Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Mayhem]

Or the long suite of results other than what you're looking for in Google that also come up, particularly marketing links. These algos are pushing what they think you'll engage with; it isn't an expression of "what the platform wants you to see" beyond the platform wanting to keep you watching content you engage with, because the longer you watch, the more money they make. It's still just basically search results, just including a history of past content you and other similar users have also engaged with as the search parameter.

Yes, to no one's surprise google is doing this too. This is not refuting my point nor bolstering yours.

[Rasulis]

Trump thinking he could bully China is the dumbest fucking thing he ever did and he has done a lot of dumb shit.

In China, Xi and the CCP do not have to worry about elections. Also, for the most part, Chinese citizens appear to be willing to take their lumps in the name of nationalism.

In US, the GOP has to win the rapidly incoming mid-term election and 2028. Not to mention, US citizens have a much lower tolerance for economic hardships when compared to their Chinese counterparts.

[Endus]

Yes, to no one's surprise google is doing this too. This is not refuting my point nor bolstering yours.

So, again, why is attacking Section 230 reasonable, again?

The dots don't connect. Section 230 wouldn't apply to protect Google, so clearly it's just not a good way to attack this issue. I'm not taking a pro-algorithm stance, here, I'm pointing out that Section 230 (or its equivalent in other jurisdictions) is a necessary function for a useful Internet with hosting platforms with user-created content.

Rather than attacking user-based content as a broad swath, find a way to target the actual problems.

[Draco-Onis]

In China, Xi and the CCP do not have to worry about elections. Also, for the most part, Chinese citizens appear to be willing to take their lumps in the name of nationalism.

In US, the GOP has to win the rapidly incoming mid-term election and 2028. Not to mention, US citizens have a much lower tolerance for economic hardships when compared to their Chinese counterparts.

I would say the Chinese get more than just nationalism, the CCP has made the country what it is today and they have given them plenty of carrots along with the sticks. Trump and the GOP are doing the all sticks approach for the first time in history since most regimes are smart enough to throw carrots to appease the masses as they steal power.

[Tech614]

In China, Xi and the CCP do not have to worry about elections. Also, for the most part, Chinese citizens appear to be willing to take their lumps in the name of nationalism.

In US, the GOP has to win the rapidly incoming mid-term election and 2028. Not to mention, US citizens have a much lower tolerance for economic hardships when compared to their Chinese counterparts.

China does have elections. The major difference is the party decides the president, but the people are still voting for who has power in the party. It's a 1 party system but that's really not that much different than the conservatives and slightly less conservative 2 party system we got going.

The CCP has great approval ratings across the board because over the last 30 years they have drastically improved the lives of the citizens. This is the reason for the nationalism, if their quality of life was shit they would not be happy.

Trump is trying to be authoritarian without actually improving the lives of anyone. CCP is lapping this dude.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I thought we were past the can't part when talking about lack of media literacy, guess not.

Wait, you really think that when you're presented with new viewpoints and are able to discern fact from fake, it doesn't change your view on gender, race, and sex? So, do you think it's genetic?

I think it doesn't necessarily change your viewpoints on those things.

I left out the rest because it's basically all the same, you disagree that media literacy can change viewpoints which is weird because I am pretty sure that's the fucking point of media literacy.

I disagree that it will change viewpoints. Sure, it can. But you're telling me there are no media literate racists?

Of course, I can partially absolve them, the same way I can absolve someone from bungling <insert skill> no one ever taught them. Does that mean people can't teach themselves? No. Is it rare that people successfully teach themselves to a proficient level? Yes.

I can't absolve people for voting for a rapist and a felon. I won't.

But you said yourself..."I whole heartetly agree, fuck them, if they haven't turned on Trump by now.". Why now? What makes now different? What's changed?

[NED funded]

You can doubt the strength of the evidence all you like, but you are actually very foolish if you think that means you can say "that means his membership in MS-13 is a lie." If you're going to argue absence of compelling evidence, you should know that it doesn't imply that there's evidence of lying.

