楼主: spid

外文论坛的一些讨论

[复制链接]

727

主题

2985

帖子

8306

积分

论坛元老

Rank: 8Rank: 8

积分
8306
 楼主| 发表于 2022-12-3 14:46:47 | 显示全部楼层
spid 发表于 2022-12-3 14:38
十多年来,全球主义者一直公开痴迷于中国政府模式——如果你愿意的话,这是一段恋情。 包括亨利·基辛格 ...

It won't be surprised, some day, the people will figure out :
what stand behind this China is a part of U.S..
The reason why China can control delta covid well but fail to control omicron is somebody in China want the failure.

The world run towards the evil.
While the truth is also coming.


宁鸣而死,不默而生
回复

使用道具 举报

727

主题

2985

帖子

8306

积分

论坛元老

Rank: 8Rank: 8

积分
8306
 楼主| 发表于 2022-12-3 15:02:06 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 spid 于 2022-12-3 15:05 编辑
spid 发表于 2022-11-29 14:07
China: The World's First Technate – Part 1
Authored by Iain Davis via Off-Guardian.org,

The things described in this essay have occurred in US.
Along with the birth of internet,  due to the technological reasons, things occur always in US first.
To date, the US politics, especially part of them, play a dominant role in what happening.
China, partially has US behind, wants to run faster than US to embrace the new techniques and new era where somehow  a trap hides.

宁鸣而死,不默而生
回复

使用道具 举报

203

主题

2493

帖子

6119

积分

论坛元老

Rank: 8Rank: 8

积分
6119
发表于 2022-12-3 20:23:31 | 显示全部楼层
spid 发表于 2022-12-3 14:46
It won't be surprised, some day, the people will figure out :
what stand behind this China is a pa ...

吱吱吱
这边成英文楼了?
回复

使用道具 举报

203

主题

2493

帖子

6119

积分

论坛元老

Rank: 8Rank: 8

积分
6119
发表于 2022-12-3 20:28:55 | 显示全部楼层
spid 发表于 2022-12-3 14:23
1. Thread: THE TWITTER FILES
2. What you’re about to read is the first installment in a series, ba ...

A la espera de que se revele el secreto del método de operación de las elecciones generales, los mejores del mundo
回复

使用道具 举报

727

主题

2985

帖子

8306

积分

论坛元老

Rank: 8Rank: 8

积分
8306
 楼主| 发表于 2022-12-13 16:52:32 | 显示全部楼层
Elon Musk says Trump didn’t violate Twitter’s rules. The truth is more complicated
Clare Duffy
By Clare Duffy, CNN
Updated 8:37 PM EST, Mon December 12, 2022

New York
CNN

A series of internal Twitter documents shared on the social media platform Monday offer a glimpse into internal debates among some of the company’s employees ahead of its decision to ban then-President Donald Trump following the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol.

The documents — shared by journalist Bari Weiss as the latest installment of the so-called Twitter Files — appear to show that there was at least some debate among various employees about whether Trump’s final tweets violated the social network’s policies prohibiting inciting violence. But they stop short of showing that Twitter ignored its own rules in implementing the ban.

Twitter’s new owner, Elon Musk, cheered and promoted the release of the internal company documents on Monday and attempted to paint the former Twitter leadership’s decision as politically motivated. In a tweet, he suggested that the former president “didn’t violate the rules” and that the decision was made at the behest of “activist employees.”

The comments come after Musk made the controversial decision last month to reverse the platform’s ban of Trump following a poll of his Twitter followers, after initially saying he would consult a panel of experts on the decision. Musk on Monday also disbanded its Trust and Safety Council, a group of outside experts who consulted with the company on sensitive issues.

A debate over Trump’s ban
Trump’s account was permanently suspended by Twitter two days after the attack on the Capitol conducted by some of his supporters, many inflamed by false claims that the 2020 election had been stolen. At the time, Twitter said the ban was due to “the risk of further incitement of violence.” The decision came after Twitter had long resisted calls to suspend or remove Trump’s account — and instead applied information labels to provide context around his tweets — on the basis that it was important for users to be able to hear directly from a world leader.
Weiss’ tweets suggest that in the wake of January 6, there were Twitter employees both in favor of and against the idea of banning Trump. A screenshot from an internal Twitter slack conversation, where employees’ names have been redacted, shows one employee raising concerns about “censorship” while another notes that “we impose far stricter rules on effectively everyone else on the platform.” It’s not clear from Weiss’ tweets whether the employees in this discussion were in any way involved in the decision making process that led to Trump’s ban.
The tweet thread also indicates that some members of Twitter’s safety team had raised questions about whether the Trump tweets that ultimately led to his ban actually violated the company’s policies.

