schalab

Lets say I have a club I own, but I need to keep the riff raff out.

I cant openly ban poor or low society people from entering which would be considered "evil". But what if I mandated every service from a staff must be tipped with atleast 100$, because we value our workers more here.

This achieves the same purpose and I get to pretend to be egalitarian.

If this law is passed, ride sharing apps will still exist. They will have a smaller roster of higher quality of drivers and be more expensive to use. It will be perfectly fine for most of the people commenting here.

Who it will destroy is the "riff raff", the people at the lowest rungs of the ladder on both ends. Those who cannot contribute work of sufficient quality to be paid for full time work and benefits. And those who cant afford more expensive ride sharing.

Basically a way to ask people of a certain level to leave the state because they cant participate in the economy anymore and appear compassionate at the same time. Insidiously genius.

You have natural talent which becomes exponentially better with training. But a guy who struggles to even find words will be trounced by you 9 times out of 10. Regardless of who is right.

Interestingly those type of people will rarely venture on message boards, because this requires a lot of reading and writing and they would rather spend their time on other pursuits(maybe more visual?). Its interesting to imagine the section of viewpoints that dont even get represented at this level.

The deepest separation of labor is female and male. The female energy is associated with empathy for the child. Male energy is protecting territory.

Some combination of both these energies exist in all of us.

You can say humans have the capacity for love, and also acknowledge there are people out there who gain pleasure from power over others.

You cant say one is natural and the other is learned.

Even the people who gain pleasure in causing pain, are useful in the right situations. Hence the trope in fiction of the jailed entity being released to combat an even greater foe in a dire situation.

The allure of free speech and debate is that the best ideas win.

But what I have often found is that the best debater wins.

And some debaters are so good they can win both sides of a debate.

This wouldnt be that much of a problem if you assume verbal iq is an independent variable uniformly distributed through the population. But I have often found verbal iq is highly co-related with other biological traits and markers. This creates a biased situation where debates often lead to erroneous conclusions and bad results.

I am guessing its because the hackers are not gaming fakespot's detection systems.

If amazon adopted fakespot's algorithm, the hackers would circumvent it within a week. This would also happen if fakespot reaches a critical mass of audience.

I am reminded of a story in Three men in a boat.

A couple go out on a picnic with a young man. The moment they set out, the young man begins predicting rain. The couple begin to hate him for his gloomy disposition. They meet an old man on the road. He scrounges up his face, looks up at the sky, and says there wont be any rain. He has seen many days like this in his long life and it usually clears up. The couple cheer up at once and praise him for his wisdom.

No sooner had they set up their picnic, then it begins raining heavily. On the drive back completely drenched, they look at the young man with anger. Like somehow he was responsible for the rain. They think of the old man fondly, "well atleast he tried".

Thats human psychology.

Just make the whole service distributed. Cut out Uber. Connect me directly to a driver through open source software.

Person A exists who is willing to drive from point a to point b for x price. I am willing to pay x price. An open source software exists to connect us both in real time.

Who will the government regulate in this scenario?

Imagine if the internet was started by one corporation.

Instead, the internet is an open source set of protocols.

The answer lies in converting companies which abuse becoming the standard due to network effect, to an open source set of protocols.

Maybe give them a period of 10-20 years to profit. Then they have to expose a public set of standards and protocols which can be used by everyone else.

For instance microsoft windows after 15 years, would be forced to release a freeware version of code, which contained all functionality they had at that time.

Other companies and users could build on this code and thus microsoft are no longer the standard. Just a version of it.

I have found if you have nothing constructive to do, then twitter sucks you in and is very addictive.

But after a few years or so of constant nonsense, you become adapted to the addiction and just ignore everything on it. Atleast thats what happened to me.

I went from constantly checking twitter to deleting my account and just going to the feed of one or two people once a day to keep informed.

I now laugh at how worked up everyone gets, and all the play acting and rival factions involved. Its almost like an iq test, where you pass if you dont play the game.

The problem is a lot of people are staying indoors right now with nothing to do and are discovering twitter/reddit for the first time.

Imagine a person not only new to social media, but new to the internet as a whole with no bs filters built in. He/she would be such a mark.