It only resembles asylum in the sense that 1 country is not eligible for deportation. Which is to say, it's nothing like asylum. He was a deportable alien with no legal right to remain in the country. An illegal alien.

I recognize the truth as the truth, and it exists as the truth regardless i fit benefits Trump, Garcia, or the worst murdering gang member you ever saw. This is an elementary point in criminal defense: even the guilty are afforded protections, even if those protections help the guilty get off.

Good news: Neither your former post nor my response to your post had anything to do with the most recent Trump arguments. You said "If the Trump administration really believed he was an MS13 member do you know where that evidence could have been presented? In 2019, when he was having hearings for his withhold of removal," when, in fact, the opposite is true: they needed to present no such thing for the simple matter of denying him bond (from an even earlier trial, referenced in that trial as "the evidence shows that he is a verified member of MS-13.") The trial, mind you six years ago and another trial even earlier, wasn't for criminal offenses done for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with MS-13 (to borrow a phrase). Therefore, the government was not under the burden to present evidence to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt.

Now, if you really think what Trump said in the past week affects what the government should or shouldn't have done six years ago, then I will raise and eyebrow and expect something astonishing. If, instead, you're dropping your argument about the 2019 case (I would say this is wise) then state so.

You literally missed the point. If the government believed he was an MS-13 leader in charge of human trafficking operations it could have easily appealed his withhold of removal and got him deported. Like the entire mess the government finds itself in right now its bc of that withhold of removal that it had an opportunity to appeal and there present the evidence that he was MS-13 and deny the withhold of removal. You dont need a criminal conviction to do this. Immigration judges dont need that for gang affiliations.

The whole MS-13 allegations are obviously a lame ass excuse to justify their illegal deportation and incarceration. They have failed to even make this case in front of multiple courts. And yes the most recent Trump argument is that he is MS-13 and he is citing that 2019 bond hearing as evidence. I dont know why people here keep making arguments that the Trump admin isnt even bothering to make.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump thinking he could bully China is the dumbest fucking thing he ever did and he has done a lot of dumb shit.

The tariff war thing would be tolerable if the government actually had a coherent strategy. Lets not even get to that strategy being competently implemented. I just want coherency. Do we want better trade deals? Do we want to bring back manufacturing? Which sectors?

Like these questions are important but the Trump admin doesnt have an answer and just jumps between talking points as it grants excemptions, removes them and puts them back on. Then he says its about jobs, about bringing back manufacturing, its the trade deals and then certain countries get 35% tariffs one day, then 10% then 125% for china but certain countries will get hit with retaliatory tariffs.

[Mayhem]

So, again, why is attacking Section 230 reasonable, again?

I can't follow your line of reasoning. You didn't refute my point; are you just ignoring that part?

The dots don't connect. Section 230 wouldn't apply to protect Google, so clearly it's just not a good way to attack this issue. I'm not taking a pro-algorithm stance, here, I'm pointing out that Section 230 (or its equivalent in other jurisdictions) is a necessary function for a useful Internet with hosting platforms with user-created content.

Rather than attacking user-based content as a broad swath, find a way to target the actual problems.

The argument wasn't to attack user-based content as a broad swath, but the way content is pushed onto users without them having reasonable influence or, in some cases, any at all, on what content they are being shown.

- - - Updated - - -

I think it doesn't necessarily change your viewpoints on those things.

It's virtually impossible not to be influenced somewhat by what you see/hear/read.

I disagree that it will change viewpoints. Sure, it can. But you're telling me there are no media literate racists?

Well there sure as fuck are, but they choose to be racist. I already said, fuck them.

I can't absolve people for voting for a rapist and a felon. I won't.

But you said yourself..."I whole heartetly agree, fuck them, if they haven't turned on Trump by now.". Why now? What makes now different? What's changed?

Because they see what he actually does and can't excuse it with "but what he meant was".

