Totally loving this. Did you reverse engineer the layouts from screenshots? Please tell me somewhere there is a snippet of original HTML snarfed from archive.org :)
Finally you're totally missing a beat here -- MySpace lived and died by its community of indie bands. Ditch that dodgy mainstream iTunes Music wrapper and make the actual music function work again. You never know, you might strike a nostalgic retro chord within some niche of the indie community (and definitely that's where this thing should be shared!)
Hey, I'm An, the creator of SpaceHey!
Thank you!!
Yes, I looked at a ton of old screenshots, wikipedia sites and archive.org pages! That's how I designed most of it!
I'm currently looking into all of the legal stuff which comes with music sharing, but a dedicated music feature is definitely planned! The iTunes API is just a temporary thing to fill it with some content!
Hilariously, ColdFusion strikes again. I should have used pound signs around the bad_memories variable. The above code would dump the string "bad_memories".
The guy who invented that syntax was J.J. Allaire. Bill Gates passed on his advisors recommendation and didn't buy Allaire because he thought the price was too high. Instead he bought a company in Hawaii building what became ASP.net. However he was quite impressed with J.J.
But years later when J.J. started a second company, it was only a few weeks old when Gates swept in and bought it for millions of dollars.. Shut it down and moved everyone to Seattle.. He immediately assigned J.J. and his team to build a new project called Azure.
J.J. Allaire's other brother and partner in ColdFusion was Jeremy. Jeremy has started two successful companies since leaving Macromedia. They are BrightCove and Circle. I don't know about Circle but at one time parts of BrightCove were running on ColdFusion.
I don't believe that /> is needed anymore. You can just use >
I unfortunately work with coldfusion/cmfl on a daily basis at my company.
I am moving the servers over to Lucee from Coldfusion 10 and trying to have any new systems built on C#/.net.
The most difficult part is getting other people on board. My manager is fine with what I am doing. He saids he is too old to learn a new language so myself and the other programmer will have to support anything I built in .net
Let me tell you folks. Writing spaghetti code with no separation of concerns and no version control is not exclusive to php
> Let me tell you folks. Writing spaghetti code with no separation of concerns and no version control is not exclusive to php
Yowza. If I can give you some unsolicited advice: get some kind of version control in place! Even if it's just a local git repo at first.
There were two things that made working in ColdFusion almost tolerable. (1) The place I worked started using an MVC framework before I left. I was pleasantly surprised by how much it improved the experience. (2) Transitioning to CFScript instead of CFML tags made a big difference as well.
But at the end of the day, it's still ColdFusion, and it drove me bonkers.
I was at a CF conference with MySpace as a speaker and they talked about how often they went down but that they were switching to another CF engine with .net capabilities (BlueDragon). Their discussions and jokes about instability and going down due to bad code updates were really cringy and gave the impression that their platform was a mess.
Pretty certain we were at the same conference. There development practices horrified the group I was with in the audience. At a time that a new competitor appeared (Facebook) they made the fatal mistake of rewriting their software in dot Net. No new features for a year or more. Joel Spolsky wrote a pretty famous essay about the wisdom of doing that.
Performance was the feature. Friendster should have been social network of that era but they couldn’t scale and had to shutdown new user registration. Same thing happened to Twitter but they had no competitor in short form social networking.
I had an older friend that worked at CF when I was a teenager. He taught me a bit about relational databases and some other important stuff as he was one of the only developers I knew growing up.
I remember him telling me how I was wasting my time building in php/MySQL since CF was the future and serious companies wouldn't be looking for php developers. Glad I never pulled the trigger and bought their expensive IDE.
For proper early 2000s nostalgia, I reckon the backend should actually be Apache mod_perl, with the ".cfm" extension script aliased to Perl CGI scripts because management tell everybody "it's running on Adobe!"...
If you had enough rack space, mod_perl+Apache2 could scale to anything you needed. Hundreds of Gbps, hundreds of thousands of RPS. Inefficient, sure, but seriously flexible+performant and really easy to deploy. I miss the old stacks, as Nginx and the other httpds really suck in comparison (feature-wise) and Java is still such a huge PITA. I'd honestly rather use modern PHP than today's Java webapps.
