Split (1)

train · 5.86k rows

text stringlengths 0 9.69k

Talking about poor people whose jobs are being extracted because corporations just want to pay the least amount of money for their labor is progressive. And it impacts the Middle Eastern, like, random person who lost their job, who voted for Trump because of this. All of those go to show that most people are impacted by this without really realizing, and the fact is that they're so alienated currently because they never interact with this content that they are never able to assess it critically.

The only way you're able to solve this is that when you gradually, suppose, give them content that is one related to them in a way that impacts their life sufficiently. As we saw it already, proves something that is connected to you, something that you already have a fear of happening is something that is likely to overall convince you, and it's overall likely to shift your behavior, at least in small ways that are better than nothing.

I will engage with a few things personally on the principle and the hypocritical analysis that they give. Secondly, on just plain engagement and weighing out the impacts, so I will brief you up. Oh, it says it's morally unjustified for us to brainwash people. I want to ask a very simple question: Why the hell do we allow Murdoch to own every single newspaper in America and to brainwash half of the population in America with the right-wing propaganda, and this is seen as justified?

Why is it okay for certain politicians to push their agenda into own social media corporations and to push their party lines, but it's not okay for us to try to protect people's rights? Why is it okay for news channels to be directly responsible and to be directly dependent on politicians and who they are appointed to, but it's not okay for social media to do this? I really don't think they prove this instead.

Okay for us to try to protect people's sources, but you have certain beliefs such as you're right-wing. So, it's unjustified for us to try to, of course, you otherwise, one, you never consented to being right-wing. Your parents coerced you; your community coerced you; your environment caused you. But you never consented to be in this environment in the first place, even if you did in some way.

Secondly, you the people who are harmed on an everyday basis don't consent to take—they have to be evicted from their homes, don't consent to have no job, don't consent to not have the right to have a child or to be actively pushed to have this child. Therefore, the one here is maybe both groups are not consenting into something. What we ought to prioritize is to more, right, you maybe not do not consent to having certain information in your head, but you certainly are more harmful when you are not able to feed your family, when you're not able to see your family because you work 24 hours every single week.

Therefore, I don't think this is a weighing of, oh, they never consent, but rather I don't care that they don't consent because the moral harm is quite small. Certainly, though, I want to talk about backlash. The basic argument you run in this debate, generally, as they just point in, they never prove a tipping point. Even if you prove a tipping point, our gauge is the best one; this is very short-term mystic to the point which all themselves characterize the average person who cares about a lot of other things.

I'm not sure why this person will collect devices, you know, community kind of manner, and actively fight against this injustice, right? Try to make this right, vote for other people, and generally be able to make such a big difference. But sometimes, I just generally don't think people react in this way because not them reacting in a bad way is specifically if they don't relate to the content we give them.

This is dependent on them proving that the content you see will make you angry, that it will make you realize that you're right now in a liberal kind of propaganda world that you're being brainwashed. But most people won't realize this because people brainlessly watch social media in trying to escape from their everyday struggles. Meaning, when you just watch a certain video of a black woman sharing her experience about being discriminated against in the workplace, why would you think this is Western propaganda?

When you see an individual, not a politician, not some fancy party line, but a rather normal person like you with problems that you just don't understand because you haven't experienced. Comparatively, this is better for us to push than some arbitrary party lines or supporting progressive parties that are also morally crap. It's better for us to push stories of people to get more recognition and awareness for problems that impact all people over the long term, such as climate change, such as having no raw materials to live with.

Secondly, though, on why our impacts are more important, let's say some people get radicalized. Why is this less important? I have three pieces of wing. One, some people are able to change their opinions in a way that helps others. Why is this the case? Wonder most—if you think about it intuitively, you changed or realized something was a problem when another person told you. Actually, I realized that changing the euro in Zagreb is bad because the prices went up.

You know that Bulgaria is crap because you talk to us, meaning the change happens on an individual level. Meaning I hear your story, you hear my story, and you're able to feel empathy towards me. The only way you're able to then achieve this change is when, on social media, you're able to see the relatable stories of other people and actively engage within them because it's not politicized; it's just people talking normally and expressing their problems.