[Somewhatconcerned]

This is great news, and I am not sure Nvidia would have had the incentive to do so without the tariffs.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nvidi...u5u0WJFXdo4jh8

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Because they see what he actually does and can't excuse it with "but what he meant was".

How do they see that now when they didn't before? What changed for them?

[Edge-]

This is great news, and I am not sure Nvidia would have had the incentive to do so without the tariffs.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nvidi...u5u0WJFXdo4jh8

reminder that the chips act was already doing this without starting a global trade war making americans poorer and driving up inflation

[NED funded]

IDC about announcements. Remember the FoxConn manufacturing plant? Big hype on the announcement, zero results and a town that was pushed into bankruptcy

[tehdang]

You literally missed the point. If the government believed he was an MS-13 leader in charge of human trafficking operations it could have easily appealed his withhold of removal and got him deported.

I see that you're wishing to change to a related subject. Can I understand you to mean that you're dropping the claim that

If the Trump administration really believed he was an MS13 member do you know where that evidence could have been presented? In 2019, when he was having hearings for his withhold of removal

. You have two points you're missing that need clearing up. 1) The government never needed to present more evidence of MS-13 in court, as that evidence was sufficient to deny bond. 2) He was already deportable, in fact he had exhausted his chances to establish a legal right to remain in the country, so there was no barrier that needed further clearing to deport.

I am sad to say that if you cannot acknowledge error in your previous post, I really have nothing further to add on it, since I responded to correct an error. Small post, small correction. You were wrong to say that the 2019 case needed that, since the MS-13 evidence was only necessary to deny bond, not to remove the illegal alien.

Like the entire mess the government finds itself in right now its bc of that withhold of removal that it had an opportunity to appeal and there present the evidence that he was MS-13 and deny the withhold of removal. You dont need a criminal conviction to do this. Immigration judges dont need that for gang affiliations.

The mess the government finds itself in is that he was stuck on the plane to El Salvador, instead of a country different than El Salvador, which would have been a legal deportation.

That's if you agree with the former government lawyer that told the court that it was done by mistake.

Now, there's a further mess.

[Mayhem]

How do they see that now when they didn't before? What changed for them?

They gained information they didn't have before.

[NineSpine]

Or the long suite of results other than what you're looking for in Google that also come up, particularly marketing links. These algos are pushing what they think you'll engage with; it isn't an expression of "what the platform wants you to see" beyond the platform wanting to keep you watching content you engage with, because the longer you watch, the more money they make. It's still just basically search results, just including a history of past content you and other similar users have also engaged with as the search parameter.

You know Google results are personalized, right? Location data, IP, among other factors. Same is true for most search engines. Because if I search for "fast food near me", I probably don't want fast food chains based in Sri Lanka and the Phillipines and Lesotho coming up, unless I'm actually in those places.

You can't be serious. All these companies are keeping profiles of users, even without an account. They're tracking IPs and cookies and all kinds of stuff, unless you're taking significant measures to prevent such things. Unless you're actively purging your PC, those tracking cookies are profiling you for these, and many other, companies, not to mention whatever they may be doing internally with your IP and data entered.

It's really pointless to talk to you, because you don't listen to other people. This is like the third or fourth time I've had to explain that a personalized algorithm is, and I guarantee you will just ignore it again and go on another rambling tirade about functionality that has nothing to do with it:

Personalized algorithms generate results based on a profile of your behavior. Location is not a profile of your behavior. What you type into a search engine to get the results is not a profile of your behavior. "People who liked this also like..." is not a profile of your behavior. Do you understand it yet? Do I need to repeat it again? Probably, because if past is prologue you will ignore this and just keep talking about other shit.

So charge the people who posted that Tiktok with reckless endangerment and whatever else you can throw at them.

I'm not arguing against consequences for criminally harmful content. I'm arguing against destroying hosting platforms as a viable system in the name of that cause, because it causes far more harm than it actually protects against.

