Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Okay, several questions- I assume your dog got Covid? How did you know? A human test? Also, any idea how em got it? You and fam didn't have it, right?

My cat seemed to have it when I had it in March of 2020. No she never got a PCR test, just lethargic, sniffles and couldn't find her food. No one else in the house ever tested positive.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

test

Couldn't load page 57, for some reason. Had to post to get here.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

test

Couldn't load page 57, for some reason. Had to post to get here.

I liked it better when plated was in charge; he made the trains run on time.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Enjoy Parler then.

We have seen again and again that you are a victim of disinformation, and believe some truly bizarre shit that's been fed to you.

No, "we" haven't. You state this, but its not true.* The only question is if you incorrectly believe it or you're intentionally stating something that isn't factual because, well, who's going to spend the time to flag the proofs its a lie?

I do not care about the Biden laptop story. I don't think it's relevant. I think the docs questioning vaccines were nuts.

But I also know (not think, or believe, but know, because this is a fact not up for debate) that both stories were not of such a deviant nature that their preclusion was warranted.

As to the laptop, even the Times and Twitter admit that story was true and was of public interest and that its preclusion from Twitter and news other than the Post was a naked effort to put a finger on the scale of the election. Everyone knows why this was done. People feared it might get Trump re-elected. I don't think the latter was true, but the former indisputably happened.

You're okay with it because I think you think the existential threat was such that the ends justified the means. That's a perfectly defensible position. Own it.

As to vaccine doubting docs, there was not even a pretext offered. They were openly precluded because they were deemed threats to the public good.

I agree with that. I think those docs did harm. And I didn't mind seeing them deplatformed.

But I'm uncomfortable with this sort of thing because it is crafting consensus. Chomsky warned about big business and govt gaining the ability to control what people could see or hear, and he was right. Media consolidation has created some awful indirect censorship. I'm not sure it's much better when you put "people who [often quite inaccurately] think they know what's best" or "people who [almost always incorrectly] consider themselves better able to filter content than the hoi polloi" - of which groups you and I are card-carrying members - in charge of consensus manufacture.

And it's a canard to argue that platforms suck when filled with "bro-culture" sorts. If you don't wish to see what you don't wish to see - on any platform - you can simply avoid it. Platforms only suck when they're sanitized and number of views expressed on them narrowed. That's how you get echo chambers.

______
* The "we" thing is weak. Own your point.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

My cat seemed to have it when I had it in March of 2020. No she never got a PCR test, just lethargic, sniffles and couldn't find her food. No one else in the house ever tested positive.

One of ours got horribly sick in 2020. Respiratory and GI. Two weeks.

Right after we got back from a location where we were exposed to loads of people from all over the world.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But I'm uncomfortable with this sort of thing because it is crafting consensus.

No one is comfortable with this sort of thing, least of all the platforms themselves, who are not "crafting consensus" and do not want to be in that business at all. They want people to behave and not cause problems so the platforms can monetize them, but people keep misbehaving in different ways and causing problems, and they have to do moderation, which is impossible to do well or at scale, and then governments and politicians get involved, and CEOs have to waste their time going up to the Hill, etc. etc.

Having you looked at Facebook or Twitter or Tiktok lately? "Crafting consensus?" What are you, nuts? Consensus was when every town had one or two newspapers and a few TV stations and they all said the same centrist stuff in order to avoid scaring away advertisers. With social media, everyone can post anything they want, and the basic incentives -- say something edgy and different, stand out, get people rlled up -- are the complete opposite of "crafting consensus."

You are worrying about free speech problems from the 1970s, but it's half a century later and things have changed.

Platforms only suck when they're sanitized and number of views expressed on them narrowed. That's how you get echo chambers.

Take it from someone who worked at a platform: Platforms suck when there is zero moderation. Rank the following in order of where you spend money: Amazon, eBay, Craigslist. In that order, right? Who is doing sanitation and who isn't? Here's a hint: Jeff Bezos is the richest guy in the world, Pierre Omidyar is wealthy but not Jeff Bezos, and Craig Newmark is the answer to a trivia question.

