17 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. In recent weeks, a wave of armed assaults has spread across Djugu territory in Ituri Province in the east of this nation, emptying whole villages. While the overall death toll is uncertain, there is reason to believe it may reach into the hundreds; witnesses and activists said that 34 villages had been attacked. Since December, an estimated 150,000 people have fled their homes, according to humanitarian workers in the region.
  2. Jan 2019
    1. We must have an agency of the federal government to pMtett it.

      Is a federal government, and a federal government alone, enough to do such a thing? I mean, look at what happened to the Library of Alexandria. I still get pissed off thinking about that. And is it even a good idea in the first place to let them have that responsibility? I can't help but think of all of the instances in which governments have been directly responsible for mass destructions of literature. There's an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to historical book burning events, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_book-burning_incidents, and a large majority of these noteworthy burnings were done at the will of the government. What would happen if we were to give them too much agency in this matter? Is it a good idea for governments to have the final say in the well-being of our literature? How can we trust them to decide what is and isn't worth protecting?

  3. Sep 2018
    1. "The 'freely choosing women'... As if you've raised a freely choosing black person [who decides to 'freely choose'] to clean toilets. That's the equivalent. You call that freedom. It's called freedom when women choose to do it and it's sex because people believe that sex is free. However, pornography is selling yourself for sex. The idea of money is supposed to make it free. Usually, when people have sex with another person and choose to do it, they're not being paid, it's free because you're not being paid. In other words, this is an arm of prostitution." [NOT VERBATIM] [3:53-4:31]

  4. Aug 2018
    1. Mastodon deliberately does not support arbitrary search. If someone wants their message to be discovered, they can use a hashtag, which can be browsed. What does arbitrary search accomplish? People and brands search for their own name to self-insert into conversations they were not invited to. What you can do, however, is search messages you posted, received or favourited. That way you can find that one message on the tip of your tongue.
    2. So that’s already a huge advantage over other platforms due the basic design. And in my opinion it’s got advantages over the other extreme, too, a pure peer-to-peer design, where everyone would have to fend for themselves, without the pooled resources.

      Definitely something the IndieWeb may have to solve for.

    1. In the New Testament, familial metaphors are frequently used to describe Christians and what came to be construed as the universal Church. Christians are “brothers” and “sisters” to one another. Weirdly, collectively they are also the body and the bride of Christ. Wives are commanded to submit to their husbands “as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior” (Ephesians 5:22-23). This teaching of male headship is, of course, a source of much abuse of women in conservative Christian circles, and evangelical pastors have been known to abuse, to sweep abuse under the rug, and to counsel women that they must remain in abusive marriages since, after all, Jesus himself forbade divorce, and God can use suffering for good.

      And of course this also likely the source of American mores which have delivered us the power struggle that results in abuses which have boiled over into the MeToo scandals.

  5. Jul 2018
  6. May 2017
    1. We're vulnerable to state-sponsored attacks, he says, because we are too narrowly technological in our solutions.

      I refer to this sentence in my annotation above, as it seems at odds with Mike's earlier statement that this is a tools debate, not a legal one.

    2. People want to turn this into a legal debate, but it's not. It's a tools debate, and the main product of a builder of social tools is not the tool itself but the culture that it creates. So what sort of society do you want to create?

      Not trying to nitpick, but I'm a bit confused between this statement and the one below where Mike says "We're vulnerable to state-sponsored attacks, he says, because we are too narrowly technological in our solutions."

      So far in this debate I've been thinking that we are too quick to jump to technical solutions (as Mike's latter point would suggest) when I don't think the issues online are categorically different than they are offline. While certainly tools can help shape social relations and culture, we also have social/cultural mechanisms to deal with situations generated via online tools.

      Abuse is not limited to online activity and remedies for abuse are not purely technological. If a person abuses another offline, we have (imperfect) mechanisms to address that abuse. Are we considering those offline mechanisms in our confrontation with online abuse?

    1. Ultimately, if Web Annotation does take off as a feature of the Web, these cases will become all too common. And I don't think that scholarly and academic uses will be immune (though the accountability and reputation risk will reduce abuse). And if such abuse continues, it reduces the value and incentive for Web Annotation to succeed at all.

      good 1 paragraph articulation of the problem of abuse wrt annotations.

  7. Mar 2016
    1. One criticism we have heard loud and clear is that the “without consent” clause in our principles is problematic. When forming these principles, we meant that individuals would be able to annotate the documents of corporate and governmental entities, or other powerful groups, without needing their approval — such as when the scientists of Climate Feedback annotate climate change coverage. But we acknowledge that our choice of language was poor. We will change it soon.

      A specific action item identified: The phrase "without consent" will be changed soon.

  8. Oct 2015
    1. a more insidious and cancerous progression took hold through municipal fiscal discipline, property speculation and the sorting of land-use according to the rate of return for its ‘highest and best use’.

      greed seems to be an apparent theme throughout the development of urbanized areas and "economic growth"... are we really improving if our economy is only getting "better" because we're borrowing the money to make it do that

  9. Sep 2013
    1. And if it be objected that one who uses such power of speech unjustly might do great harm, that is a charge which may be made in common against all good things except virtue, and above all against the things that are most useful, as strength, health, wealth, generalship.
    1. For they taught their art for a good purpose, to be used against enemies and evil-doers, in self-defence not in aggression, and others have perverted their instructions, and turned to a bad use their own strength and skill. But not on this account are the teachers bad, neither is the art in fault, or bad in itself; I should rather say that those who make a bad use of the art are to blame. And the same argument holds good of rhetoric; for the rhetorician can speak against all men and upon any subject,—in short, he can persuade the multitude better than any other man of anything which he pleases, but he should not therefore seek to defraud the physician or any other artist of his reputation merely because he has the power; he ought to use rhetoric fairly, as he would also use his athletic powers.

      Ethics of rhetoric.