You did not answer the question so I'll ask it again: There are videos on TikTok that trick people into combining household chemicals in ways that can kill them. If TikTok set their site so that every user saw one of those videos when they logged in, would Section 230 protect them?

[tehdang]

This is great news, and I am not sure Nvidia would have had the incentive to do so without the tariffs.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nvidi...u5u0WJFXdo4jh8

Most of their manufacturing inputs are going to be hit by tariffs anyways.

All the tariffs and threatened tariffs and temporary delays and negotiated exemptions created such an uncertain business environment that nVidia and the country are worse off, even if they wouldn't have built a center in America otherwise.

[Flarelaine]

Google gives you results based on the activity of your IP, so you need to use a search engine like DuckDuckGo. You need to either avoid all social media or use plugins that manipulate the content to mitigate recommendations. This includes YouTube, which you can't even use logged out because the algorithm also uses your IP. You really can only avoid it by doing all of your browsing in incognito windows through a VPN.

Speaking from experience: I use Youtube every day logged out and it gives me no recommendations until I search for a video. And then it goes from there. No incognito, no VPN either. I just loaded it to double-check and it's a blank page.

I also have no problem using DuckDuckGo.

This ridiculous and laughable series of protections is not something the average person is going to understand, let alone perform. So why are we wasting time talking about it?

Exactly because the algorithm was created to be as overwhelming and all-powerful as you paint it. But it cannot click stuff for you. It can offer, it can recommend, it cannot choose (assuming you click autoplay off which I do about 3 seconds in). You can lie down and surrender or you can make an effort.

[NineSpine]

I see that you're wishing to change to a related subject. Can I understand you to mean that you're dropping the claim that . You have two points you're missing that need clearing up. 1) The government never needed to present more evidence of MS-13 in court, as that evidence was sufficient to deny bond. 2) He was already deportable, in fact he had exhausted his chances to establish a legal right to remain in the country, so there was no barrier that needed further clearing to deport.

I am sad to say that if you cannot acknowledge error in your previous post, I really have nothing further to add on it, since I responded to correct an error. Small post, small correction. You were wrong to say that the 2019 case needed that, since the MS-13 evidence was only necessary to deny bond, not to remove the illegal alien.

The mess the government finds itself in is that he was stuck on the plane to El Salvador, instead of a country different than El Salvador, which would have been a legal deportation.

That's if you agree with the former government lawyer that told the court that it was done by mistake.

Now, there's a further mess.

Provide evidence that he was deportable without a hearing.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

They gained information they didn't have before.

How though? What exactly changed? Did they suddenly become more media literate?

[NED funded]

I see that you're wishing to change to a related subject. Can I understand you to mean that you're dropping the claim that . You have two points you're missing that need clearing up. 1) The government never needed to present more evidence of MS-13 in court, as that evidence was sufficient to deny bond. 2) He was already deportable, in fact he had exhausted his chances to establish a legal right to remain in the country, so there was no barrier that needed further clearing to deport.

I am sad to say that if you cannot acknowledge error in your previous post, I really have nothing further to add on it, since I responded to correct an error. Small post, small correction. You were wrong to say that the 2019 case needed that, since the MS-13 evidence was only necessary to deny bond, not to remove the illegal alien.

The mess the government finds itself in is that he was stuck on the plane to El Salvador, instead of a country different than El Salvador, which would have been a legal deportation.

That's if you agree with the former government lawyer that told the court that it was done by mistake.

Now, there's a further mess.

There was a barrier to clear his deportation. The withhold of removal. Something the government could have appealed at the time and deport him right there and there to El Salvador.

Also for someone that chastizes the Biden Administration for abusing refugee rules, you seem very comfortable with the most obvious one. That withhold of removal prevented his deportation and that another country would need to accept him. The Trump admin cannot unilaterally deport him to another country unless that country accepted him. That is why there are still a ton of people with withhold of removal in the US that are considered deported but are now living their best lives in the US.

Like IDK where are you reading about this case. Or if you know what a withhold of removal is?