“I also am not seeing clear or coded incitement” to violence, Twitter safety staffer Anika Navaroli said in a slack message about Trump’s January 8 tweet saying: “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

(Navaroli later testified to the House committee investigating January 6 that she and other staffers had been alarmed by content posted on Twitter by the Proud Boys and other extremist groups that echoed statements by Trump, and had worried about the risk of violence ahead of the attack.)

Another staffer, whose name was removed in the screenshot, said in Slack that a subsequent tweet that day from Trump saying he would not attend President Joe Biden’s inauguration was also “a clear no vio[lation].” But a different staffer questioned whether that tweet could be “proof that [Trump] doesn’t support a peaceful transition,” according to Weiss’ tweets.
Twitter’s then-head of legal, policy and trust, Vijaya Gadde — who, along with Twitter founder and then-CEO Jack Dorsey, was ultimately responsible for content decisions — asked later on January 8 whether Trump’s “American Patriots” tweet “is being used as a coded incitement to further violence,” following up with requests for “any context or insight” and any relevant past research, Weiss’ tweets show. Twitter’s “scaled enforcement” team also got involved with the evaluation, and questioned whether the Trump tweets could be considered glorification of violence, the screenshots show, which would violate the company’s policies.

‘Thoughtful and careful’
The process of involving multiple staffers and teams and relying on research for high-profile decisions does not appear out of line with how Twitter and other social platforms make content moderation decisions, especially in crisis situations.

“This is how the whole process went … this is not really out of the ordinary,” one former Twitter executive told CNN, noting that the various teams involved in content decisions would push each other to consider context and information they might not have thought of as they worked through how to handle difficult issues. “I think these conversations look like people were trying to be really thoughtful and careful,” the former executive said.

Twitter ultimately said at the time of Trump’s ban that his tweet about American patriots suggested that “he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election,” and that the tweet concerning the inauguration could be viewed as a further statement that the election was not legitimate or that the inauguration would be a “safe” target for violence because he would not be attending.

On January 6, Twitter had also warned Trump that additional violations of its rules could result in a permanent ban, something Weiss’ Monday tweet thread did not mention. The thread also does not mention that other, major social platforms, including Facebook, YouTube and Snapchat, also decided to suspend Trump from their platforms in the days following the Capitol attack, and have yet to restore his account.

Weiss’ tweets follow several other “Twitter Files” reports based on internal documents that appear to have been provided by Musk’s team, including internal Twitter emails about the company’s decision to temporarily suppress a 2020 New York Post story about Hunter Biden and his laptop, which largely corroborated what was already known about the incident.
宁鸣而死,不默而生
回复

使用道具 举报

727

主题

2985

帖子

8306

积分

论坛元老

Rank: 8Rank: 8

积分
8306
 楼主| 发表于 2022-12-13 16:58:06 | 显示全部楼层
Fifth ‘Twitter files’ release details furious debate to ban Trump — despite no policy violations
By Samuel Chamberlain and David Propper
December 12, 2022
The fifth installment in the bombshell “Twitter Files” revealed Monday that staffers and top executives alike inside the social media giant pushed for former President Donald Trump to be barred following last year’s Capitol riot — despite monitors initially finding no policy violations in the former president’s tweets.

Trump, now 76, was banned from Twitter on Jan. 8, 2021, two days after a mob of his supporters breached the Capitol building and interrupted the certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory.

According to journalist Bari Weiss, Trump tweeted twice on the morning of the 8th — once to praise those who supported him at the ballot box.

“The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future,” Trump tweeted, adding: “They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

In a second tweet, Trump announced he would not attend Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20.

In Weiss’ telling, the first tweet caused an uproar among Twitter’s employees, with one writing in an internal communication: “We have to do the right thing here and ban this account.”

“[E]xtraordinary circumstances demand extraordinary leadership,” another wrote, while a third added, “its [sic] pretty obvious he’s going to try to thread the needle of incitement while not violating the rules.”

However, according to Weiss, the people in charge of determining whether the former president’s posts merited a ban saw nothing wrong with either message.

“I think we’d have a hard time saying this is incitement,” wrote one official. “It’s pretty clear he’s saying the ‘American Patriots’ are the ones who voted for him and not the terrorists (we can call them that, right?) from [Jan. 6].”:
“Don’t see the incitement angle here,” a second monitor agreed, while policy official Annika Navroli concurred: “I also am not seeing clear or coded incitement in the DJT tweet.”

