Words are sufficient only in a system that prioritizes broad wellbeing (as opposed to prioritizing the billionaires), when such a system works well, is healthy, is valued by most, etc.

We don’t have it. We have a “every man for himself” and “got mine, fuck you” system.

I hate to say it, if anyone wants something in our system now, they have to take it by fiat and force. The fascists get it. They use the methods that work, it’s just that their desired end state is intolerable shit for most. If their end state had freedom and human rights for everyone, most would forgive the methods.

That’s what happens when the billionaires donate to all the political parties.

Right wing influencers and pundits are calling for war and killings as we speak.

We’ll see how they will be investigated.

Truth and “Truth social” are different things.

Truth is good.

Truth social is an orwellian social network that is at war with the truth.

Elon sieg heilling twice and then signal boosting facists and illegally cutting democratically approved and institutionally valid spending, that hasn’t radicalized anyone.

Totally normal behavior.

It’s gotta be the video games and the dark web. What’s dark web? It is any web space I don’t know about. Duh.

I am not a fan of a few billionaires locking up every freedom we used to have so they can keep trucking toward the world’s first trillionaire.

I think the concept of moderation by an individual needs more scrutiny. Why not build a software algorithm to allow for subscribers to vote on moderation actions?

In other words, instead of vertical top heavy moderation, privide a more level, more horizontal process, where our peers play a significant role, or even act as co-moderators.

We are recreating in software all the top down vertical hierarchies we tend to be sceptical of in the real world. Why?

Imagine if there were no jury trial? How much worse would things be?

So why do we build an online world with a lower standard than we use to build the physical world. That’s just sloppy.

You need to own a few copies of face recog software, and practice with face restructuring latex makeup which gives you a new realistic face with a new bone structure.

Change walking gate. Get shoes with small platforms to change height, learn to walk naturally on those.

Change mannerisms.

It’s doable, but a major pain to pull it off.

Like imagine quickly applying the latex makeup, walking in front of your own identical face recognition camera at home, take everything off, rest, repeat, 10 times a day, 300 days a year, for 10 years. Until it is second nature. Now you can rely on this to do serious work.

You have to create a new person, basically. Assuming you practiced well and tested everything against real software, you can now be a different person for some hours in a reliable way. Once your secondary identity is exposed you’ll need a new tertiary identity. Never do anythiny fishy as your base identity.

The real solution is political, like everyone else has said. Because you won’t be able to fool the system casually without a massive effort and practice, practice, practice on your own property first, before you rely on this for real work in the wild.

More like Google/Alphabet is doing what it can to close up the net, and hopes that openness on the net goes into decline.

They already squeezed the open net for all its worth.

Can’t prove anything, but I have always had trust issues with Youtube’s numbers. Youtube is a for profit company with horrible owners at the top, and would they distort the numbers for political or financial reasons? I think they would.

I think Youtube and Reddit inflate and deflate vote counts and view counts when something is important to the owners.

Granted that is what I think. Can’t prove it. But Google, Alphabet, Youtube, and the new entrants like Grumble, they are black box for profit companies. Can they pass an independent audit for their view and subscriber counts? We should not trust anything from these bad actors. Certainly don’t assume good faith. Audit them by five (more than one) independent and transparent auditing companies to prove their numbers are legit. Every six months. Every year. Forever. Until then I take all those view and subscriber numbers with a fistful of salt.

Linus from LTT was ostensibly really popular. I never watched it. Lets say their old numbers were legit. Is it possible some nephew of Youtube’s CEO is starting a competing channel and Youtube fudges the numbers to help push the nepo channel ahead? To me, yes, it is possible. I have very little trust for those black boxes. “Trust me bro” is all they got so far, and I have little reason to trust these entities.

So basically Google/Alphabet/Youtube reports a new number to Linus. Are the old and the new numbers legit? Can we ascertain it beyond the Youtube’s “trust me bro” nonsense? We need to start there, and don’t jump to conclusions about the viewership habits.

I don’t want to eat paint chips. Dating AI is even less appealing.

I wish my eyesight was so good that I could see obvious flaws in a 4k image.

Legal, yes.

Literal, no.

Corporations are people too, friend.

/s

Jesus, how the heck is this called “sideloading is so easy on an iPhone”?

That’s a nightmare procedure, and completely unnecessary.

Obviously Apple makes sideloading as hard as possible.

You probably didn’t do it on purpose, but you made a comparison on Apple’s terms, thus implicitly priveleging Apple.

Last thing Apple needs is us priveleging it.

Openness isn’t just a nice to have. It is essential.

The difference between general purpose computing and gatekept walled garden computing is night and day.

Identifying the devs is not in the “need to know” for Google. Google sells or helps to sell a general purpose open device where it is on us to exploit that device however we will.

Now Google wants to switch to a walled garden, moderated development model.

If Google promises it won’t use those dev IDs to moderate development, their promise is only worth the wind it moves and the sound it makes.

Not a solution to our problem, but this is a crumb in our favor.

Bias is inevitable.

It makes no sense to work to eliminate it.

It’s like trying to breed a new species of humans that are void of preferences. An impossible task. If such a breeding process somehow succeded, the resulting product would not be a human anyway.

If anyone claims to be unbiased themselves, or claims freedom from bias for someone else, even just implying that someone somewhere is unbiased, I immediately know bullshit is afoot. Such claims are not always knowingly malicious, but are always detrimental to my interests should I start foolishly believing them.

If the problem we want to solve is how to consolidate wealth and power in a few private hands the fastest, the unregulated free markets is the solution.

The owners of the AI are centering their personal interests first.

Who here thinks businesses and CEOs exist to serve the public interests? I have a bridge to sell you.

If we want businesses and CEOs to serve the public inerests ahead of their personal interests we have to FORCE them to.

This problem is so bad it even has a name as a “principle agent problem”. The CEOs and other execs routinely steal from even their “own” publicly traded companies, but it is hardly ever litigated as it is hard to prove without violating the privacy of the CEOs. The most obvious method is via kickbacks. They get under the table payments from the contractor companies when deciding which contractor should get the contract.

The business world is rife with scum and villainy. If we ever want some guardrails around business practices we must grab the CEOs by their genitals. Because taking their word for anything is worth the sound that the word makes.

CEOs need to see jail time, and capital punishment in states that allow it.

Instead we lionize these psychopaths and call them “business leaders”. We brought all this on ourselves by uncritically believing the businesses’ own way of describing themselves.