My wife worked there for the transition. Her very first .net page was the MySpace homepage (which was demoed by Steve Ballmer at CES, iirc). Microsoft was very unhappy with the decision to retain the .cf extension on web pages even after the transition to .net. There were some crazy levels of scaling happening behind the scenes—they had database requirements beyond the capabilities of sql server and there was code on the server side to route to different sql clusters based on the user's numeric id. They also had more page views than they could sell ads for. There was actually a pretty crazed level of new feature development happening at the same time—any time that friendster or some other site would release a new feature, Tom would insist that it be implemented on MySpace right away. At the same time, he was also requiring things like pixel-for-pixel identical output for existing pages/features through all of this.
That's called sharding and is pretty widely used nowadays. There is even readily available middleware that handles this for you, so no need to put it into the backend.
Keep in mind this is more than a decade ago. Sharding was almost certainly state-of-the-art and exotic back then (hell, it's arguably pretty unusual in the wild even today, even if a lot more mature of a concept).
Oh, of course! I did not wish to come of as arrogant. I just wanted to add the term (for easier googling if someone is interested) and a note that it's no longer necessary to modify your api to use that strategy.
Yes this is a good point - people with music to share will probably have it on Soundcloud or Bandcamp already, just add Soundcloud/Bandcamp embedding and you're all set
Sidenote: I was in a band in High School that uploaded all its music to MySpace in 2006, and our only backups were a few CDs we had made; so when MySpace lost all that [0], it was my first, most painful lesson about backing up important things multiple times.
I had recently lost some important data back then so luckily I was already backing up data by then! Though now I have kind of the opposite problem, I have too much data and it's difficult to navigate through it all :)
Nobody lost anything from myspace that they actively didn't want. For over a year they announced the change was coming and to download and back up you stuff. Even now a lot is still backup on archive. Why are people so desperate to play the victim all the time?
Back when ISPs etc. would give you free (2-20 MB) storage, we'd use them for hosting personal websites, or just storage space - sometimes we'd register xx new/duplicate accounts, and we'd have a couple of hundred megs for storage.
Anyway, I blindly hosted a lot of personal stuff like that from 1998 - 2008, and never cared to do any backups.
But then one day, it was all gone forever - searched through my old email account, and found probably 5 remainder emails that the company was shutting down their services. Pictures, old demo songs, old websites, etc.
And these days - it could all happen again, if google ever bans your account (so go ahead and backup everything)
Yeah, high school was when I was first dicking around with FL Studio, and naturally I put it all up on MySpace without keeping track of the original MP3s. Unfortunately none of the stuff I put up got included in that Dragon Hoard archive...
Good idea. I think there’s a lot of room for some kind of internet social network that gives you a space for a custom profile, chatting with friends about anything, no algorithms dictating what you see, no heavy handed moderation, etc. wish you success
I was recently moderated for the first time in my (fairly long) life by a social media site. I complained, and they restored it, but it was jarring. My general impression is that times they are a'changin' WRT moderation on the interwebs.
Small communities can sometimes survive without too much moderation, where the consequences of being shunned are enough to keep people who want to participate mostly civil to each other. But "success" in terms of rapid user base growth inevitably leads to enough members who are prepared to be uncivil to each other, at which stage the members who desire a civil discourse to either demand moderation or to leave it to become a youtube-comments style cesspit.
It's not a technical problem, it's a people problem. Technology just amplifies the problem enormously, it doesn't _cause_ it. Jerks don't last long at small local bars, because the locals set the tone and shun people who don't behave according to local norms. Large beer barns, concert venues, or festivals largely cannot rely on local norms and custom, or for regulars to guide newcomers to understanding and appropriate behaviour. And there will _always_ be some people who are jerks, or who's personal understanding of acceptable behaviour differs from the group norm. In the real world they hopefully find "their people" and their places. People who want to behave like outlaw bikers hang out in biker bars, not piano jazz clubs. If you want to build a social media site, you need to realise that eventually someone from 4chan who's idea of fun is trolling normies is gonna show up, and if the place looks "fun" to him, he can put out a call to hundreds of his friends to come show up too. You need to have a plan to deal with that before it happens, if you have a vision for your site that isn't /b/ To some people, that's gonna look like "overly heavy moderation" even if you do it right.
