From 57cc77f719ebcbedf06e24ca645bfda18ad09bb1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Alex Schroeder Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 21:51:07 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] README.org: typos --- README.org | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/README.org b/README.org index 14eae16..f0d34b0 100644 --- a/README.org +++ b/README.org @@ -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