When you have a feed with a million posts in it, they are. There is no practical difference between removing something and putting it on page 5000 where no one will ever see it, or from the other side, moderating away everything you wouldn't recommend.
Likewise, if you have a feed at all, it has to be in some order. Should it show everyone's posts or only people you follow? Should it show posts by popularity or something else? Is "popularity" global, regional, only among people you follow, or using some statistics based on things you yourself have previously liked?
There is no intrinsic default. Everything is a choice.
While I agree "There is no intrinsic default. Everything is a choice." and "There is no practical difference between removing something and putting it on page 5000" and similar (see my own recent comments on censorship vs. propaganda):
> Should it show everyone's posts or only people you follow?
Only people (well, accounts) you follow, obviously.
That's what I always thought "following" is *for*, until it became clear that the people running the algorithms had different ideas because they collectively decided both that I must surely want to see other content I didn't ask for and also not see the content I did ask for.
> Should it show posts by popularity or something else? Is "popularity" global, regional, only among people you follow, or using some statistics based on things you yourself have previously liked?
If they want to supply a feed of "Trending in your area", IMO that would be fine, if you ask for it. Choice (user choice) is key.
"We have a million pieces of content to show you, but are not allowed to editorialize" sounds like a constraint that might just spark some interesting UI innovations.
Not being allowed to use the "feed" pattern to shovel content into users' willing gullets based on maximum predicted engagement is the kind of friction that might result in healthier patterns of engagement.
I remember back in the day when Google+ was just launched. And it had promoted content. Content not from my 'circles' but random other content. I walked out and never looked back.
Of course, Facebook started doing the same.
The thing is, anything from people not explicitly subscribed to should be considered advertorial and the platform should be responsible for all of that content.
Early days facebook was simple:
1) You saw posts from all people you were connected to on the platform.
2) In the reverse order they were posted.
I can tell you it was a real p**r when they decided to do an algorithmic recommendation engine - as the experience became way worse. Before I could follow what my buddies were doing, as soon as they made this change the feed became garbage.
The point is that they don't have to be. You can moderate (scan for inappropriate content, copyrighted content, etc) without needing to have an algorithmic recommendation feed.
There's OpenClaw the codebase, and there's OpenClaw the community. They could build the same program very easily (as evidenced by the number of clones out there already). That part's not worth paying much for. But redirecting the whole enthusiast community around it? That's worth a lot.
The point is that "who gathers it" should be irrelevant.
The government shouldn't be able to buy data that would be unconstitutional or unlawful for them to gather themselves.
On the other hand if a company is just aggregating something benign like weather data, there's no need to bar the government from buying that instead of building it themselves.
I had a similar thought, but I think there's a key difference here.
Traditional karma scores, star counts, etc, are mostly just counters. I can see that a bunch of people upvoted, but these days it's very easy for most of those votes to come from bots or spam farms.
The important difference that I see with Vouch is not just that I'm incrementing a counter when I vouch for you, but that I am publicly telling the world "you can trust this person". And if you turn out to be untrustworthy, that will cost me something in a much more meaningful way than if some Github project that I starred turns out to be untrustworthy. If my reputation stands to suffer from being careless in what I vouch for, then I have a stronger incentive to verify your trustworthiness before I vouch for you, AND I have an ongoing incentive to discourage you from abusing the trust you've been given.
The claimed connections here fall apart for me pretty quickly.
CPU instructions, caches, memory access, etc. are debated, tested, hardened, and documented to a degree that's orders of magnitude greater than the LLM-generated code we're deploying these days. Those fundamental computing abstractions aren't nearly as leaky or nearly as in need of refactoring tomorrow.
Digital Ocean is run into the ground? I've been with them for a long time and recently just launched new stuff. Still a pretty nice experience and a pretty decent price.
I could also see them being compared with companies still using venture capital to give stuff away for free. In that case, I'm OK with that tradeoff. I'm not really excited about changing my infrastructure every few years to keep getting a free lunch.
The Digital Ocean app platform I recently migrated to is a lot newer than the "rent a VPS" model that they've had forever. Yes, it's not free like the Vercel and Cloudflare Workers I've also used recently. But it also doesn't force my app into a weird shape or to use their preferred language.
On a continuum where AWS sits at one boring+expensive end of the spectrum, and all the subsidized-pricing "we might not be here tomorrow" PaaSes sit at the other, I like the in-between spot where DO sits.
It already is. Besides dedicated options (which are just as expensive) - those shared cores are so old the performance compared to current line AWS models is so far out that it isn't competitive.
> I could also see them being compared with companies still using venture capital to give stuff away for free. In that case, I'm OK with that tradeoff.
That's not the point. They are more expensive compared to hyperscalers.
The idea is just to avoid being the softest target. The scammers attempting this fraud don't want to do all the work you describe. They'll just move on to the next vacant property.
Too harsh. Trump was president once before, and didn't impose 150% tariffs on anybody. You don't have to be a fucking moron to assume he'll behave similarly in his second presidency. Trump says a LOT of things that he doesn't end up doing.
Tariffs were a huge point of debate in his first administration. The government had to pay $30 billion to farmers to offset the impact of tariffs.
> China implemented retaliatory tariffs equivalent to the $34 billion tariff imposed on it by the U.S. In July 2018, the Trump administration announced it would use a Great Depression-era program, the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), to pay farmers up to $12 billion, increasing the transfers to farmers to $ 28 billion in May 2019. The USDA estimated that aid payments constituted more than one-third of total farm income in 2019 and 2020.
> For U.S. fans, there’s still a way to avoid Apple’s fee. When signing up in the iOS app, they can choose web checkout instead of Apple’s in-app purchase system. Apple’s rules require that any paid content shown in the iOS app is also available to purchase through Apple’s in-app system.
reply