I have controversial views (the EM Drive works! Sport is the opiate of the masses!) but I seem to get along just fine on social media. It’s really only the people who have boring, discredited political views who have problems.
You're forgetting a aspect: the Constitutional clause has been superseded by the 14th Amendment. So in this case, an originalist would rule based on the Amendment, not the just Constitution's original text.
And this display a crucial point, there is a legal process to amend the Constitution not relying on a few scholars re-re-re-interpretation. I'm all for a Constitutional Amendment on abortion, as long as it's the Will of the People, not the Will of a few jurists. If you can get a Constitutional Amendment for the prohibition of intoxicating beverages, you can certainly get a Constitutional Amendment behind abortion... unless it's less of a consensus as you make it seems. Also, using one's 14th Amendment Right to privacy to "legalize" abortion is a pretty weak argument.
The point is that originalism relies on the idea that the Constitution was a nearly flawless document worth preserving in its original form with a couple adjustments, where in reality it was a deeply, deeply flawed document that has been patched repeatedly to a workable state but still has serious shortcomings.
That is blatantly false, originalism is relying on both the Constitution + associated Constitutional Amendments. As OP mentioned, the latter are not set in stone.
> The point is that originalism relies on the idea that the Constitution was a nearly flawless document worth preserving in its original form
No, it doesn't. It is simply the idea that the legal impact of an enactment is set by the meaning (for the textualist form or originalism) or intent (for the intentionalist form of originalism) of the law when passed (whether you are referring to a statute or the Constitution or anything else.)
It has nothing to do with belief about the merits of the Constitution prior to subsequent amendments.
And you would only take that approach as a judge in the United States if you believed that the Constitution was a nearly flawless document worth preserving in its original form.
Why else? Point me at someone who believes the Constitution is deeply, deeply flawed and in serious need of major revisions yet takes an originalist approach in their jurisprudence.
> And you would only take that approach as a judge in the United States if you believed that the Constitution was a nearly flawless document worth preserving in its original form.
Given that, despite the cases that get the most public attention at the highest levels, most judicial interpretation isn’t of the Constitution, that doesn't make sense; it also doesn't make sense otherwise, since the Constitution has had extensive (either from a textualist or an intentionalist perspective) radical changes within the perspective of originalism, so originalism is in no way incompatible with believing the 1789 Constitution needed major revision, even if one assumes that an originalist must be operating ends-first and looking to rationalize their desired end-state of Constitutional law, rather than honestly.
> Why else? Point me at someone who believes the Constitution is deeply, deeply flawed and in serious need of major revisions yet takes an originalist approach in their jurisprudence.
That's not true, and I'm not even an originalist at all. Their point is that you stick to the letter of the law (the constitution) rather than trying to bend it around current social norms and sensibilities. I've never met an originalist who thinks black people are "3/5" of a person. They will cite the 13th and 14th amendments if you do. Clearly they would feel that the Constitution shouldn't be changed ever if they felt the way you say they feel. They think if you want to change the Constitution (or laws in general) that you should pass a new law or amend the Constitution to fit the situation, not sidestep it with a liberal judge who thinks it should be interpreted through the lens of society or even social justice.
There's two ways to interpret the constitution: the honest way, and the way where you pretend that not only were the Founders of one mind on what the Constitution meant, but also that you can read that mind two and a half centuries later.
Not the OP, but of those two, I certainly agree textualism is more "honest". I don't see how you could ever divine a singular true intent behind a compromise of hundreds of divergent minds.
"Textualism" requires divining a single true meaning as interpreted by some not-well-specified group contemporary to the writing, instead of doing so for the at least somewhat-well-specified group of people adopting the measure required for "intentionalism".
(I think both forms of originalism are useful and important interpretive lenses, but I think taking either as universally decisive or even mistaking either for a decidable objective standard is deeply problematic.)
> You're forgetting a aspect: the Constitutional clause has been superseded by the 14th Amendment.
The 13th, actually (it determined how chattel slaves were counted in apportionment, and the 13th abolished chattel slavery, so there were no chattel slaves to count.)
> You mean the folks who think a black person is worth 3/5th of a white person?
No, an originalist doesn't treat the unamended text as sacred, they (in principal) treat the original meaning (textualist) or intent (intentionalist) of the current, amended text as controlling.
