Our lives will be infinitely better if we listen less to the opinions of the publicly-facing, self-appointed "intelligentsia".
I'm referring to intellectual giants like Ian Miles Cheong, who fought with an iPhone calculator because he doesn't understand the order of operations.
Piracy would have allowed AI companies to train their models without destroying rare books, and piracy is how many rare books will survive the AI companies destroying the physical copy to train their models. There is a clear moral to this story for those with the ears to hear it.
The fact that their issue with concepts like gender and sex is that they are analysable in ways that don't cleanly map into simple dictionary definitions is a testament to how little they understand language, epistemology, and science.
I beg you, just read about Wittgenstein
It's utterly fascinating that what often lies at the heart of paleocon/paleolib "intellectuals" outrage is their inability to engage with concepts at more than a single layer of abstraction.
Diabolical. Utterly possessed.
I’m sorry @RichardHanania but your case for the elite has a serious problem: our elite institutions are filled with people like this.
A quality elite requires the median culture to be healthy, not monstrous and deranged.
I don't see how having kids is not part of that self-discovery.
You can have kids at 18 and give them up for adoption at 28.
Plenty of happy people grew up with foster parents. Stop being preoccupied with whether other people are making the "right decisions".
Western society is beyond cooked. Marriage and child rearing in one's early twenties is the default state of humanity. They're treating it like a drug addiction. This "stitch" has 550k likes on TikTok. They're done.
I kinda hate that @RichardHanania has decent to great takes 90% of the time because the 10% are some of the most downright depraved and indefensible takes a human can have.
Basically these companies entered a market with zero regulations and now idiots who are motivated by paternalism and pedophile hysteria are gladly knocking the ladder from under these companies' feet while gleefully believing that they scored a win against the Zuck
3/
While social media bans for under-16s and other regulations hurt companies like Meta in the short-term and serve to give idiots nice tasty headlines, they actually benefit them in the long term.
1/
Such laws artificially raise the barrier of entry for someone trying to compete with Meta or X because in order to be viable platforms, they are being required by law to have capacity to store and process potentially billions of IDs, passports, and driver's licenses
2/
Protect our children! Push a burning rod into their ears, pluck out their eyes and cut out their tongue. Protect them from the perils of this fallen world.
@EmmanuelMacron beyond parody. More appropriate to say european states and the US are joining the """movement""" of authoritarian kleptocrats and """quasi-constitutional""" absolute monarchies with respect to controlling the private life, expression and access to information of their subjects.
This is how you push through universally unpopular legislation. You start with attacks on groups most people don't care about (sex workers), under the guise of something many support (protecting kids). Then you keep increasing the heat until the frog sits in boiling water.
Age verification started with porn and social media. Now, governments are passing laws requiring operating systems to collect your age before you can use your computer at all. https://t.co/gq8NNIzDdg
I like it when idiots think spending their time playing HOI4 and reading military books gives them a political education, but every time they attempt to do political analysis they just expose their piss poor literacy skills.
JJ is basically just right here.
@planefag Trump repeatedly said the goal was regime change, at times even claiming this happened. He also repeatedly said the goal was "unconditional surrender." He also repeatedly said the goal was ensuring Iran would never have a nuclear weapon, which is now treated as an afterthought.
Kane Parsons, director of hit film "backrooms" is 20 years old btw. He first made his youtube channel 11 years ago, at age 9. In line with herr Oberführer Starmer's proposed ban, people like him would be prevented from practicing editing and film-making for nearly a whole decade.
I’m actually a child online safety expert and was one of the pioneers in this space with Club Penguin and so I feel uniquely positioned to critique this.
The groomer problem is real but it’s also vastly overstated. The far larger issue we saw at Penguin was suicidality or reports of sexual abuse in the home.
There is no solution for lazy/bad parenting. You can implement all the ID laws you want but if parents are going to just hand kids their phones unlocked, those kids will have access to all the same things the parents have unfettered.
What I found is that these draconian safety laws actually make it harder to be an honest operator of kids apps because on one hand it’s so much legal risk and so much user friction that it simply becomes uninvestible as a business.
Parents will just lie to let their kids use the unfettered internet. For example, I have a friend who works in mobile gaming who has two kids, one above and one below the age limit but separated by just 2 yrs, and the two wanted to play and chat together on Roblox - which is reasonable. To do this, he just verified that his younger kid is old enough for the chat feature when he’s not.
This happens all the time and will happen with these laws to. How far do we want to go with this? Scan the face of the user in real-time to make sure it’s not a kid using the device? We could do that but it feels like a massive unwanted intrusion of privacy.
That’s how you know this law isn’t about kids. COPPA and GDPR-K and so forth already make it illegal to allow chat and other grooming vectors to kids.
What’s really being done here is trying to eliminate online anonymity. And this is a far bigger issue that goes to core speech rights because if you cannot criticize the govt anonymously and if wrong speech is a crime then it becomes easy to identify all the detractors of the govt in power, and ban, fine or jail them for speech crimes.
Starmer has already been doing this and he wants to do it at a much bigger scale. Starmer won’t even acknowledge the problem of actual grooming gangs in Britain’s neighborhoods but he’s worried about online grooming?
No he’s not, and this hypocrisy gives away the game. What he wants is to kill online anonymity so he can enforce censorship of his unpopular policies. No politician should have this power.
If social media had been banned for me back when I was 16 years old, there would've been many amazing people that I would've never met who were important to my social and intellectual development.
We need to stop treating teenagers like they need constant monitoring.
Every time I see a man on here angry that under 16s won't legally be allowed to access social media, I wonder why it's so important to him that children should be allowed in adult spaces.
@NJSimmondsbooks The answer is simple, of course. I remember being an "under 16", so I sympathise with people in this vulnerable position whose rights, which are also my rights, because we are both identical as practically rational beings, are getting trampled underfoot by paternalists.