ComradePhil

Only if you use the internet primarily for streaming. If you use the internet primarily for something else, with "net neutrality", you will be paying for the video streaming traffic (which makes up 60% of downstream traffic) even though you don't use it for that. If Netflix is required to pay the ISPs, Netflix just increases their prices and it doesn't affect internet users who don't primarily stream video.

Antibiotics doesn't lead to growth, it prevents infection and diseases.

Books, outside of proper context, contain no useful knowlege. They assume too much context and access which is not reasonable if the civilization changes significantly.

More realistic is having and supporting efforts like Open Source Ecology... i.e. having a network of people who have the knowledge and hope enough of them survive in a disaster scenario.

Censorship is a necessity for a functioning system. Even by voting in a democratic system, you're "censoring" the losers for a period of time... in that their ability to act out their principles or interests are limited.

Hackernews works by flagging and downvoting, just as much as it does due to its algorithm and upvoting.

"Free speech" is an outdated concept. When it was useful back in the day, anti-establishment propaganda could be blocked through physical means (stop the guy talking, stop the person bringing the newspaper)... and dissidents could be targeted using force. Even after that in the days of legacy media, the media houses that didn't comply with major economic interests could be easily targeted and silenced... which is why the illusion of free speech could be maintained. None of that is possible in the digital world... so content needs to be moderated/censored.

Those who control the censors have a lot of power. That is not going to change... and various interests will continue to fight for that power.

If you don't ask the migrants why they are migrating, you can make any bs reason.

Maybe they are migrating to get away from the doomsday cult which has a negative outlook on everything.

They explicitly said they down rank "disinformation". Take it how you want:

https://mobile.twitter.com/yegg/status/1501716484761997318

All countries should see using foreign online services as a national security threat and ban them outright. China was right al along with the Great Firewall. They still allow GitHub as of now though.

Maybe China knows more about the real long term effects of the virus because they have been studying it for a long time?

Here's the thing. That phrase "burden of proof" is used by those building fake authority to build up an audience and sell pseudointellectual content to their userbase... the likes of Sam Harris, Scott Adams, Neil d. Tyson etc. are known to do that and it seems to be used in those crowds. It seems like a great phrase when they seem to use it when talking to people they already agree with and make other people look silly (video title: "Sam Harris owns X") and it may be a hit in that crowd where the audience is clueless about it... but if you take it outside, people will point out to you that it's silly.

In forums like this, when it comes to new things, people are trying to make sense of what is happening by sharing their opinions and what they are basing them on... in hopes of getting either supporting or opposing views and letting that collective opinion sharing guide themselves and others into what might really be happening. We're not defending out scientific paper nor are we building up fake authority to scam people.

The reality is that people are open to anything that promises alleviation of suffering from what os diagnosed as "mental illness" because the mental health industry has proven to be a complete scam designed to keep people sick and provide them lifelong "treatments" that don't work.

I have addressed whataboutism here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30510093

I can add a little bit more. When you are bringing up a value you think the other side has violated and when someone points out that you don't care about those values at all because the side you are defending does the exact same thing, boomers have been trained to pretentiously scream "whataboutism" and act as if that somehow makes their argument stronger. Boomer media just made that the last word and made it seem like it was a valid argument. It's not. It's like someone presenting a video evidence of your crime and you suing them for filming you without consent.

> Russia initiated the conflict without provocation

I saw plenty of provocation. I guess you are limited by your top-down media which filters out anything that doesn't align with their goals... so I understand why you would think that... but I'm inviting you to take a wider perspective and see it from the Russian side. If you think Russian action on Ukraine was unprovoked, do you also think the US acted disproportionately when the "Cuban missile crisis"? Or are you a hypocrite?

> there are a thousand similar reports from the last month.

Ukraine, NATO and the US have incentive to fabricate those reports... and Russia has reasons to deny them. The US has been caught hiding human rights abuses done by themselves and their allies while amplifying or even fabricating that of the enemy in the past. There's little reason to believe that they aren't doing it now.

Wars are messy and strategic advantage is paramount... and oftentimes, elements in them do things they think they can get away with... and these things are never fairly reported by either side. Amplification of wrongdoings of others and supperessing that of your own side is expected part of it. I expect both sides to do it for obvious reasons.

>they hated his guts

That sounds like a lot of reasons to lie about him.

Russia is lying about Ukraine at the moment but the Soviet Union was telling the truth and only truth when it was attacking Germany in 1945? OK.

Show me a regulated marketplace and I'll show you regulations put in place by big players to weed out the competition.