Also, you don't understand the 3/5 compromised which has nothing to do with the worth of a black person. It had to do with how much voting power free Whites should get on account of having enslaved Blacks; the free states mostly thought the answer ought to be zero, the slave states thought it ought to be equal to one free citizen per slave held, and the 3/5 compromised was the compromise to keep the two sides in one system.
Saying that it represents a Black person being worth 3/5 of a White person makes it sound like you think that it would be more just of they had taken the position the slavers proposed, since that, apparently, would make Blacks of equal value to Whites.
I fall firmly into the category being described. From my experience, the internet is an abysmal place to discuss these ideas regardless of which side you're on. The left and right both love to misapply statistics and misrepresent their counterparts whenever it's convenient to do so.
Modern social platforms simply do not allow you the room to express the nuance required for the topics at hand. You need far more than 280 characters and a few memes to articulate a point where you have to literally reference text, history, and tradition because so few people are versed in it.
The most incendiary example is the 2nd Amendment. Discussing it without your counterpart understanding the history and philosophies that spawned it (British longbow tradition, assize of arms laws from 1100s on, centralized Prussian style military vs militias, etc) makes for a nauseating experience.
> Try to be a constitutional originalist in the Sillicon Valley / tech sites, and we'll continue this conversation...
I don't think it's as rare or controversial as you think, many people just haven't formed a full opinion on judicial interpretation. Textualism in particular appeals to STEM folks. We've needlessly politicized them as Red Team vs Blue Team, when they don't see themselves as anything close to that. They're all first and foremost legal nerds.
Now if you're making pro-life arguments wrapped with original intent, I can see you getting some aggressive pushback.
“I have nothing to hide” why even say that on a hacker-site? Of course everyone has, the rules and behaviours that make one oneself. If those behaviours and the bugs within them can be replicated, one becomes a easily manipulated puppet, a zombie going were ones master wants one to go, without any reason and lots of emotions, maybe occasionally wondering why ones actions result consistently in outcomes against ones own interest.
Not an SJW here, actually a political minority here ... i see a moderate amount of moderation and banning pf groups where i hang. Sure its not china but we are not using that asa standard ..
and mate thats a ton of shaming in your tone .. please consider showing some compassion. I fail to see how his comment provoked yours ..
I fully agree, we shouldn't hate Russians, they only wish to expand their lebensraum as it is their birthright. We shouldn't blame them for doing the right thing.
Russian civilians can be asked a few easy questions, like - what happened in February 2014, or what happened in August 2008, or what is administrative status of Crimea. And this answer will help you understand should they be hated or not.
Most of them, even highly educated citizens living in a capital, even those who hate their so called "president" and asking for reform, they still approve russian invasions and occupation of territories. Basically the "Empire" part is just fine, they only wish to be left alone personally.
Maybe you don’t have any out of the box ideas that goes against the ideals of corporate America, but I’m certainly glad that other people do.
Imagine if current Twitter was around in Galileo’s time.
* Independent Fact Checkers have confirmed the consensus that the Earth is the center of the Universe, just as God willed it.
Or what if George Washington was relying on social media during the formation of our country?
* Independent Fact Checkers have confirmed that paying taxes to Britain is good and beneficial to the Colonies.
Many good ideas shatter the existing “consensus” dramatically. I’m glad that boundaries can and do get pushed because that’s how we come up with better ideas and systems.
That's an immature picture you are drawing there. You pretty much always trust some authority with what's a fact and what's not and twitter isn't taking that away from you. Have you verified every evidence yourself, for the things you take as premises?! I doubt it.
So let's not get all trolly problem here, alright.
(1) What's something specific you get moderated for? What's the thing you wish to express but can't in today's social media landscape? Can those things be falsified and the condition for accepting evidence?
(2) I say, there _are social networks for _every niche and kink; the only reason you would feel limited in expression and participation would be you trying to expose people to your ideas not likeminded. You have no right to be heard in every community, all the time, no right win people over everywhere, with everything. People can chose against you and your words. That's their right. A community implicitly or explicitly choosing a moderator or moderation guideline, isn't that a very democratic dynamic, too?
(3) We all know the internet changed the assumptions on independent thinking, and ignorant opinions can triumph over facts easily, if they are simpler, more convenient, more stimulating, more viral. Do you really want to be heard or do you want to win?