“I’ll respond in the elections channel and say that our team has assessed and found no [violations] for the DJT one.”

However, Vijaya Gadde — Twitter’s since-fired head of legal, policy and trust — pushed back on the initial finding, writing: “The biggest question is whether a tweet like the one this morning from Trump, which isn’t a rule violation on its face, is being used as coded incitement to further violence.”

In a subsequent message, Gadde suggested the term “American Patriots” could be considered part of that code.

Gadde’s talking point was repeated later in the day by a member of Twitter’s so-called “scaled enforcement” team, who suggested that Trump’s tweet violated Twitter’s policy against “glorification of violence.”

“If we consider ‘American Patriots’ to refer to the rioters, they have a point,” the person wrote.

Another person wrote, according to Weiss, that the “scaled enforcement” team came to view Trump “as the leader of a terrorist group responsible for violence/deaths comparable to Christchurch shooter or Hitler and on that basis and on the totality of his Tweets, he should be de-platformed. They will continue to push that argument with leadership and we will see where it falls.”

Shortly before Trump’s ban was handed down, Yoel Roth — the former head of “trust and safety” at Twitter who played a key role in suppressing The Post’s reporting on first son Hunter Biden — told a colleague of his own concerns over the ongoing debate

“Multiple Tweeps have quoted The Banality of Evil suggesting that people implementing our policies are like Nazis following orders,” Roth told a colleague, later adding: “People are angry and want to express themselves, but the way the conversation happens can close off meaningful engagement.”

The internal messages reveal the push to ban Trump was not universal among Twitter’s rank-and-file, with one staffer warning their colleagues on Jan. 7: “Maybe because I am from China, [but] I deeply understand how censorship can destroy the public conversation.”
In response, the worker was told: “I understand this fear, but I also think it’s important to understand that censorship _ by a government_ is very different than censorship _of the government_.”

A second respondent wrote that Trump “clearly attempted to overthrow our Democratic system of government and showed no signs of remorse … if this is not a clear reason to suspend him … i’m [sic] not sure what would be.”

As Weiss pointed out, Twitter’s treatment of Trump stood in stark contrast to those of obvious bad actors — including Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who remains on the platform despite repeatedly calling for the destruction of Israel. Other world leaders, including the president of Nigeria and the prime ministers of India and Ethiopia, also have not been banned despite posting clear incitements to violence as well as threats to arrest Twitter’s own employees.

Weiss also pointed out that the ban of Trump was criticized by other world leaders, with then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel calling it “problematic” and Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador comparing Twitter to a “court of censorship like the Inquisition to manage public opinion.”

“Ultimately, the concerns about Twitter’s efforts to censor news about Hunter Biden’s laptop, blacklist disfavored views, and ban a president aren’t about the past choices of executives in a social media company,” Weiss concluded her report. “They’re about the power of a handful of people at a private company to influence the public discourse and democracy.”

Trump was reinstated last month by new CEO Elon Musk, but he has yet to tweet from the resurrected account, instead continuing to share his thoughts on his Truth Social platform.
Weiss, a former editor and writer at the Wall Street Journal and New York Times who now runs a Substack site called the Free Press, is one of three independent journalists given access to Twitter’s internal messages.

On Saturday, writer Michael Shellenberger outlined how Twitter staffers pushed for policy changes to bar Trump after the riot, which was blamed for the deaths of five people.

Details of Twitter’s actions and policies under the pre-Musk regime have been made public on an occasional basis beginning Dec. 2, when journalist Matt Taibbi detailed how the company censored The Post’s bombshell report on Hunter Biden’s foreign business interests, as shown through documents kept on the first son’s abandoned laptop.

The second installment, released by Weiss on Dec. 8, detailed how the social media giant was secretly “blacklisting” conservative users and accounts. But the platform bent over backwards to justify keeping up posts from users who were pro-Biden, Taibbi revealed the following day.

The third installment of the files also indicated that Twitter was in contact with the FBI and other federal agencies about so-called “misinformation” propagated on the site.
宁鸣而死,不默而生
回复

使用道具 举报

727

主题

2985

帖子

8306

积分

论坛元老

Rank: 8Rank: 8

积分
8306
 楼主| 发表于 2022-12-13 16:59:08 | 显示全部楼层
Japan, Netherlands Agree To US Request To Curb Chinese Chip Exports
Tyler Durden's Photo
BY TYLER DURDEN
In a move that is sure to set Sino-Japanese relations several years back, on Monday morning Japan and the Netherlands agreed "in principle" to join the US in tightening controls over the export of advanced chipmaking machinery to China, Bloomberg reported cited according people familiar with the matter, in what is the latest "potentially debilitating blow to Beijing’s technology ambitions."

