localhost_frssoft
/
ocappub
mirror of https://gitlab.com/spritely/ocappub.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Merge branch 'typos' into 'master' 

Typos

See merge request spritely/ocappub!1
This commit is contained in:
Christopher Lemmer Webber 2019-08-18 12:20:46 +00:00
parent 1c059c1806 57cc77f719
commit 85156f3951
1 changed files with 5 additions and 5 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

10
README.org
View File

@ -265,7 +265,7 @@ It does not mean that everyone has to listen to you.
You also have the right to call someone an asshole, or stop listening
to them.
There is no requirement to read every spam that crosses your email
inbox to preserve freedom of speech; neither is there to listen to
inbox to preserve freedom of speech; neither is there a requirement to listen to
someone who is being an asshole.
The freedom to filter is the complement to freedom of speech.
This applies to both individuals and to communities.
@ -301,12 +301,12 @@ hear them.
What is Evan trying to say here?
Most contemporary social networks are run by surveillance capitalist
organizations; in other words, their business model is based on as much
"attention" as possible as they can sell to advertisers.
"attention" as possible since they can sell it to advertisers.
Whether or not capitalism is a problem is left as an exercise for the
reader, but hopefully most readers will agree that a business model
based on destroying privacy can lead to undesirable outcomes.
One such undesirable outcome is that these companies subtly affect the
way people interact with each other not dependent on what is
way people interact with each other: not dependent on what is
healthiest for people and their social relationships, but based on what
will generate the most advertising revenue.
@ -359,8 +359,8 @@ it may be time for some re-evaluation.
The object capability community has a phrase that is almost, but not
entirely, right in my book: "Only prohibit what you can prevent".
This seems almost right, except that there may be things that in-bound
of a system, we cannot technically prevent, yet we prohibit from
This seems almost right, except that there may be things in-bound
of a system that we cannot technically prevent, yet we prohibit from
occurring anyhow, and which we may enforce at another abstraction
layer, including social layers.
So here is a slightly modified version of that phrase: "We must not