(4) Do you speak up, when a comment here gets downvoted to void, because the boys took offense? Have you ever fought for visibility of an argument or opinion totally against your world view, in the name of unconditional free speech?
We have more than enough of places like that, there's no need to create (n+1)th. They all have the same problem - lack of adoption, so the network effect is working against them.
> I bet you will get a job too. The same way that Hollywood is simply making remakes and people are accepting this as new.
A Nuclear bomb would be nice right about now. Covid was not enough humble pie
wow thanks! that makes me rethink about every potentially doxing or regrettable comment I may make, knowing there is no such thing as deleting my comment.
Maybe weird feedback but the COVID-19 Pandemic section on the front page really kills both the retro vibe and the idea that this might be something unique rather than yet another way for me to consume standard news.
I had-interestingly-the exact opposite response. It kept the waves of nostalgia in check by delivering a mild dose of modernity to the experience that was subtle enough and works so well with the rest of the presentation that I actually caught myself smiling and nodding at it.
I think maybe I'd have had the same type of reaction to you with a lighter modern news piece. The pandemic or politics are both right out, but a clearly-new entertainment piece would maybe elicit the same response from me that you've described here.
I never used MySpace, but this looks cool! Good idea to build off the nostalgia. Just on first glance, I noticed you're using URLs like https://spacehey.com/profile?id=123 for accessing profiles. That seems like a bad idea, using increasing numbers for pages in general is not great, because it makes it easy to scrape for every user on the site. Why not switch to something like a UUID or random base64 code?
Maybe it's because it's advocating for security by obscurity? It would probably be more resource-intensive for the server if a bot were to scrape every single page to collect UUIDs instead of methodically going through them.
Oh, that's interesting — I hadn't considered that creators of web apps might choose to do this to make scraping easier. Generally, I've understood that exposing internal IDs is undesirable.
The original myspace used the profile name for URLs - https://myspace.com/some_name - maybe the reboot will eventually. I tried with mine and it was a 404.
Ok, thanks. I set what I thought was a username during signup but looks like that was just the name. I see now there's a second step going to https://spacehey.com/settings and the username URL is working for me.
306 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 264 ms ] threadDon’t forgot to have Tom be your default first friend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Anderson
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samy_(computer_worm)
Finally you're totally missing a beat here -- MySpace lived and died by its community of indie bands. Ditch that dodgy mainstream iTunes Music wrapper and make the actual music function work again. You never know, you might strike a nostalgic retro chord within some niche of the indie community (and definitely that's where this thing should be shared!)
Corrected:
<cfdump var="#bad_memories#"/>
But years later when J.J. started a second company, it was only a few weeks old when Gates swept in and bought it for millions of dollars.. Shut it down and moved everyone to Seattle.. He immediately assigned J.J. and his team to build a new project called Azure.
I don't believe that /> is needed anymore. You can just use >
I unfortunately work with coldfusion/cmfl on a daily basis at my company. I am moving the servers over to Lucee from Coldfusion 10 and trying to have any new systems built on C#/.net. The most difficult part is getting other people on board. My manager is fine with what I am doing. He saids he is too old to learn a new language so myself and the other programmer will have to support anything I built in .net
Let me tell you folks. Writing spaghetti code with no separation of concerns and no version control is not exclusive to php
Yowza. If I can give you some unsolicited advice: get some kind of version control in place! Even if it's just a local git repo at first.
There were two things that made working in ColdFusion almost tolerable. (1) The place I worked started using an MVC framework before I left. I was pleasantly surprised by how much it improved the experience. (2) Transitioning to CFScript instead of CFML tags made a big difference as well.
But at the end of the day, it's still ColdFusion, and it drove me bonkers.
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-...
"Twitter on steroids" [0]
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pownce
I remember him telling me how I was wasting my time building in php/MySQL since CF was the future and serious companies wouldn't be looking for php developers. Glad I never pulled the trigger and bought their expensive IDE.
This is most certainly debatable
That said, that IDE was legit. It was comparable to IntelliJ. I want to say I used it over Komodo quite frequently.
Break middle-school students' copypasta CSS rules for animated GIF backgrounds at your peril.
