Endward23 @ Endward23 @futurology.today

Posts

5

Comments

134

Joined

2 yr. ago

But fighting corruption is not a goal I'm ready to pay any prize for.

I’m conflicted: on one hand, fuck telegram

Why this?

So much for free markets, democracy and freedom of speech.

I don't know whether Spain cares a lot about "free market" at the moment.

Even if I get your point and would even make a similiar point in a privat conversation, there is still a problem. The problem, if and how the Freedom of Speech implies that you can use a certain service you choice. If this implication were true, would it not mean that the provider of the named service has a duty to provide you a access, too?

Yes, they blocked it because of copyright infringement but let’s face it, piracy should be viewed as a market option for people to get their content,

There are messenger out there, which are more privacy as Telegram. Eg. Signal, Threemea, mostly services based on XMPP and Matrix.

Do you think the human brain operate on a similiar base?

“Strong” Sapir-Whorf might be bullshit, but the weak version is worth checking.

Really persuasiv sounding. ;-)

My hypothesis is that the sort of people who’d engage on persuasive bullshit cares less about truth value of the statements, and that’s what giving them a hard time asserting the truth value of what others say.

Hontestly speaking. This viewpoint isn't completely false. In some contextes, other aspects are more important than just straight up true value. For instances, some people seems to be used to judge a view not on the merit of it's reasons, but because of the socially consequences which would arise if the view would hold by a lage mayority. Even if we agree that such points should be irrelevant for a rational discussion, we already know that not all discussions are rational.

I really hope this impressiv and "scientific sounding" headline is more than just another example of the named effect. ;-)

In a series of studies conducted with over 800 participants from the US and Canada, the researchers examined the relations between participants’ self-reported engagement in both types of BSing and their ratings of how profound, truthful, or accurate they found pseudo-profound and pseudo-scientific statements and fake news headlines.

Selfreporting. And this 800 participants, where are they from? Students?

Is this a realistic goal?

Is this something good or evil?

Reads a bit like a mix of popsci article and an add.

Quite interesting, anyway.

I mean, the internet can be used by nearly anyone. The classical tv, on the other hand, is limited to a very tiny group of prominent persons and a great audience of passiv listener.

In my opinion, this makes a hugh difference.

I understand your point. Yes, its nothing new. We have seen limitetion of the freedom of expression in different times and ages.

If you believe my statement to be implausible without video evidence

Sorry, I missed it. I thought you speak about some correspondence between a company and authorities.

Nebenbei, dass die Regierung diese Anschauung vertritt glaube ich dir gern. Darüber müsste man eigentlich einen längeren Text schreiben, aber den liest am Ende eh niemand.

i’d like to invite you to meet our former minister of defence in the current government, Lambrecht, who resigned after referring to the war in Ukraine as an opportunity to have met many nice people in a social media video.

I remember that part a bit different. The speech or address was poorly orated but, as far as I remember, his was a usual rhetorical technice to bring something positive after a negative part. The speech as a whole was a kind of summary of the year.

Same with freedom.

What about freedom?

Thats was my point.

To make some criticism: The first point seems to be true. But the reasoning doesn't work. TV or radio doesn't have the potential to do this. The second is merely a open question. The fourth point has not yet occurred. You compare a predicition with another! The fifth point is vaguely reminiscent of political correctness, but the web is precisely the place where the opposite also takes place.

I remember, there are a lot of studies about the (supposed) psychological traits of persons who believe in "conspiricy theories". Getting to the big parts, I still have some criticism of the study

1. You use a sample of students. No matter how lage the number are, do you really believe students are representative of the entire population of "conspiricy believers"?
2. How could you messure intellectuall humility?
3. The correlation between agreeableness and belief in conspiracy theories is easily explained by the fact that you will most likely get a lot of strange looks if you confess your conspiratorial beliefs in an academic environment. I doubt that this result would be transferable to other environments such as "normal" workspaces, nights out in pubs, and the like.

After all we are not like Russia, China or Saudi Arabia, so those people have nothing to fear…

Oh sure. Your anecode is a very impressive symbol for the state of some discussions here. Maybe, even a bit too good to be strict true.

Could I ask, where and how do you communicate with the German gouverment?

I'm a bit pessimistic about that point. It seems that the main reason why the Internet was less regulated than, lets say, the TV market was the lack of awareness of the old authorities and policymakers. At the latest with the victory of Donald Trump, things have changed. Now the ruling class is beginning to believe in the world-changing power of the flow of (mis)information on the Internet.

Its important to note that it doesn't matter how you think about this changes in terms of ethics or politics. The mayor event was the change of mind in regards to the internet as such. Before, the internet was seen as something new, yet not understond and/or a place were young people does childish pranks. The innocence is over, at least in their eyes.Unimportant is the question whether you believe the the world-changing power of the internet yourself. Maybe, the idea is even false and the internet isn't that important. But you have the regulation of it on the political agenda. It takes years to come to a better knowleade. Sometimes, even ages.

I wonder how long this ruling will hold if the EU commision comes around with their own chat control. Before somebody write it: I know that the EU and the Human Rights Court are different institution and doesn't have much to do with each another.

The Russian state has already left the European agreement, which was the frame in which the court works.

At least, it should be interesting to check the judgment out. Some aspects are really interesting. As it seems, the european court may development a ruling like Bernstein v. United States. That could be interesting since the european continent lackes such a regulation as far as I know.

I think, it's an mixture:

• Clickbait
• Some ethicans want to do an important role
• Hollywood movies and so on have teached us so. What could be a better source of informations to build owns worldview on it?
• Some writers hope to creat a social enviroment in which the discussion to ban the new technology starts in order to keep the jobs in their industry.
• Some political figures want to outlaw AI and found peoples and groups which are against it.

Maybe, the last point is not true at all. And the named writers, of cource, arn't full aware of their agency. Its, as often, more on a emotional ground.