crocodiletears

Sony's first-party monetization strategy's been quite good ime. If anything, I'd expect them to curb Bungy's worst instincts on that front.

I think https://noagendaphone.com is still offering this service

I think the intersection of culture and ideals between different regions in the US is too small to merit a description of the country as homogenous. And that intersection is becoming increasingly smaller with the collapse of mass media and the balkanization of media preferences (news and entertainment).

We have a shared cultural history, but we can't even come close to a consensus on its interpretation.

My impression of the instances I've joined is that the network is largely populated by anime-fans, artists putting out questionably sfw drawings, and censorious progressive fiefdoms.

Mesx

The secret ingredient is crime.

Generally my mentality. This is a European war in Europe's back yard. CNN and Fox (with the exception of Carlson) are in lockstep, Google's demonetizing content that's dismissive of, or opposed to Ukraine.

Ukraine is the victim here, not the aggressor. I hope they win, I doubt they will.

But domestically, the rhetoric around the war has infuriated me.

A redneck shows up to a domestic political rally with his tacky Confederate flag, and everyone involved is a bigot, a fascist, or a potential domestic terrorist.

A country constitutionally bans same sex relationships, turns trans refugees fleeing the conflict away at the border because they're 'actually' men, supports the efforts of a pseudo-autonomous militia whose ~10k soldiers walk around wearing sonnenrads, and its only a tiny minority that we should overlook. Facebook even made an exception for their policy on supporting them.

I'm fine with nuance. It's important. But why is it only a thing when it means we might get to spill American blood in a police action for someone else's benefit?

I'm still disgusted that the US tolerated afghan allies who indulged in bacha bazi. Now people on my facebook feed and in the news who spent the last six years hyperventilating about neonazis and demanding restrictions on speech to stop them are telling me that supporting ethnonationalist militias is the price of democracy in Europe.

The EU is rich. This is their neighborhood. I've heard plenty of lectures from EU nationals that the US needs to stop enforcing its will on the rest of the world. If they want US arms in Ukraine, buy them from us.

I don't want American boots on the ground, and I'm leery of providing military aid with tax money that could be better used serving the people who paid it for a war that likely won't end in a win.

This became very common after Sandy Hook, afaict.

I'm really hoping someone here jumps up and takes credit for it as a prank.

This is my thinking as well. Unity needs to show that it possesses the prestige features that attract novice developers who aren't yet thinking about things like ease of use and production workflow.

Same story. Got four different browsers I work with.

Waiting for them to do container tabs

Seconded. Idk that the maintainers are trustworthy, but at the very least you get a couple days notice to prep for any of Mozilla's shenanigans.

Punctuates my point:

https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/3/22960223/reddit-ukraine-ru...

https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/3/22959636/spotify-removes-r...

Probably in the EU, but that stuff gets squirreled in through private institutions here. Information clearing-houses like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. will take it upon themselves after encouragement from the media and the government.

That's alright, we're all taken for a ride every now and again.

GP is drawing a comparison between the mindsets of two groups, not trying to litigate the morality or efficacy of different policy prescriptions.

The Ben Shapiro-style pedantic logic funnel thing is a bit of a non-sequitur in this context.

Best to toss the showmanship and make your point.

They'vevbeen running ads demanding regulation on cable and streaming services for a hot minute, I don't think they want to hide or distract from it.

Color me shocked that people who choose to create and maintain (sometimes sexual) relationships with computer models designed to emulate humans might have behavioral problems in any context whatsoever...

> Whether or not management has approved of or nudged this change it's clear from the rhetoric of journalists discussing journalism that over the last decade or two they have gone from thinking of themselves has having a duty to simply inform the public to having a duty to engage in discretionary inclusion/omission lest the public draw the wrong conclusion.

A few years back, I had a coworker who was working his way though a journalism major express this attitude explicitly and uncritically as authoritative information passed to him in a class.

It was an eye opening moment for me, and had significant impacts for how I consumed media, and regarded higher education.

Choosing the level of safety we enforce in society is inherently political.

I never claimed they were purely rational actors. I beleieve it's an affront to their dignity to treat them otherwise, however.

Concealing dangerous information from them turns them into intellectual eunichs, and strip much of the vitality from the human experience.

Caught a bad flu in late 2018. Lingered for two months. Cough so bad, I dislocated a rib. Had X-rays taken, and everything. Took about a year for the the rib to stop slipping whenever I exerted myself. In the end, it was a period of discomfort that set me back a spell, but which I ultimately got over. Probably wouldn't try to shut down society over it, or use it as proof that people should fear the flu. Just that sometimes you get sicker than usual.

This article is dehumanizing to volumetricly challenged persons experiencing youth.

The key difference between suppressing information, and spreading misinformation is that someone exposed to misinformation can consciously choose to reject it, or find alternatives. If as a consequence of their conclusions they decide to cause harm, then you can always imprison or shoot them.

At its most extreme, suppressing information gives your subject no such freedom. You put them in an intellectual cage. You deny them the ability to choose their convictions.

He pushed facebook to optimize for engagement, and used the tools facebook developed like every other propagandist.

Honestly, that's fine. The Obama campaign was lauded for similar social advertising, and had a direct relationship with facebook. That's how political campaigning works.

The converse is billionaires advocating for information control, and pushing to see that only those they endorse have a platform. So fat as I'm aware, Thiel hasn't done that. My position on him would change significantly if he had.

I like him over other billionaires. He doesn't hide what he is, he doesn't seem to be interested in controlling "the little people" for their benefit, and he doesn't seem interested in hiding his reasoning behind a mask of philanthropy.

This is what I've gathered, though I may be wrong:

The implementation of foreign policy wasn't readily be farmed out to bureaucrats (by extension, neither could responsibility for its failures). Politicians were forced to be more cognizant of it.

There was generally a consensus that the country should exist, that it should be looking out primarily for its own interests, and that it should avoid foreign entanglements. This made foreign policy decisions much simpler. No such popular consensus exists today.

I would argue that neither the Boogaloo movement nor the NRX movement (despite its name) can be considered purely reactionary.

The Boogaloo movement is/was composed primarily of hardline libertarians, and right-anarchists

The NRX movement makes reference to medieval texts and ancient political thought that has they are separated from by generations.

To the extent that either group has cohesive visions for the future, their visions are alien to anything we've seen in the past hundred years. They envision fundamental social, governmental, and economic transformations. Retrograde, but in part only just now enabled by new technologies.

They full-throatedly embrace change, but want a different kind of change.

They don't fit cleanly into either box.

But you don't need to be revolutionary to be counter culture. MAGA was counter culture in 2016. The Amish are counter culture, they're just not cool counter culture, or even necessarily desireable counter culture. They merely existed in opposition to cultural trends that dominant and prestige media outlets were embracing, and inspired their vocal opposition.