That's called sharding and is pretty widely used nowadays. There is even readily available middleware that handles this for you, so no need to put it into the backend.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19569865
Gotta bring back the chibi art styles
[0] https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/myspace-lost-m...
https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/4/18295014/myspace-lost-song...
Anyway, I blindly hosted a lot of personal stuff like that from 1998 - 2008, and never cared to do any backups.
But then one day, it was all gone forever - searched through my old email account, and found probably 5 remainder emails that the company was shutting down their services. Pictures, old demo songs, old websites, etc.
And these days - it could all happen again, if google ever bans your account (so go ahead and backup everything)
Just thinking of a way for you to really stunt with what MySpace could have been that Facebook or Twitter would never do.
https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/
Seriously you should make this the "Wikipedia" of social media. No ads ever and people will use it.
By the way, just watched The Social Dilemma on Netflix. The world needs people like you!
A re-run of MySpace, at scale, would be a benefit to the world. I hope this takes off like a rocket (without losing its spirit.)
My point here is that if you think the current social media options have "heavy handed" moderation, you're probably the problem, not them.
https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
Small communities can sometimes survive without too much moderation, where the consequences of being shunned are enough to keep people who want to participate mostly civil to each other. But "success" in terms of rapid user base growth inevitably leads to enough members who are prepared to be uncivil to each other, at which stage the members who desire a civil discourse to either demand moderation or to leave it to become a youtube-comments style cesspit.
It's not a technical problem, it's a people problem. Technology just amplifies the problem enormously, it doesn't _cause_ it. Jerks don't last long at small local bars, because the locals set the tone and shun people who don't behave according to local norms. Large beer barns, concert venues, or festivals largely cannot rely on local norms and custom, or for regulars to guide newcomers to understanding and appropriate behaviour. And there will _always_ be some people who are jerks, or who's personal understanding of acceptable behaviour differs from the group norm. In the real world they hopefully find "their people" and their places. People who want to behave like outlaw bikers hang out in biker bars, not piano jazz clubs. If you want to build a social media site, you need to realise that eventually someone from 4chan who's idea of fun is trolling normies is gonna show up, and if the place looks "fun" to him, he can put out a call to hundreds of his friends to come show up too. You need to have a plan to deal with that before it happens, if you have a vision for your site that isn't /b/ To some people, that's gonna look like "overly heavy moderation" even if you do it right.
The argument you’re making is just a different face of the “I have nothing to hide” in the privacy debates.
This is nowhere controversial.
Try to be a constitutional originalist in the Sillicon Valley / tech sites, and we'll continue this conversation...
You mean the folks who think a black person is worth 3/5th of a white person? Yeah I imagine they have it rough.
And this display a crucial point, there is a legal process to amend the Constitution not relying on a few scholars re-re-re-interpretation. I'm all for a Constitutional Amendment on abortion, as long as it's the Will of the People, not the Will of a few jurists. If you can get a Constitutional Amendment for the prohibition of intoxicating beverages, you can certainly get a Constitutional Amendment behind abortion... unless it's less of a consensus as you make it seems. Also, using one's 14th Amendment Right to privacy to "legalize" abortion is a pretty weak argument.
You're missing my point. And I don't care right now.
No, it doesn't. It is simply the idea that the legal impact of an enactment is set by the meaning (for the textualist form or originalism) or intent (for the intentionalist form of originalism) of the law when passed (whether you are referring to a statute or the Constitution or anything else.)
It has nothing to do with belief about the merits of the Constitution prior to subsequent amendments.
Why else? Point me at someone who believes the Constitution is deeply, deeply flawed and in serious need of major revisions yet takes an originalist approach in their jurisprudence.
Given that, despite the cases that get the most public attention at the highest levels, most judicial interpretation isn’t of the Constitution, that doesn't make sense; it also doesn't make sense otherwise, since the Constitution has had extensive (either from a textualist or an intentionalist perspective) radical changes within the perspective of originalism, so originalism is in no way incompatible with believing the 1789 Constitution needed major revision, even if one assumes that an originalist must be operating ends-first and looking to rationalize their desired end-state of Constitutional law, rather than honestly.
All of the people who supported amendments?
(And, yeah, there's actually more than two ways to interpret the Constituion.)