The real herd immunity is people understanding over time how emotionally manipulative social media is and learning to ignore it like we do 99% of advertisements.

Explanation 1:

Lauren Sanchez(bezos' new girfiend) along with her brother Michael(who is also her agent), leaked the story to force Bezos to divorce his wife and get along with her.

Explanation 2:

The crown prince of Saudi Arabia personally sent a trojan file, downloaded all the data, distributed it through a gossip rag he happens to be friends with, for some kind of revenge/message

I get why Bezos has to go with explanation 2 because explanation 1 would indicate the girl he wants to have sex with or her brother is manipulative. I dont see why the rest of us have to go along with this. Even this anonymous source says he has "high confidence" not anywhere near certainty.

The problem is, most methods you propose to correct for individuals getting burned, may create more systematic problems, which may result in more individuals getting burned in the long run. These are incredibly complex systems which are not suitable for intelligent design.

The best solution maybe is for individuals and the shared culture to get wiser, and this often happens only when there is enough collateral damage.

Isnt this a self correcting problem? I guess the first time advertisements were introduced, people were incredibly susceptible to misleading advertising. Overtime you learnt that almost everything they claim could be wrong and you tune them out. They become much less potent.

We are just living in a perfect storm, with the internet just taking off mainstream, and people are susceptible to believing online trends translate to reality. If you are in niche communities, hiring an artificial botting firm might provide insane rewards. But over time, as more people see the disconnect they will understand not to trust anything online.

I feel people getting burnt and changing their behavior organically is far better than a benevolent organization stepping in and making arbitrary decisions to protect us. Because these organizations do not tend to be benevolent and even if they are, their decisions often have disastrous second order consequences. While the public never learns or evolves.

Its like the body's immunization system. Just give it time. Sometimes it may take a decade. People should really stop trying to make drastic solutions for things that will likely resolve themselves.

I dont think ownership is the main problem.

The larger problem seems to be global.

The ability to be expressive comes with it certain biological traits and dispositions. These traits may determine your viewpoints on matters.

So, if I hire journalists purely based on their writing ability, I may find most of them have very similar political views. If I create an industry of the best actors/musicians, again I may find them to have similar traits and views.

So, you can have a situation where some view has 50% support in the larger population, but almost no support in the press, academia, entertainment industry etc.

In a society based on free speech and no violence, the views supported by expressive people have an overwhelming advantage. The problem is just because you are very good at communication, doesnt mean your viewpoint is always correct. That is the reason some brilliant professors dont make it in the private sector, while someone who cant string a sentence together becomes a billionaire.

But when people see, supposedly neutral organizations have an overwhelming slant to one side of a viewpoint, the organization loses credibility. They are in a bubble.

When you no longer have institutions of fairness everyone can agree upon, you create the problem of fake news.

>What are you basing this on?

It should be fairly obvious if you look at any issue the left focuses on. Blacks vs Whites. Rich vs Poor. Women vs Men.

The double standards of how they talk about christianity vs islam. Israel vs palestine.

Literally every issue. Divides the world into weak vs strong, blames the strong for the situation of the weak regardless of causal chain.

For more practical evidence, the only march which gained traction was the women's march. They tried it with latinos, science etc.

The biggest issue which has resonated against Trump is the children in cages. Why do you think that is?

I love how people are worried about the far right in these comments but not on the impact of propaganda on themselves.

This recent Kurds vs Turkey is an example of this.

The left usually hates war. Why? If you break down to the lowest level, it looks like the current left is mainly dominated by the maternal instinct. In every issue they divide the world into child vs predator. And they always come down on the side protecting the weak child.

You can see this across a number of social, economic and geo poilitical issues.

In terms of war, they look at it as America's selfish predatory instincts preying upon innocent parties in the middle east leading to countless lives lost of the weak.

So how do you get people who think like this to support war?

Simple. Invent a weak, childlike ally in the middle of the war zone, who are being attacked by a notorious hateful predator, and we would be abandoning them if we dont put our troops in harms way.

So, you rebrand the american troop presence as honorable protection rather than predatory intervention. Thats all it takes to manufacture consent.