The news follows a report from Japan's Kyodo according to which, the US had "asked the Japanese government for cooperation in stymieing China's efforts to develop high-end semiconductors." The request, noting that the countries are allies sharing strategies against China, was made by U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo during her phone conversation with Japanese industry minister Yasutoshi Nishimura on Friday, according to the sources.
The request made to Nishimura was the first ministerial one from the United States on the issue. Washington's push to create a multilateral regulatory framework comes amid concerns that there will be loopholes in its export controls if Japan and the Netherlands continue to provide China with devices essential to manufacture advanced chips. It comes after the United States unveiled a sweeping set of export controls on certain high-end chips that could be used by Beijing to train artificial intelligence systems and power advanced applications in the military and surveillance fields.

Last week, Bloomberg News reported that Dutch officials were planning new export controls on China. The Japanese government agreed to similar restrictions in recent weeks since the two countries wanted to act in concert. Japan had to overcome opposition from domestic companies that would prefer not to lose sales into China, sources said. Besides Tokyo Electron, Nikon and Canon are minor players in the market.

In response to the back-door US pressure, Japan and the Netherlands are likely to announce in the coming weeks that they’ll adopt at least some of the sweeping measures the US rolled out in October to restrict the sale of advanced semiconductor manufacturing equipment, according to the people, who asked not to be named because they are not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. The Biden administration has said the measures are aimed at preventing Beijing’s military from obtaining advanced semiconductors.

The three-country alliance - if it comes to pass - would represent a near-total blockade of China’s ability to buy the equipment necessary to make leading-edge chips, according to Bloomberg. The US rules restricted the supply from American gear suppliers Applied Materials Inc., Lam Research Corp. and KLA Corp. Japan’s Tokyo Electron Ltd. and Dutch lithography specialist ASML Holding NV are the two other critical suppliers that the US needed to make the sanctions effective, making their governments’ adoption of the export curbs a significant milestone.

"There’s no way China can build a leading-edge industry on their own. No chance,” said Sanford C. Bernstein analyst Stacy Rasgon.

The three countries are the world’s top sources of machinery and expertise needed to make advanced semiconductors. ASML shares added to losses in Amsterdam on the news and were down 2.2%, in late Monday trading.

Senior US National Security Council official Tarun Chhabra and Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security Alan Estevez were in the Netherlands late November to discuss export controls, Bloomberg reported, while Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo talked about the same issues with METI chief Yasutoshi Nishimura via teleconference last week.

With the move, Dutch and Japanese officials will essentially codify and expand their existing export control measures to further restrict China’s access to cutting-edge chip technologies.  The two governments are planning to impose a ban on the sale of machinery capable of fabricating 14-nanometer or more advanced chips to China, Bloomberg sources said. The measures align with some rules Washington set out in October.

The 14nm technology is at least three generations behind the latest advances available on the market, but it is already the second-best technology that China’s chipmaking champion Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp. owns.
宁鸣而死,不默而生
回复

使用道具 举报

727

主题

2985

帖子

8306

积分

论坛元老

Rank: 8Rank: 8

积分
8306
 楼主| 发表于 2022-12-13 17:11:34 | 显示全部楼层
被利益政治严重污染的世界和生活。 这种毒性不仅对外也施之于本国,凡是与其观点、利益不一致的,必须干翻。
Toxic。
宁鸣而死,不默而生
回复

使用道具 举报

727

主题

2985

帖子

8306

积分

论坛元老

Rank: 8Rank: 8

积分
8306
 楼主| 发表于 2023-1-13 15:05:39 | 显示全部楼层

Don't Trust The Government With Your Privacy, Property, Or Your Freedoms
Authored by John and Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

How do you trust a government that continuously sidesteps the Constitution and undermines our rights? You can’t.
When you consider all the ways “we the people” are being bullied, beaten, bamboozled, targeted, tracked, repressed, robbed, impoverished, imprisoned and killed by the government, one can only conclude that you shouldn’t trust the government with your privacy, your property, your life, or your freedoms.

Consider for yourself.

Don’t trust the government with your privacy, digital or otherwise. In the two decades since 9/11, the military-security industrial complex has operated under a permanent state of emergency that, in turn, has given rise to a digital prison that grows more confining and inescapable by the day. Wall-to wall surveillance, monitored by AI software and fed to a growing network of fusion centers, render the twin concepts of privacy and anonymity almost void. By conspiring with corporations, the Department of Homeland Security “fueled a massive influx of money into surveillance and policing in our cities, under a banner of emergency response and counterterrorism.” For instance, all across the country, police are installing Flock Safety license plate readers as part of a public-private partnership program between police and the surveillance industry. These cameras, which upload data in real time to fusion crime centers, signal a turning point in the transition from a police state to a police-driven surveillance state.

