Red Mosquito

Bi_3 wrote:

Higgs wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Massive quote pyramids are hate speech

100% agree and my apologies for my involvement this evening. I really do hate those things.

All good and I appreciate you sharing your perspective. Nice to have some fresh voices around

I'm very much anti pyramid as well, but I can have an enjoyable conversation with Higgs, unlike some people around here!

McParadigm wrote:

4/5 wrote:

Peeps wrote: you are right on this but not for the reasons you think

is it dems or republicans who have been banning books? or OMG drag queens are performing at a library we need to stop this right now. the current sitting president and his press secretary arent taking questions from news organizations saying all they do is lie and they are in violation so they will revoke you do not call it the gulf of america. if that isnt trampling on free speech i dont know what the fuck is

Both parties have become illiberal and untethered to principles like free speech. Republicans are more obnoxious about it because they're anti-speech as they're incessantly whining about how much Democrats hate freedom.

I think this is a fair assessment. I also think free speech absolutionism is now permanently butted up against a displayed reality: democracy cannot long survive the free disbursement of disinformation in a digital age. All it really takes now to flood the zone with too much static is money…free speech risks becoming another tool for the rich to control the message and bury muckrakers. And this is going to become even more destructively evident as AI content gains ground.

Whether free speech, as an ideal, is realistic or not, it is also unquestionably weaponizable by the people who seek autocracy and (eventually) free speech’s own ending. A democracy requires information in order to function, and that is rapidly becoming unattainable.

I’m not even sure if it takes that much money, or that it will in the very near future, at least. Your second paragraph is why I’ve become very pessimistic about whether the liberal experiment can survive this transitory period we’re at the beginning of right now.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Higgs wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Massive quote pyramids are hate speech

100% agree and my apologies for my involvement this evening. I really do hate those things.

All good and I appreciate you sharing your perspective. Nice to have some fresh voices around

I'm very much anti pyramid as well, but I can have an enjoyable conversation with Higgs, unlike some people around here!

Lol. 'night Burt.

4/5 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

4/5 wrote:

Peeps wrote: you are right on this but not for the reasons you think

is it dems or republicans who have been banning books? or OMG drag queens are performing at a library we need to stop this right now. the current sitting president and his press secretary arent taking questions from news organizations saying all they do is lie and they are in violation so they will revoke you do not call it the gulf of america. if that isnt trampling on free speech i dont know what the fuck is

Both parties have become illiberal and untethered to principles like free speech. Republicans are more obnoxious about it because they're anti-speech as they're incessantly whining about how much Democrats hate freedom.

I think this is a fair assessment. I also think free speech absolutionism is now permanently butted up against a displayed reality: democracy cannot long survive the free disbursement of disinformation in a digital age. All it really takes now to flood the zone with too much static is money…free speech risks becoming another tool for the rich to control the message and bury muckrakers. And this is going to become even more destructively evident as AI content gains ground.

Whether free speech, as an ideal, is realistic or not, it is also unquestionably weaponizable by the people who seek autocracy and (eventually) free speech’s own ending. A democracy requires information in order to function, and that is rapidly becoming unattainable.

I’m not even sure if it takes that much money, or that it will in the very near future, at least. Your second paragraph is why I’ve become very pessimistic about whether the liberal experiment can survive this transitory period we’re at the beginning of right now.

With any luck the boomers will die off before AI really takes off. They have no natural defenses against it, after a lifetime of believing there are trustworthy official news sources fed through a few tv channels, a newspaper and radio.

I've said this before, but the only solution I see is people developing a radical skepticism, patience and humility with regards to everything they see, while continuing to completely refuse to accept any authority as trustworthy enough to determine for them what they are allowed to read or hear.

4/5 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

4/5 wrote:

Peeps wrote: you are right on this but not for the reasons you think

is it dems or republicans who have been banning books? or OMG drag queens are performing at a library we need to stop this right now. the current sitting president and his press secretary arent taking questions from news organizations saying all they do is lie and they are in violation so they will revoke you do not call it the gulf of america. if that isnt trampling on free speech i dont know what the fuck is

Both parties have become illiberal and untethered to principles like free speech. Republicans are more obnoxious about it because they're anti-speech as they're incessantly whining about how much Democrats hate freedom.