(I think both forms of originalism are useful and important interpretive lenses, but I think taking either as universally decisive or even mistaking either for a decidable objective standard is deeply problematic.)
The 13th, actually (it determined how chattel slaves were counted in apportionment, and the 13th abolished chattel slavery, so there were no chattel slaves to count.)
No, an originalist doesn't treat the unamended text as sacred, they (in principal) treat the original meaning (textualist) or intent (intentionalist) of the current, amended text as controlling.
Also, you don't understand the 3/5 compromised which has nothing to do with the worth of a black person. It had to do with how much voting power free Whites should get on account of having enslaved Blacks; the free states mostly thought the answer ought to be zero, the slave states thought it ought to be equal to one free citizen per slave held, and the 3/5 compromised was the compromise to keep the two sides in one system.
Saying that it represents a Black person being worth 3/5 of a White person makes it sound like you think that it would be more just of they had taken the position the slavers proposed, since that, apparently, would make Blacks of equal value to Whites.
Modern social platforms simply do not allow you the room to express the nuance required for the topics at hand. You need far more than 280 characters and a few memes to articulate a point where you have to literally reference text, history, and tradition because so few people are versed in it.
The most incendiary example is the 2nd Amendment. Discussing it without your counterpart understanding the history and philosophies that spawned it (British longbow tradition, assize of arms laws from 1100s on, centralized Prussian style military vs militias, etc) makes for a nauseating experience.
I don't think it's as rare or controversial as you think, many people just haven't formed a full opinion on judicial interpretation. Textualism in particular appeals to STEM folks. We've needlessly politicized them as Red Team vs Blue Team, when they don't see themselves as anything close to that. They're all first and foremost legal nerds.
Now if you're making pro-life arguments wrapped with original intent, I can see you getting some aggressive pushback.
and mate thats a ton of shaming in your tone .. please consider showing some compassion. I fail to see how his comment provoked yours ..
Hah people still use this term unironically?
I think I've been modded for:
- trying to get people to hate less on Russians
- on the other hand, in the same forum: trying to tell some over eager people that no, Russians aren't saints and it isn't all NATOs fault.
- pointing out (as an insider that was supposedly one of the victims in a major news story recently) that the "facts" didn't check out at all.
On the other hand we should be extremely careful when their military are "helpfully" supporting "oppressed" Russian minorities in Ukraine etc etc.
Imagine if current Twitter was around in Galileo’s time.
* Independent Fact Checkers have confirmed the consensus that the Earth is the center of the Universe, just as God willed it.
Or what if George Washington was relying on social media during the formation of our country?
* Independent Fact Checkers have confirmed that paying taxes to Britain is good and beneficial to the Colonies.
Many good ideas shatter the existing “consensus” dramatically. I’m glad that boundaries can and do get pushed because that’s how we come up with better ideas and systems.
So let's not get all trolly problem here, alright.
(1) What's something specific you get moderated for? What's the thing you wish to express but can't in today's social media landscape? Can those things be falsified and the condition for accepting evidence?
(2) I say, there _are social networks for _every niche and kink; the only reason you would feel limited in expression and participation would be you trying to expose people to your ideas not likeminded. You have no right to be heard in every community, all the time, no right win people over everywhere, with everything. People can chose against you and your words. That's their right. A community implicitly or explicitly choosing a moderator or moderation guideline, isn't that a very democratic dynamic, too?
(3) We all know the internet changed the assumptions on independent thinking, and ignorant opinions can triumph over facts easily, if they are simpler, more convenient, more stimulating, more viral. Do you really want to be heard or do you want to win?
(4) Do you speak up, when a comment here gets downvoted to void, because the boys took offense? Have you ever fought for visibility of an argument or opinion totally against your world view, in the name of unconditional free speech?
http://www.paulgraham.com/orth.html
or in other words, if you've never had and issues with moderation, you might not ever take risks or challenges with your opinions.
It's not my page, it's not my profile, it's just like everyone else's....
A Nuclear bomb would be nice right about now. Covid was not enough humble pie
[1] https://blog.jiayu.co/2018/09/methods-for-obfuscating-sequen... [2] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/396164/exposing-database...
Are these pages going to index in google? I used to find lots of "friends" by searching site:myspace.com female statename interestname