> "It's really difficult and frustrating to type anything outside the Overton window, and really easy and seamless to type anything inside the Overton window" is definitely a form of soft censorship worth worrying about IMO.

And as a rule of thumb, if someone says "free speech" rather than "the first amendment", 99% of the time they are talking about the concept and culture of free speech, not the legal implications.

What you're really saying, perhaps without realizing it, is "I have zero empathy or theory of mind for people who have different views than me"

The whole reason these arguments exist is because power changes hands. If you like a rule only because the person currently wielding power aligns with you, you don't actually like the rule. You just like power.

This would probably be a bad customer experience for many people, even if Apple could prove these are simply the most common n-gram completions.

And if they altered their training data to avoid completions that are politically unpalatable, IMO that's actually much much worse than a grey list.

I'm a big free speech guy but this one is genuinely a bit complex.

When you see this your worldview will instantly become much clearer.

Not that it's somehow "not people" (of course it is).

Can you really call it "right" if the market goes up 40% before eventually going down 15%?

But I trust the market to calibrate value about 10,000x more than I trust any person or group of people to do so. The thought of that is frankly terrifying.

You live in a dream world.

No treatment of him by Democrats will be seen as remotely fair (and be honest, it won't be remotely fair), and only makes us progressively into more of a shithole country.

Not to mention, half of the lawfare that's being proposed is against Elon, who is abrasive but legally a far cry from Trump. It's just lawfare.

Edit: and it's too bad to see I was right about you!

Will you have the consistency to say it's good on both sides? Will you support deporting Ilhan Omar, for example? I highly doubt it. You're just another partisan, and we all live in Brazil now where an election means locking up your opponents.

https://x.com/search?q=Subpeonas&src=typed_query

This is the ideal, yes. But I'd bet about 99% do the opposite and double their risk by betting on their preferred outcome.

Also, betting on something you have control over introduces perverse incentives. It's easier to sabotage an effort than make it succeed.

I actually had a colleague who was a whale. Spent about $30k/yr on mobile games. He was staff level and made like $350k, single guy, so while it was hard for me to understand, it's also hard to say he was being duped or something. He just really liked the games, liked cosmetics, and liked to "support the devs".

These whales will be pissed if you ban them. Why should they be banned from their hobby because someone else can't be personally responsible?

I myself have no strong opinion on the issue, and think protectionism can often be quite bad, but it's weird how things have flipped. Presumably because of reactions to one man's views.

Now apply to this thread.

I mostly agree it's not as simple as good guys and bad guys, but if anyone's a bad guy it's the most judgmental townspeople and the priest who lets Hester take the full brunt of judgment while he pretends he's squeaky clean.