"People" don't. I don't think social media companies should be policing anything. They should be agnostic platforms.
It's the establishment and the media/news companies that are demanding facebook censor according to their liking.
And what of "dirty tricks". There are "dirty tricks" in political ads/content all over TV, newspapers, radio, etc. Hell, CNN/NYTimes and much of the media outright colluded with Hillary and the Democratic party. Foxnews backed Trump.
If "dirty tricks" is this upsetting, then we might as well shut down all media.
Nobody is attributing it to bots? I believe the media has. But you are blaming it on "foreign entities" so is that any better?
Also, the institutions are the ones causing polarization and distrust. And the problems you listed - mass migration, aging population, climate change, etc were caused by the establishment and the institutions they control.
What caused mass migration? The establishment and their institutions encouraging it perhaps?
What caused the aging population? The attacks on femininity by encouraging women not to have children? The attacks on masculinity by encouraging men to stay immature and childish? The media portraying raising a family as burdensome and undesirable had something to do with it no? The media encouraging women to forego child rearing so that they can be career women and consume, consume, consume.
What caused climate change? Oh that's right, the establishemtn and their institutions encouraging globalization and consumption, consumption, consumption.
Believing these institutions are going to solve these issues is as silly as believing an arsonist is going to help put out the fire.
I guess it's easier to scapeout "foreign entities" rather than dealing with the real problem.
There used to be bears, wolves, elk, bison, jaguars, etc all over the US. Not to mention billions of birds like passenger pigeon. They were all wiped out and in their place we have livestock.
There is a reason why the state animals of many states are extinct. No california bears in california. No wolverines in michigan.
Crazy how this isn't on the frontpage but nonsense like "How to Get Every Email Returned" is.
"Moreover, the First Amendment protects the audience as well as the speaker.”
Couldn't the judge release the identity to an independent 3rd party rather than the plaintiff's lawyers? Granted the lawyers aren't allowed to reveal the identity to their client, but I think it would have been better to release that info to a 3rd party and have the 3rd party determine if the plaintiff suffered any harm.
It's in all states. It just becomes more noticable in times of stress ( economic, military, societal ).
Go read about the mccarthy era, the red scare before that or the yellow peril before that. Or go read about how how china and the chinese were viewed pre-1970 to how the media changed perceptions during the 1970s with deng's visit, etc as they prepared to open trade relations. Read about how chinatowns historically were stereotyped as the worst kind of ghetto with drugs, crime, etc by the media for much of history. During the 1970s, the media turned chinatown from a ghetto to a hip ethnic enclave.
The same thing with the natives, blacks, mexicans, japanese, germans, russians, chinese, italians, catholics, irish, jews, etc in the US. There were periods where they were demonized and then some switched got flipped and the media softened or completely reversed their stance. Why and at whose request, who knows.
Go look at sino-soviet relations. They are "best buds" and their respective media praised each other. Things go sour and the media pushes anti-sino and anti-russo rhetoric. Same thing with sino-american relations. The interests of the ruling class determine what perceptions the media creates.
Remember when Bush looked into putin's eye and saw a good man? The media was praising putin for stabilizing russia and improving living conditions? It was only 15 years ago, but in media terms, it feels like a lifetime ago. How things quickly change.
Psychology and physics are two independent and different fields. Physics wasn't built on top of psychology and vice versa. What language of psychology do you need to talk about physics and vice versa? Newtonian physics and einstein physics or quantum physics may be better examples? Or psychology with developmental psychology, behavioral psychology, etc.
Are you saying Turing, the world famous mathematician, didn't use any mathematical ideas? Are you talking about "On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem" where he laid out the algorithm to the Turing machine? Are you saying there was no logic behind the Halting Problem? You do realize that his 1936 was filled with mathematical proofs? The paper you referenced is one of the world's most famous mathematical papers. Just because it isn't full of numbers doesn't mean it's not mathematics. Do you think Euclid's elements is part of mathematics?
Because it doesn't jive with the vegan agenda. Look at the most upvoted comments here. It's all stealth vegan propaganda masquerading as concern about the environment.
Never mind that cars, ships, agriculture ( I bet most of these vegans haven't ever heard of petrochemicals or fertilizers ), smartphones, electricity, etc are all individually greater contributors to environmental damage.
Also, the growing numbers of bison, deer and other ruminants around the world contributes to increase in methane levels. People forget that all ruminants ( bison, cows, etc ) all produce methane though they'll use the faux stat of them being net negative contributors.
And sad as it is, veganism will actually increase fossil fuel usage as the vegetation that people eat need petrochemical fertilizers to grow and a vegan diet cannot be locally sourced like meat can, so they need to ship vegan food from all over the world. But vegans don't like facts too much. They'll throw in the nonsense about livestock agriculture being transfered for humans. Good luck surviving on corn, soy and wheat. Humans aren't ruminants. We are omnivores by nature.
Theory of computation is based in mathematics/logic. It is a part of mathematics just like computer science is a field of mathematics. I'm not sure I agree that it is more fundamental than mathematics since it is a part of mathematics. You can't have a theory of computation without mathematics. Just like you can't have the field of cryptography without mathematics. Theory of computation and cryptography are built on top of fundamental ideas of mathematics. How can that translate into theory of computation being more fundamental. It's like saying a molecule is more fundamental than an electron or proton.
Just huawei? Isn't that the case for china's rise overall? Wasn't the basis of US-China relations the past 50 years a simple transfer of technology/capital for cheap labor/lax environmental regulations? We looked the other way while china took our technology and money. And they looked away as we exploited cheap labor and lax environmental law. It was a wage, technology, capital and environmental law arbitrage. It terribly skewed the wealth/income inequality in both countries, it destroyed large segments of the US ( rust belt ), it has been an environmental disaster and it's significantly altered the global power balance. But at least the elites got ridiculously wealthy.
For 50 years, the wsj and the ny times defended this. Bloomberg defended this since their inception in the early 80s. It's odd to see the entire establishment media shift from supporting it to now suddenly attacking it. Also, you would think independent media would offer differing opinions rather than speaking with the same voice. But it's always complete support or complete rejection as if someone flips a switch on and off.
"Theft and dubious ethics" has been the basis of the US-China relationship from the very beginning and it went both ways. This is something everyone and their mother knew from the very beginning. Why did it take 50 years for the wsj and the rest of the media to figure it out.
If the wsj is concerned with "theft and dubious ethics", are they planning on an expose' of the US-Saudi relation and US-Israeli relation? Maybe in another 50 years?
It's the establishment and the media/news companies that are demanding facebook censor according to their liking.
And what of "dirty tricks". There are "dirty tricks" in political ads/content all over TV, newspapers, radio, etc. Hell, CNN/NYTimes and much of the media outright colluded with Hillary and the Democratic party. Foxnews backed Trump.
If "dirty tricks" is this upsetting, then we might as well shut down all media.