Dont see how it would fix this. The donor class absolutely wants this fixed, how would campaign finance reform help get this passed when donors already want it passed?
This is impossible for the foreseeable future given that we have a conservative super majority in the Supreme Court who see corporations as people but also special people who don't have the full responsibility that regular people have as far as the law goes. This allows PACs to spend unlimited money on elections as long as they don't wink wink nudge nudge cooperate with political candidates/campaigns.
This doesn't fix the section 174 problem at all. It also doesn't fix how Congress would operate. Our politics have become ridiculously polarized and Congress won't even work behind doors together. Many people go to Congress to become famous, not to get stuff done. We have lost the element of compromise, as everyone just panders to their base.
You have yet to make an argument how campaign finance reform would change any of the above.
It's funny to me that some olaf 1000 years ago just called them what they were; the steering side and the docking side, and now we have to use the same words which don't make any sense to us. I vote we just call them the steering-side and the docking-side again.
My understanding is that port’s usage is somewhat recent. In the English sailing world the opposite of starboard was larboard. The royal navy made the change within the last few hundred years.
The steering side is now the back. And docking .. in the Mediterranean the docking side is commonly the back too. In Scandinavia it's commonly the front.
It's probably for the best that they've been detached from their original meanings.
was making sense until the bs "both sides" conclusion: "We have two donor-fattened parties that across decades of incompetence have each run out of convincing pitches for how to improve the lives of ordinary people."
I find the ideas of fixing healthcare, reinvesting in our economy and infrastructure, and shoring up our social programs highly convincing. And I'm pretty sure the polls show those ideas resonate across the political spectrum. And I only hear those ideas coming from one party.
Over less than 3 months, a friend of mine's monthly premium went up an order of magnitude - with reduced benefits - to the point where it made no sense to do anything but drop it completely and start seeing a doctor who takes cash.
There was nothing wrong with the concept other than the failure to include single payer. Democrats under Obama managed to come up with something less good which still was a net gain, but it was destroyed by Republicans. Just wanted to make that clear.
Apologies, I forgot that discussing partisan politics is discouraged here. This one just gets me riled because there's so much misinformation around it. Regardless of political party, it would benefit us all in the long run to find sustainable ways of improving access to health care.
What exactly was "gutted" other than the Fine if you did not carry insurance? Which was largely regressive and blatantly unconstitutional but since they labeled the fine a "tax" it just scraped since the court system has not ruled a federal program unconstitutional since FDR threaten to Stack the court.
Well, the other party had four years in power (and previously many years as the opposition) to propose a viable alternative plan; however, that proposal is nowhere to be found.
There were some small things like price transparency and attempts at regulating drug pricing, but nothing on the scale of a large-enough transformation that is necessary.
I suppose these historians would also object to me watching star trek tng on streaming in HD since it was clearly meant to be only ever be seen transmitted over radio waves to a cathode ray tube.
Pretty sure Airbnb owns the trademark on "Airbnb" so you can't use it this way. You might be able to get away with comparing your service to Airbnb in the context of a "testimonial" or something, but almost certainly not in a tag line.
"it will use artificial intelligence to analyze groups of articles on a particular story topic and identify the ones most often cited as the original source."
and
"Facebook will also begin to down-rank news in its algorithm that doesn't have bylines, or present information about the company's editorial staff on the publishers' website."
Okay those are the new requirements for content mills and fake propaganda outlets. How long before they adapt?
Actually vetting reporters, reportage and news outlets is really hard for a team of smart humans editors to do. Even the premiere organizations like the NYT and Washington Post with their armies of editors has failed at this from time to time. Algorithms are not ready for this task yet.
> "it will use artificial intelligence to analyze groups of articles on a particular story topic and identify the ones most often cited as the original source."
Great idea, they should give it a snappy name, maybe something that rhymes with "stage tank." Of course this does nothing WRT organizations that tend not to cite earlier reportage when it originates outside of the company.
> How long before they adapt?
Why, that would require creating a staff of fake names, so in a lot of cases it'll probably be completed sometime around close of business today. Maybe the end of the week.
Deduping blogspam and re-reporting of AP/Reuters, and using that redundancy to uprank the original source, is something Facebook should have been doing a decade ago.
It should be more akin to https://techmeme.com (or hn for that matter) where they editorially try and choose the first or best source. If a better source becomes available they swap. Facebook could benefit from this dynamicness, where a story can bump and replace an existing post.
Fair point, but its likely very hard if not impossible to create AI algorithms for automatic/guided content curation/classification without deploying them in a real-world use-case.
For me this is the crux of the issue with The Platforms giving rise to "fake news".
We as a society have decided that rampant mis-information and propaganda is only worth solving if we can automate it. If we actually have to pay real people real money to fix it on an ongoing basis, that's just too expensive.
Sure there are problems having Humans doing this work too, but they are still way ahead of AI in this problem space.
How long do we wait for automated solutions while these problems impose real costs to society?
I have doubts that you can do it without heavy automation. Sure, eventually some human can decide whether something is "factual-ish" or not. But producing content is much easier and can be automated, so the attackers can flood the system.
If you want humans involved, you end up with a gate keeper, which essentially means "unless you're an accredited media organization, your content is considered fake", because you can't vet individual pieces.
I agree with you. It'd take a huge company with tons of resources at its disposal to do something like this if it's possible at all. But if anyone could hire and train the army necessary to do it, it'd be google or facebook. (Apple already does it. Apple News is edited by real apple-employed humans but its far smaller in scope).
I think real solutions are gonna require us to break out of our tech-focused approaches and find ways to get Google, Facebook, Twitter to really start to care about fixing this stuff. Unfortunately I think that means it'll have to start costing them.
> Google said last year that it adjusted its algorithms and the guidelines used by the people that rate its search results to elevate original reporting.
Have we seen these adaptations yet? It's been half a year since Google announced their intentions too.
The grocery store I worked at as a teenager had an OS/2 frontend to an AS/400 that was hooked into all of the cashier stations and inventory management. I doubt that they've replaced it.
