. It’s much cheaper to push slop than to moderate it.
These “small higher quality sites” will not have the resources to gatekeeper it. If, that is the at protocol world ever gets past one big site. You’ve actually got a lot more chance with smaller communities that are not connected with any protocol.
The slop can come from anywhere, including captive apps like Pinterest, so why use Pinterest? The ask is: how can you get a similar experience on non tech controlled systems? That does not mean you won't get slop, it means that Pinterest is not the gatekeeper to the user experience. There will likely be slop, but that is a distinct problem statement to solve for.
My concern is the gatekeeper (in this case, Pinterest), and avoiding them at all costs using the ability to build replacements swiftly using vibe coding on open protocols (although vibe coding is not required of course, it will simply speed time to market). ATProto cannot be controlled by design, so it is ideal for building apps that need social rails (as a Pinterest replacement might). What is Pinterest besides an app, a search engine, and an object storage system after all?
Tangentially, ATProto moderation primitives might be of use in detecting, tagging, and filtering AI slop (via media, metadata, and author/publisher signal), but more research is required on this topic.
> The majority of the slop is not eternal September noobs, it’s commercially motivated, people selling things
Right, and those people go where the traffic is. They're polluting Twitter. They don't find Mastodon/Bluesky etc. important enough to take over. Hopefully it stays that way.
Spend time writing one story with your kids, you end up with something special. Spend that time writing a tool to generate infinite stories, you've got shovelware.
Hopefully some are visionary enough to be dismayed that the endgame of their field is the acceleration of slop and fraud, the end of customer service, and the end of the reading of full, original documents.
I can't imagine being excited about any of that unless I was trying to make money from it.
> the end of the reading of full, original documents
That's one that always gets me: people who use LLMs to summarize everything. It's like, bro, how lazy are you that you can't be bothered to read a handful of paragraphs of text? That takes all of 30 seconds. I can understand trying to get a computer to summarize a document which is dozens of pages long (though I would be concerned about hallucinations), but a lot of the tasks people use LLMs for are really easy already.
reply