« first day (3408 days earlier)      last day (788 days later) » 

3:00 PM
i think one should not create a space where people socialize and whose main sold feature is to express thoughts and moments and interact with others and then apply censorship rules that overreach an assumed inherent social contract.
ofcourse the latter can be biased, vague and changing depending on where one lives. just stating my pov.
 
Censorship is crucial, e.g. if one person's thoughts and moments offend other person.
 
@CptEric Hmmm... but one of the inherent things about social contracts is that social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order.
So your thing only works as long as nobody misbehaves. As soon as people start getting confronted with abuse, they're likely willing to give up something to keep using the platform but not be confronted with the abuse.
So the questions that are there then, are what are you willing to give up vs. what do you really need to see protected/be protected from
 
that's where a well stated social contract interferes and puts those offending or offended people in place.
take the bill of human rights as a base. based on it without needs of interpretation you have the basis for a healthy and respectful social interaction.
 
2
Q: When logged out, on Questions tab, after changing page size to 30 or 50 and clicking on a page number, page size resets to default 15

user1306322The URL seems to only include either the page size or the page number, but never both. This is true for both logged in and logged out states. https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions?tab=newest&page=2 https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions?tab=newest&pagesize=50 While logged in, the desired ...

is it considered an exact duplicate if the parameter of the problem is the same but not the object?
I'm talking about the questions tab but the other post is talking about hot network questions page
 
@CptEric Except that there's no universal human right's bill that every person agrees with. So we're now veering into a territory where humans are going to make decisions about which human right's bill, and how to interpret that (things like, does artistic freedom override each person's right to be accepted as they are).
 
3:08 PM
it doesn't seem like "exact duplicate" in a straightforward meaning of the phrase to me
 
there's one though that the majority of the world agrees and there's a fancy pdf that keeps updated by the UN when there's a change published
 
I could agree that it would be duplicate enough if the pages were on the same tab list but this is a pretty different page
 
There is also a very important distinction between "offending" and "taking offence" - one that is often interpreted with bias.
 
@user1306322 not exact, but fixing one should give trivial fix to the other.
 
@CptEric can I read that pdf?
 
3:09 PM
@CptEric Okay, but that doesn't handle the second part yet... the one that judges and courts around the world are struggling with too
 
@ShadowThePrincessWizard except maybe not because they are different enough pages
 
The issue is that the system counts on the page size to be stored in a cookie, not just passed on URL, so when there's no cookie, it reverts to the default.
 
hmm
idk if devs would agree with that
 
If they'll change it so page size always go on URL, they should apply this change on all places.
 
JAD
3:10 PM
@Tinkeringbell The UN would be a decent place to start. But freedom of speech isn't in there
those are much more basic
 
anything that is beyond the reaches of the rights we all agree to live by when we become citiziens of our countries, voluntarily or not, should in my opinion not be treated.
 
If they don't, and the other one is fixed while "yours" isn't, feel free to ping me and I'll reopen. @user1306322
 
@JAD I used artistic freedom because CptEric used that a few messages earlier...
@CptEric That's another thing the book touches... 'your opinion' on moderation as a platform user/community member...
 
@ShadowThePrincessWizard this is why I'm largely in favor of bug-tracking these as separate issues, but alas the dupe votes have decided otherwise
idk if I care enough to keep track of this issue myself, there are a number of other "insignificant" bugs that never got fixed and I don't remember them either but they're all in my post history
 
Yup
All in all... meh. :)
 
3:14 PM
yea yea
 
time for some evening tea and a slice of cake
 
!!/tea user13
 
@ShadowThePrincessWizard No such command 'take'.
 
@JAD Also... article 19?
 
3:14 PM
@ShadowThePrincessWizard brews a cup of jasmine tea for @user13
 
take = tea and cake
 
just take me lol
 
hold me, Smokes
 
takes @user13
 
3:15 PM
:)
 
And the human rights declaration isn't really so much a description of a social contract... it's a list of rights, but it doesn't state the balance between rights and what you give up so that others can be protected... which is social contract theory.
 
what you give up, is your capacity to stripe someone from those rights
 
He is the real @user13! :P
 
I have no idea about this reference or whatever
 
3:16 PM
verbally and effectivily, harm to those is a direct threat to them
 
Ugh. Is this from the book we talked about tink? 😄 I really need to find time to read it
 
@JourneymanGeek Some of it yeah, but somehow we got to human rights... I didn't get to that part of the book yet either ;P
 
in other words, Article 30 is everything we need
 
@CptEric Do I? Do I give up that right only? I think in some cases, people give up a bit of e.g. Article 9, when there's massive riots and police are just trying to clean up...
 
@JourneymanGeek you should. I'm in chapter 3, it's a well done and well argued writeup
although I don't agree with every point
 
3:18 PM
we don't give the right up, the government is breaking that right.
that doesn't make it correct to do so.
 
@Magisch yeah. Busy week
 
that fact that there's massive riots somewhere is not a valid cause for arbitrary detention.
 
what's the book being discussed?
 
giving up that right gives space to the government deciding what massive and riot mean
 
@user1306322 Scroll up :)
 
3:21 PM
I did but I couldn't find it
if there's an amazon onebox somewhere it might not be loading for me coz geoblocking probably
 
about moderation on the internet, the story behind it, where it's going, how communities behave, etc
 
@CptEric You don't give up the entire right, perhaps... but you give up some freedom associated with that right (to never be accidentally swept up by police, to never be mistakenly arrested) so the police can do their work, and don't have to resort to arbitrarily detaining everyone all the time...
 
i don't give it up, nor anybody should.
 
The human rights bill is interesting, but also so broad... it doesn't deal with particular freedoms or smaller rights...
Or priorities of those.
The real world does.
There's a court case in the Netherlands that's gone on for years, just to find out if a politician can really incite a crowd to chant they want 'less Moroccans' ...
 
which particular freedoms or smaller rights?
 
3:24 PM
@CptEric Well, for one... the right to post whatever you want where ever you want vs. the right of companies to decide what they want to host...
Cat gifs don't go on pornhub, porn doesn't go on Imgur... that kinda stuff.
 
@Tinkeringbell I would think in every civilized country people would expect not to be swept up by police
or at least, compensated for losses incurred because of
 
@Magisch Oh sure, it will be unexpected...
Doesn't mean it never happens.
Perhaps we're talking too abstract there, let's get back to the book and how it's about stuff on the internet instead :)
 
I'm personally leaning more towards the zero false positive then zero false negative approach to policing
it's better that a million guilty people go free then that one is unfairly detained and imprisoned
 
back to the internet and speaking about content: that's a not a right i recognize them to have.
not that it matters that i do or not
 
I think social media companies should be regulated as public utility providers
 
3:27 PM
@Magisch but everyone on the internet is innocent
 
@Magisch and how are those regulated?
 
And abuse of personal data for profit (e.g advertising, behavioral analysis) should be generally illegal. But I'm rather out there on that
 
@Magisch I'd rather be the one that's arrested for something I didn't do if I can rely on the court system, than having the one million always walk free...
@CptEric Yeah, well... that basically ends the conversation then :|
 
for me as long as the content does not directly conflict with those rights, they don't have a say on it
 
It's also going to make participating on any internet site miserable for you...
 
3:28 PM
@user1306322 with various forms of non discrimination mandates. Can't discriminate based on categories, opinions, all that.
If they're serious about wanting to be a centralized platform, fair enough. Be a monopoly then but don't complain when we regulate you like one