The platforms that become echo chambers are the ones like 4Chan where anything goes, because then no one normal wants to go there.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

They want people to behave and not cause problems so the platforms can monetize them, but people keep misbehaving in different ways and causing problems, and they have to do moderation, which is impossible to do well or at scale, and then governments and politicians get involved, and CEOs have to waste their time going up to the Hill, etc. etc.

I don't doubt that they want to do that. But is a story about Biden's laptop misbehavior? The Post puts out all kinds of salacious and tawdry stuff everyday and Twitter allows it. But a story about a laptop is considered beyond the pale? Into what bucket of misbehavior did that fall?

That was more bowing to pressure from people who were scared of Trump getting re-elected. And that is indeed consensus crafting. It's precluding a wider audience from hearing a story that might influence how they vote.

I agree that banning anti-vax docs can be viewed as misbehavior. That can lead to direct harm.

Take it from someone who worked at a platform: Platforms suck when there is zero moderation. Rank the following in order of where you spend money: Amazon, eBay, Craigslist. In that order, right? Who is doing sanitation and who isn't? Here's a hint: Jeff Bezos is the richest guy in the world, Pierre Omidyar is wealthy but not Jeff Bezos, and Craig Newmark is the answer to a trivia question.

CL also has a really shitty architecture. It's not user friendly.

I think Twitter ran perfectly when it still had the political crazies on board. Trump was a dumpster fire. His tweets were a comedic gift that kept on giving. "Covfefe." It was just fantastic. He'd spawn a litany of hysterical reactions, against and in favor of him, and often very funny memes. Sure, the place is much more measured and sensible and mature. But it was a lot more fun when we had a nut with millions of followers ranting about Barney Frank's nipples. You have to admit that.

The platforms that become echo chambers are the ones like 4Chan where anything goes, because then no one normal wants to go there.

Reddit's not bad. Not user friendly, but you get a good mix of differing views there and people aren't afraid to push limits.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't doubt that they want to do that. But is a story about Biden's laptop misbehavior? The Post puts out all kinds of salacious and tawdry stuff everyday and Twitter allows it. But a story about a laptop is considered beyond the pale? Into what bucket of misbehavior did that fall?

That was more bowing to pressure from people who were scared of Trump getting re-elected. And that is indeed consensus crafting. It's precluding a wider audience from hearing a story that might influence how they vote.

Let's use the way-back machine to go all the way back to the Twitter thread I shared:

All my left-wing woke friends are CONVINCED that the social media platforms uphold the white supremacist misogynistic patriarchy, and they have plenty of screenshots and evidence ...

... of times when the platform has made enforcement decisions unfairly against innocuous things they've said, and let far more egregious sexist/racist violations by the other side pass.

Woke friends: it's true, right? You have LOTS of examples.

All my alt/center-right/libertarian friends are CONVINCED the social media platforms uphold the woke BLM/Marxist/LGBTQ agenda and they ALSO have plenty of screenshots and evidence of times when...

... the platforms have made enforcement decisions unfair against them for innocuous things they've said merely questioning (in good faith) the woke orthodoxy, and let far more egregious violations by the other side stand.

Right-wingers and libertarians: it's true, right? You can remember PLENTY of examples.

Neither side is lying.

Mostly, it's really because enforcement is hard, and there are LOTS of errors. There's a separate emerging problem (more FB than Twitter) where AI models make inhumane/dystopian judgments that can't be appealed, but that's a separate issue.

Both sides think the platform is institutionally biased against them.

"All the top executives and board members are men."

"Silicon Valley employees are overwhelming woke and left-wing."

I want you to pause for a minute and think about your political alignment and whether you're on the left or right of this issue, because you probably think one of those things.

And the old GenX tech titans are right there with you - vaguely left-wing but also center-right - seeing their version of "censorship" - and drawing all the wrong conclusions from it about what's happening with the management of social platforms.

Hope it makes you feel good to be right there with the old GenX tech titans. But thinking there is someone at Twitter or Facebook who is "crafting consensus" is about as rational as worrying that the UN is sending black helicopters to make your school board teach CRT to kindergarteners.

I think Twitter ran perfectly when it still had the political crazies on board. Trump was a dumpster fire. His tweets were a comedic gift that kept on giving. "Covfefe." It was just fantastic. He'd spawn a litany of hysterical reactions, against and in favor of him, and often very funny memes. Sure, the place is much more measured and sensible and mature. But it was a lot more fun when we had a nut with millions of followers ranting about Barney Frank's nipples. You have to admit that.