Don’t trust the government with your property. In yet another effort to legitimize warrantless searches, police are employing “hit-and-hold” tactics in which police enter a home, carry out an initial sweep of the property, handcuff the occupants, then wait for official search warrants to be secured and applied retroactively. In the meantime, police have managed to bypass the Fourth Amendment. The rationale, to prevent possible destruction of evidence, is the same one used to deadly effect with no-knock raids. If government agents can invade your home, break down your doors, kill your dog, damage your furnishings and terrorize your family, your property is no longer private and secure—it belongs to the government. Hard-working Americans are having their bank accounts, homes, cars electronics and cash seized by police under the assumption that they have allegedly been associated with some criminal scheme.

Don’t trust the government with your finances. The U.S. government—and that includes the current administration—is spending money it doesn’t have on programs it can’t afford, and “we the taxpayers” are being forced to foot the bill for the government’s fiscal insanity. The national debt is $31.3 trillion and growing, and we’re paying more than $300 billion in interest every year on that public debt, yet there seems to be no end in sight when it comes to the government’s fiscal insanity. According to Forbes, Congress has raised, extended or revised the definition of the debt limit 78 times since 1960 in order to allow the government to essentially fund its existence with a credit card.

Don’t trust the government with your health. For all intents and purposes, “we the people” have become lab rats in the government’s secret experiments, which include MKULTRA and the U.S. military’s secret race-based testing of mustard gas on more than 60,000 enlisted men. Indeed, you don’t have to dig very deep or go very back in the nation’s history to uncover numerous cases in which the government deliberately conducted secret experiments on an unsuspecting populace—citizens and noncitizens alike—making healthy people sick by spraying them with chemicals, injecting them with infectious diseases and exposing them to airborne toxins. Unfortunately, the public has become so easily distracted by the political spectacle out of Washington, DC, that they are altogether oblivious to the grisly experiments, barbaric behavior and inhumane conditions that have become synonymous with the U.S. government, which has meted out untold horrors against humans and animals alike.

Don’t trust the government with your life: At a time when growing numbers of unarmed people have been shot and killed for just standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety, even the most benign encounters with police can have fatal consequences. The number of Americans killed by police continues to grow, with the majority of those killed as a result of police encounters having been suspected of a non-violent offense or no crime at all, or during a traffic violation. According a report by Mapping Police Violence, police killed more people in 2022 than any other year within the past decade. In 98% of those killings, police were not charged with a crime.

Don’t trust the government with your freedoms. For years now, the government has been playing a cat-and-mouse game with the American people, letting us enjoy just enough freedom to think we are free but not enough to actually allow us to live as a free people. Freedom no longer means what it once did. This holds true whether you’re talking about the right to criticize the government in word or deed, the right to be free from government surveillance, the right to not have your person or your property subjected to warrantless searches by government agents, the right to due process, the right to be safe from militarized police invading your home, the right to be innocent until proven guilty and every other right that once reinforced the founders’ belief that this would be “a government of the people, by the people and for the people.” On paper, we may be technically free, but in reality, we are only as free as a government official may allow.

Whatever else it may be—a danger, a menace, a threat—the U.S. government is certainly not looking out for our best interests, nor is it in any way a friend to freedom.

Remember the purpose of a good government is to protect the lives and liberties of its people.

Unfortunately, what we have been saddled with is, in almost every regard, the exact opposite of an institution dedicated to protecting the lives and liberties of its people.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, “we the people” should have learned early on that a government that repeatedly lies, cheats, steals, spies, kills, maims, enslaves, breaks the laws, overreaches its authority, and abuses its power at almost every turn can’t be trusted.
宁鸣而死,不默而生
回复

使用道具 举报

727

主题

2985

帖子

8306

积分

论坛元老

Rank: 8Rank: 8

积分
8306
 楼主| 发表于 2023-1-13 15:11:02 | 显示全部楼层
spid 发表于 2023-1-13 15:05
Don't Trust The Government With Your Privacy, Property, Or Your Freedoms
Authored by John and Nisha ...

让人忧伤的文章。不要相信政府总归不是终极解决方案,真正的问题在于如何减少政府侵犯公民各种权利的行为。
宁鸣而死,不默而生
回复

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

本版积分规则


快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表