I think this is a fair assessment. I also think free speech absolutionism is now permanently butted up against a displayed reality: democracy cannot long survive the free disbursement of disinformation in a digital age. All it really takes now to flood the zone with too much static is money…free speech risks becoming another tool for the rich to control the message and bury muckrakers. And this is going to become even more destructively evident as AI content gains ground.

Whether free speech, as an ideal, is realistic or not, it is also unquestionably weaponizable by the people who seek autocracy and (eventually) free speech’s own ending. A democracy requires information in order to function, and that is rapidly becoming unattainable.

I’m not even sure if it takes that much money, or that it will in the very near future, at least. Your second paragraph is why I’ve become very pessimistic about whether the liberal experiment can survive this transitory period we’re at the beginning of right now.

Perhaps the answer lies not in the ability to determine what is 'good' information but the ability to limit the possible damage from 'bad' information.

Can you all stop bullying St Petersburt please??

We need his expertise over in the trans rights thread right now.

BurtReynolds wrote:With any luck the boomers will die off before AI really takes off. They have no natural defenses against it, after a lifetime of believing there are trustworthy official news sources fed through a few tv channels, a newspaper and radio.

I've said this before, but the only solution I see is people developing a radical skepticism, patience and humility with regards to everything they see, while continuing to completely refuse to accept any authority as trustworthy enough to determine for them what they are allowed to read or hear.

Perhaps the answer lies not in the ability to determine what is 'good' information but the ability to limit the possible damage from 'bad' information.

I think you both are overlooking the most impactful (and successful) goal that disinformation has: to discourage interest in information.

A person doesn’t have to believe a fake video or share fake news for disinformation to have accomplished its goal. They just need to be discouraged from pursuing truth. To be brought to a point where they are primed to reject information by default. To feel like it’s too much work, too much thought, too confusing, or too miserable an experience to consume information.

The most harmful effect disinformation is having in our country right now is not “too many people believe things that aren’t true,“ even if that is a huge problem. The truly destructive impact comes from making people tired of even trying. Anesthetizing them to the feeling that there’s no way of knowing for sure. It’ll be the end of us.

doug rr wrote:

How do you think he does it?

(I don’t know)

What makes him so good?

McParadigm wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:With any luck the boomers will die off before AI really takes off. They have no natural defenses against it, after a lifetime of believing there are trustworthy official news sources fed through a few tv channels, a newspaper and radio.

I've said this before, but the only solution I see is people developing a radical skepticism, patience and humility with regards to everything they see, while continuing to completely refuse to accept any authority as trustworthy enough to determine for them what they are allowed to read or hear.

Perhaps the answer lies not in the ability to determine what is 'good' information but the ability to limit the possible damage from 'bad' information.

I think you both are overlooking the most impactful (and successful) goal that disinformation has: to discourage interest in information.

A person doesn’t have to believe a fake video or share fake news for disinformation to have accomplished its goal. They just need to be discouraged from pursuing truth. To be brought to a point where they are primed to reject information by default. To feel like it’s too much work, too much thought, too confusing, or too miserable an experience to consume information.

The most harmful effect disinformation is having in our country right now is not “too many people believe things that aren’t true,“ even if that is a huge problem. The truly destructive impact comes from making people tired of even trying. Anesthetizing them to the feeling that there’s no way of knowing for sure. It’ll be the end of us.

Bi_3 wrote:

Hey mods.

Is this ok?
If so can I go off on him? I have reported it
Just waiting on a reply.

And why is he replying to a post about Burt?

Curious

Giving myself a one week ban.

Bi_3 wrote:Giving myself a one week ban.

From just this account or your several others?

Someone forgot to switch their accounts and did their bit from the other account under the wrong name.

How embarrassing.

Who are my other accounts besides Bi, dime?

The most disturbing part of this whole interaction is that the answer is dimejinky99

McParadigm wrote:The most disturbing part of this whole interaction is that the answer is dimejinky99

BurtReynolds wrote:

McParadigm wrote:The most disturbing part of this whole interaction is that the answer is dimejinky99

That movie was bullshit and cowardly because there’s never a sequence where they fuck themselves

McParadigm wrote:The most disturbing part of this whole interaction is that the answer is dimejinky99

Haha!
Would that I be bothered.

dimejinky99 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Hey mods.

Is this ok?
If so can I go off on him? I have reported it
Just waiting on a reply.

And why is he replying to a post about Burt?

Curious

Bur st petersburt was ok the post before. Again, you just can’t help yourself