Uh, tbh I don't see much difference, not in how I use Twitter.

[LessinSF]

How come Gwinky never told us about this?
https://www.reddit.com/r/interesting..._mascot_named/

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

How come Gwinky never told us about this?
https://www.reddit.com/r/interesting..._mascot_named/

But do they have their own puck bunnies?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

How come Gwinky never told us about this?
https://www.reddit.com/r/interesting..._mascot_named/

In her defense she was/is an ERISA cog, so maybe she didn’t know? I mean she gave us bar pick up doggy style fuck stories, not like she was pulling punches.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No, "we" haven't. You state this, but its not true.* The only question is if you incorrectly believe it or you're intentionally stating something that isn't factual because, well, who's going to spend the time to flag the proofs its a lie?

I do not care about the Biden laptop story. I don't think it's relevant. I think the docs questioning vaccines were nuts.

But I also know (not think, or believe, but know, because this is a fact not up for debate) that both stories were not of such a deviant nature that their preclusion was warranted.

As to the laptop, even the Times and Twitter admit that story was true and was of public interest and that its preclusion from Twitter and news other than the Post was a naked effort to put a finger on the scale of the election. Everyone knows why this was done. People feared it might get Trump re-elected. I don't think the latter was true, but the former indisputably happened.

You're okay with it because I think you think the existential threat was such that the ends justified the means. That's a perfectly defensible position. Own it.

As to vaccine doubting docs, there was not even a pretext offered. They were openly precluded because they were deemed threats to the public good.

I agree with that. I think those docs did harm. And I didn't mind seeing them deplatformed.

But I'm uncomfortable with this sort of thing because it is crafting consensus. Chomsky warned about big business and govt gaining the ability to control what people could see or hear, and he was right. Media consolidation has created some awful indirect censorship. I'm not sure it's much better when you put "people who [often quite inaccurately] think they know what's best" or "people who [almost always incorrectly] consider themselves better able to filter content than the hoi polloi" - of which groups you and I are card-carrying members - in charge of consensus manufacture.

And it's a canard to argue that platforms suck when filled with "bro-culture" sorts. If you don't wish to see what you don't wish to see - on any platform - you can simply avoid it. Platforms only suck when they're sanitized and number of views expressed on them narrowed. That's how you get echo chambers.

______
* The "we" thing is weak. Own your point.

Yo, you want a platform where you and your bros or whatever you call them want to hang, go create it, have fun, enjoy the bots.

No one has to do that for you, and the existing platforms have good reasons, which you'll never listen to, why they decided to do what they now do, which is minimalist moderation, mostly to enforce a very limited set of rules (I linked the twitter ones for you above). Some of those reasons relate to legal liability, some to usability, some to histories of abuse. Go look for the Klonick article if you want to actually undrestand any of it, but, really, you don't need to, because it's up to them to decide what to do with their platform.

As to we versus I, look, you're a tiresome mix of thick skulled and myopic with a dash of poor reading comprehension thrown in. In other words, the perfect patsy for the grifters that ail us.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Yo, you want a platform where you and your bros or whatever you call them want to hang, go create it, have fun, enjoy the bots.

No one has to do that for you, and the existing platforms have good reasons, which you'll never listen to, why they decided to do what they now do, which is minimalist moderation, mostly to enforce a very limited set of rules (I linked the twitter ones for you above). Some of those reasons relate to legal liability, some to usability, some to histories of abuse. Go look for the Klonick article if you want to actually undrestand any of it, but, really, you don't need to, because it's up to them to decide what to do with their platform.

As to we versus I, look, you're a tiresome mix of thick skulled and myopic with a dash of poor reading comprehension thrown in. In other words, the perfect patsy for the grifters that ail us.

Neither you nor Ty has explained how banning the Hunter Biden story was light moderation, or merely following a corporate policy.

That story didn’t offend anyone, and it was not disinformation.

Ty came close to explaining it when he noted that management at platforms are constantly being pushed by the woke. That leads to the following conclusion: Twitter shut down the Post’s account because the spreading of a valid story which even the NYTimes recognizes as credible upset employees or some users of the platform. Why did it upset them? Well, that’s unknown. But no one would be talking out of school to suggest that these employees and users were scared it could help tip a very close election to Trump.