> I'd love to see what information justifies the rape of 25 women in a basement [1]. Or the widespread destruction of civilian areas, rampant rape and murder.

Any modern war is an information war more than anything... and I mean everything from the first world war.

You linking to a BBC website is very interesting because they were the first successful mass propaganda machine distributed all around the world via radio.

Even more intersting bit what the BBC doesn't report. The same things have happened in every war where the western forces and allies have been involved, and the real information only comes out, if ever, after it becomes irrelevant. If it comes out while it is relevant, we know exactly what happens to those who are responsible... look at Manning and Assange.

Boomers were brainwashed with cold war propaganda all their lives and don't see Russians as people. Even millenials were exposed to the same propaganda as kids.

Younger Americans are more balanced so far... and newer propaganda is not as effective to anyone other than the laziest... because anyone interested can look for the information from other points of views just as easily because of democratization of media and information.

I don't know if it's a "burden" (please learn what "burden of proof" means and where and how to use it)... but yes, that tweet is an indication of his intent.

It's a bit annoying that this kind of idiocy is upvoted to the front page very often.

The web is the way it is becuase the forces which are seeking profit and power get their way in any new system that emerges.

There is a new system which is truly designed from the ground up to serve the masses and is immune to the tactics used to control Web 2.0. The decentralized web is the internet run for the people by the people... and even if you rely on service providers to host your data or do your computation, they can't see what you want them to see or take your content down. It is called Web 3.0 (there are two Web 3.0s, unfortunately... one is the Google's version where web is organized auch that you don't have to leave Google to browse it... think amp but for everything else... and then there is the blockchain version, which is what I am referring to).

Here's Gavin Wood's TED talk on the topic: https://youtu.be/UIBR99gOLOQ

> Trump used Twitter to organize the overthrow of the US government and almost succeeded at it.

The Capitol riots? It was most definitely agent provocateurs who infiltrate every protest to justify actions against the protestors. Twitter just used it as an excuses to get rid of Trump to please their friends.

> it is likely consume a ridiculous amount of talent

He has indicated that he'll fire most of the employees[1]. In practice, I think he'll move the talent pool whose job is to optimize ad delivery at Twitter to Tesla/SpaceX/OpenAI etc... and make Twitter paid for by the users, not by the advertisers [2].

[1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1512974273606045702?ref_...

[2] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1512964005060657156?s=21...

tWiTtEr iS A PrIvAtE CoMpAnY, tHeY CaN Do wHaTeVeR ThEy wAnT

Elon Musk: buys Twitter to run it how he wants to

nO NoT LiKe ThAt

Support one of the BOINC projects: https://boinc.berkeley.edu/projects.php

North Korea is the enemy because they fought Americans off and held their ground. If you don't understand this, you are incapable of understanding global politics and should direct your energy and attention somewhere else.

Saudi Arabia has death penalty by behading people in front of the masses... and they are invading Yemen. Where are the American "sanctions"?

I personally believe it's more varied than ever (simply because there has never been a time when there was more interaction between very different people and ideas)... but as we get old, our mental models get more and more outdated. It can see more variation if you give the data it has been trained with but fewer variation when it comes to new unfamilar data (everything new seems more similar to each other just by being different from what we know).

And yet, the media framework have engineered the beliefs that the large masses should think one particular way when it comes to these things very successfully.

The problem is worse than that. Platforms like Netflix have removed user reviews. Even Imdb removes ratings when it doesn't please their friends. There is less and less ways to find out what other people like you think about the produced content anymore.

This is of course easily solved by removing movie is watching as a thing, which has already been happening for a long time.

Uighers in China are Muslims and like Muslims in many countries, they are groomed by the Middle Eastern allies of the US... with messages that align with the US interests. In China, that has meant creating unrest by fueling anti-government rhetoric and separatism.

China noticed this and decided to fix it the way they know how... and they have done an incredible job... so the only thing the west got out of it is crying "racism" to their clueless peasants.

I believe it will aid in automating these jobs away, which is great for humanity.

Similar story: https://youtu.be/qlRkLtKqSrY

My perspective:

The western scientists are absolutely terrible at understanding psychological problems so everything is re-framed as a physiological problems ("it's a chemical imbalance", "you were born with wrong physiology" etc.), which they have mastered.

If someone is raised in a cult, do you change the world to fit that person in or do you help that person fix their beliefs?

The same rule should apply for kids raised in other types of abusive households.

Dr. Shiva Ayurdhari explained this and more 5 years ago when Trump got out of the Paris accord: https://www.pscp.tv/va_shiva/1yoKMBMPeNnGQ