[ExI] bee having fun

Sat Apr 30 00:29:34 UTC 2022

…> On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat
Subject: Re: [ExI] bee having fun

>…There is an interesting extension being made that speech in our world today isn’t done primarily by the voice but the words we post on the internet.  We paid for that, so we have a right to it.  spike

>…I don't get this.  Whadda mean, we paid for it?  The internet? 

Ja.  The internet grew out of the US Department of Defense as a project to facilitate electronic communications should the commies nuke the place.  The ARPANET, Advanced Research Projects Agency NETwork it was.

>From what I can tell, the federal government does not have the authority to keep any particular individual from using that system.  Modern speech requires use of the internet.  So… using the internet is modern right to free speech.   

>…We paid for fighter jets too, but don't have the right to fly them. bill w

Billw, you paid for the jets, you have the right to be protected by them.  You also had the right to join the service and compete with skerjillions of others for the assignment to fly those planes.  Did you try for that duty?  Neither did I.  They still cover our asses.  Life is good.

spike

w

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 4:42 PM spike jones via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org <mailto:extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> > wrote:

…> On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat
Subject: Re: [ExI] bee having fun

>>…Billw, we have a constitutional right to free speech.  So we don’t need to move.  They do.    spike

>…AGreed,   - do you or anyone think that an abridgement of free speech will happen here?

Depends on how you look at it.  The right to free speech means the federal government cannot prosecute citizens for their speech.  There is an interesting extension being made that speech in our world today isn’t done primarily by the voice but the words we post on the internet.  We paid for that, so we have a right to it.

>…  Does the government have a right to examine the algorithms?   Should they?    bill w

If it doesn’t say so in the constitution, the government does not have the right.  So no to both questions.

The more interesting part to me is that Musk is buying Twitter at enormous cost saying nothing about modifying or changing the filtering algorithms.  He is only saying he will make them public domain.  It has become the biggest debate topic in some time, which is remarkable in itself.

Is there a legitimate reason, or even a logical illegitimate reason for stopping a guy from buying social media in order to make its filtering algorithm public?  

Plenty of the public seem to think it is a bad thing.  Is it a bad thing for a social medium to tell them something?  How can it be argued that it is a bad thing for a company deciding to now offer you something which it didn’t give you before?  The company is not forcing you to look at the filtering algorithms, ja?  So… making those algorithms public cannot possibly harm anyone, ja?  But it can certainly satisfy some long-standing curiosity so some can benefit.  So… why is there any debate?

spike

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org <mailto:extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> 
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20220429/2df040b5/attachment.htm>