Ty is correct, this is not management crafting consensus. This is a group of people of a certain ideology crafting consensus.

That’s scary. It’s Brent Bozell’s pressure/boycott strategy from the 80s used on platforms by their own employees.

Your last sentence is hot rhetoric with no heft. No one is a patsy for looking at how a newsworthy story about a candidate and the newspaper offering it were suspended from Twitter just before an election. Even the Times and Jack Dorsey are admitting it was error. It smells bad, objectively.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Neither you nor Ty has explained how banning the Hunter Biden story was light moderation, or merely following a corporate policy. ...

Ty is correct, this is not management crafting consensus. This is a group of people of a certain ideology crafting consensus.

I responded to you, but you are too thick to get it. Here we go again:

All my left-wing woke friends are CONVINCED that the social media platforms uphold the white supremacist misogynistic patriarchy, and they have plenty of screenshots and evidence ...

... of times when the platform has made enforcement decisions unfairly against innocuous things they've said, and let far more egregious sexist/racist violations by the other side pass.

Woke friends: it's true, right? You have LOTS of examples.

All my alt/center-right/libertarian friends are CONVINCED the social media platforms uphold the woke BLM/Marxist/LGBTQ agenda and they ALSO have plenty of screenshots and evidence of times when...

... the platforms have made enforcement decisions unfair against them for innocuous things they've said merely questioning (in good faith) the woke orthodoxy, and let far more egregious violations by the other side stand.

Right-wingers and libertarians: it's true, right? You can remember PLENTY of examples.

Neither side is lying.

Mostly, it's really because enforcement is hard, and there are LOTS of errors.

What you're saying is like, A had COVID, A took antimalarial drugs, A got better, therefore antimalarial drugs cure COVID. Correlation is not causation. Or, visually:



Maybe that [Hunter Biden] decision was a mistake. As I've said multiple times, there will be mistakes, for multiple reasons that have nothing to do with ideology. Everyone political views -- which includes you, much as you hate to admit it -- gets to feel aggrieved about those mistakes and takes them as evidence of bias against them, just as you have here. The ideas that Twitter is run by ideologues, or that they are trying to "craft consensus", are just absolutely wrong. Twitter wishes it could stop getting derailed by politics and focus on making more money.

I'm not sure why you think a decision to limit tweets about propaganda is a mistake, but I'm trying to avoid having that conversation about the Hunter Biden thing because, in the context of the conversation we've been having, what I said above is the answer.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I responded to you, but you are too thick to get it. Here we go again:



What you're saying is like, A had COVID, A took antimalarial drugs, A got better, therefore antimalarial drugs cure COVID. Correlation is not causation. Or, visually:



Maybe that [Hunter Biden] decision was a mistake. As I've said multiple times, there will be mistakes, for multiple reasons that have nothing to do with ideology. Everyone political views -- which includes you, much as you hate to admit it -- gets to feel aggrieved about those mistakes and takes them as evidence of bias against them, just as you have here. The ideas that Twitter is run by ideologues, or that they are trying to "craft consensus", are just absolutely wrong. Twitter wishes it could stop getting derailed by politics and focus on making more money.

I'm not sure why you think a decision to limit tweets about propaganda is a mistake, but I'm trying to avoid having that conversation about the Hunter Biden thing because, in the context of the conversation we've been having, what I said above is the answer.

You: The management of platforms are Gen X center/left liberals. But they have to react to ideologues (the woke) who work for them and use their platforms.

Me: So when they do, they’re being led by ideologues. So… Ideologues are using their influence to craft what readers of one of the biggest platforms on earth get to see.

What about that basic fucking algebraic assessment is incorrect?

You seem to be stuck on the point that management would rather not monitor. Which I agreed with many posts ago.

Let me put it this way… If Twitter yanked the laptop story because ideologues among its employees and users pressured it to do so (which is what both of us I think have agreed occurred), how is Twitter not being led around by ideologues? Your argument seems to be if it’s not intentional, merely reactive, or even grudgingly, it’s not the work of ideologues. I say it is. If I’m an ideologue and I force you to act, your action is, although indirectly, bowing to an ideologue. And the result is ultimately caused by an ideologue.