> Algorithmic filtering can affect history, not just hide history. Facebook's filtering algorithm suppressed news about the thug riot in Ferguson until after it became national news.
Calling all of the protestors in Ferguson "thugs" seems pretty off base. I'm surprised he characterized everyone there like that when his previous few points seemed to be in favor of the ability to protest the government. I guess he only feels that way when it's not in the US?
It's interesting he drew that conclusion from the article he links to, given that they mention prior to things such as twitter it would only be characterized on the news as a place to avoid due to "looters, thugs, troublemakers" in a minor segment.
You misunderstood, he's calling the cops thugs, not the protestors. If you read the rest of his website you will see that he refers to police as "thugs" regularly:
> US citizens: call on Obama to curb militarization of thugs.
> Everyone, call on Pasco to fire and prosecute the killer thugs
> "Flood Wall Street" protesters have been acquitted of charges; the thugs' order for them to disperse was ruled unconstitutional.
> It is good that they were acquitted, but there must be some penalty for thugs that violate protesters' rights.
And that is one reason why he is so terrible at communication. Nobody understands what he really means in that particular case, unless you were able to derive his specific meaning of "thug" from his previous writings. Inventing your own private sociolect and using it in published texts is a bad idea.
UK note: I had to check the reference to work out that the thugs mentioned had uniforms.
I found the playful use of 'used' along with other vocabulary changes to be reasonable and engaging. This playfulness with language may create problems for readers whose first language is not English.
"Calling all of the protestors in Ferguson "thugs" seems pretty off base"
Well, if he's referring to peaceful protestors, sure no one can agree that it's okay to call them "thugs". Because there is absolutely nothing wrong with peaceful protesting.
Now, on the other hand, if he's referring to violent protestors that damage property, loot, incite violence, and hurt innocent people. Then yeah, he's well in the green to refer to them as "thugs" because he's describing what some would consider "thuggish" behavior.
Stallman always refers to police as thugs. In essence he is saying that the police were responsible for what happened. His political notes are actually quite good:
Calling all of the protestors in Ferguson "thugs" seems pretty off base. I'm surprised he characterized everyone there like that when his previous few points seemed to be in favor of the ability to protest the government. I guess he only feels that way when it's not in the US?
It's interesting he drew that conclusion from the article he links to, given that they mention prior to things such as twitter it would only be characterized on the news as a place to avoid due to "looters, thugs, troublemakers" in a minor segment.