Tlaloc_Temporal

Not every private company can just do anything. ITAR still applies to SpaceX, the military industrial complex still wants political control over it's suppliers, telecom corps still need to adhere to network standards, and COPPA was applied to YouTube (and they dealt with that terribly).

As much as capitalism wants to push everything as far as the system will bear, we can change that. We can say that social platforms need special care, or government officials need to be held to a higher standard. The issue at this point is political will, wich is growing in many directions at the moment.

The problem with specifically controlling speech is that we don't have any system unbiased enough to be responsible for such a broad aspect of society. Some specific cases with some general rules might be useful though, but again I don't trust our current systems to make good rules. This is all speculation on how to prevent public manipulation, and it probably won't work well when used to root it out once established.

That's a bold statement. The difference between haz3 & haz4 is quite a bit bigger that the difference between haz4 & haz5. The icons are basically the same rhough.

Is medical malpractice censorship? Legal malpractice? Financial malpractice? Engineering malpractice? Academic malpractice?

I don't want to use government sanctions explicitly because government decisions tend toward political or popular outcomes, not reasonable outcomes. When a doctor SAs their patients, we don't saction them; we revoke their medical license. Fiduciary negligence calls for a lawsuit, not direct government action (although lawsuits have issues as well).

I'm not advocating for community action either (I would hope individuals would check for integrity, but that obviously doesn't happen enough ATM), shunning or excuding people from certain communities is something I want to avoid. This is definitely not excommunication (even if we broaden the term beyond it's explicitly catholic meaning), I very much do not want to banish or otherwise impact affected persons' quality of life. It's simply about practising a privileged profession.

You should be able to say whatever you want without government censorship, but we shouldn't be giving all ideas privileged platforms. Libel is a very difficult thing to prosecute for, but I think we need to challenge more publically broadcast statements. To broadcast as "News" or something authoritative would be a privilege, like practing medicine or law.

Even in this hypothetical situation, the definition of reasonable accuracy would have to be determined methodologically, as political entities and the public cannot be trusted to decide in good faith. That's the crux of trying to implement public deplatforming; objective value judgments. We can get useably close with peer-reviewed papers, but it's still vulnerable to political and monetary influence.

To summarize: I do not want to silence anyone, just restrict access to the official-looking megaphone and clipboard. Even then, how that access is restricted is a difficult problem considering the conflicting interests around it.

Excommunication? What? This is requiring journalistic integrity to work in journalism, just like how medical malpractice can make you lose your medical license or legal malpractice can get you disbarred. There is precidence for this system, and I chose it specifically to reduce punishments and make sure those affected can still make a living.

I even point out one of the big issues of truth being difficult to define, and how this system might just push the problem down the road, and wonder if the actual problem (politics becomming unbound by reality for political gain, or a loss of political integrity) can even be regulated at all.

Hmm? A creative limitation? How have I done that?

I'm advocating for maintaining freedom from government censorship by using an industry ban instead. Specifically in the realms of news and knowledge, not entertainment. I don't think that impinges on any (currently held) right, democratic or not.

You could make this more flexible by routing all the wires going to the assembler into a power pole, so replacing the assembler with a different crafter is easy.

Adding more throuput to lower quality teirs might be as easy as adding more crafters. Alternatively, each crafter might be able to become it's own module, with just one wire connection to other modules and the initial combinators, and the quality be set arbitrarily on each module. If you need more throuput, you can just add another module.

The next step to that is setting the quality of the recipe based on need, with every module always working. Then adding more modules directly increase throuput with no extra thought required.

Pulling the stocked amount out into the constant combinator would be good for readability. Having a readout of stocked amounts might be fun too.

That happens regularly whenever the bones start to solidify. It's analogous to the "strech" function on other platforms, but functions significantly differently.

70% of the time, bloom is garbage, 25% of the time it's garbage and is covering up other graphical issues. 5% of the time, it gives some nice depth to light and emphasizes brightness differences, even without HDR.

Already in effect. Lost of basic services require a mailing address, which means either rent or property taxes. Medical care often requires a job to grant insurance, and any chronic or ongoing illness is the definition of a subscription.

Instead of modifying freedom of speech, make large-scale lies jusification to banish someone from the industry, like sex-offenders and schools.

Still a bit vague and as always figuring out what's true is hard and ajudicating truth is even harder, but any errors won't be nearly as bad, and it would still be effective.

The core issue here is still agreeing on truth though. Can you define a method of ajudicating truth that can't be misused by an overwhelming amount of bad-faith actors? Can you bind an organization to a method even if every member wants something else?

I think you missed the reasoning behind the "dead" part.

If the hammer doesn't bounce when it hits, it's not as lively, and lands like a dead body.

Well it does have a claw, but it specifically has the nail holder.