Why isn't then able to change in some way your voter preferences? One, even if you say that you will not vote for the president to believe you, you have other alternatives such as voting in referendums, for example, to gain age to not be delegalized, right? Because this doesn't impact you in any way, even if there is a trade-off for you voting for a president that would economically maybe harm you. But secondly, you can vote in local elections in a different way because it's not a single-vote issue type of election but rather a multitude of kind of people who are elected during that time. Secondly, and before I continue closing,

<poi>
yeah, so people that you are talking about are people who are on the center or close to the center, which means that they are already symmetrically likely to be able to convince just by getting multi to the difference.
</poi>

That's not true; it was the competitive. Sorry, no, the competitive is that you have right-wing propaganda dominating, and I already explained this because it is the status quo. They own the TV; they own the newspapers; they own most of the media communication within the population.

Competitive list people are easily susceptible. Right-wing people have the ability and the propaganda machines to do it, so we are able to counterbalance this on our side. Now, secondly, even if you don't vote, one, you're better able to push your politicians for changes, right? You can pick certain issues not to definitely right or left-wing kind of ways, meaning if you want, if you care about climate change, it doesn't have to be a left-wing policy. You can create businesses that are green, or you can subsidize national agencies.

There are different ways you can approach this, but the fact that you just know that this issue is happening is important enough to fix it to your paradigm of your opinions of left and right. Secondly, you change your behavior on the ground. You think twice before you're bigger to other people; you think twice before you are able to discriminate against others when it doesn't fucking impact you. This, even if it sounds small, escalates over time, but lastly, people who are minorities feel safer on those platforms, even if some leave that they have the privilege to be there in the first place minorities didn't.
</dpm>

<dlo>
Well, I just think if progressivism were as appealing for every individual as OG tries to portray it, everyone in this world would be progressive. But as a matter of fact, they’re not. People have incredibly different values, and they value a lot of different things in life. Many people, a majority of people on Earth right now, would, for instance, say that a perceived sense of liberty and freedom is more important to them than, for instance, getting a lot more taxable income and having, like, health in public hospitals.

It's true that for us debate left-wingers, those seem like trivially true things, but that's not the case for a majority of the world. So when DPM comes and says you never consented to being right-wing, so this is a justification for a total breach of the contract that companies did between you and them, I just don't think that's true. Like, not having consented to becoming right-wing or having consented—I don't care—you are right-wing. That’s not a justification for breaching your consent even further or reaching this idea of consent or not.

Not even breaching consent, but breaching a contract that you have made on a one-on-one level with the company. It's just like you don't get from X and Y just because, like, you know, the world isn't like entirely like there’s no free will and stuff like that. It doesn't mean that you get to push it further and go against this contract that you've had with, like, the companies.

But secondly, the second way I'm going to defend Aidan's principle is just that they don't respond to it. Like, the question was never one of brainwashing. The principle that Aiden presented wasn't brainwashing is bad or propaganda is bad necessarily. The principle was theft is bad. And what happens with this motion isn't the fact that people, you know, get manipulated on masse—although that's a problem—but the previous problem is the fact that you consented to something with a company, you think that's what you're getting, and secretly or not secretly those things are being stolen from you.

That's the principle. There's no engagement with that principle in the way that Aidan has portrayed. No, thank you, I'm not taking POI from opening.

Why is this then on backlash? Why is this relevant? And why is this a particular change? Because probably closing is going to run something of this sort as well. Like, there are already a lot of narratives that tell people that, oh, like, the left-wing elites are controlling everything. What is the particular type of extra difference that's added?

Number one, I think in this case you actually see an actual change because notice that the status quo is a status quo in which you have full control or, like, kind of control over your news feed, right? You'd like something more of it appears, right? You have a lot of, like, visual feedback and a lot of, like, visual evidence of what you want, and you feel like you have control over it. I kind of do because that's how, like, you know, the algorithms work.

Now, not only do you kind of probably know that this has happened, but now you see your feed starting to transform, and the more right-wing on the spectrum you are, the more, like, enraged you are likely to get at this, right? You don't get that sort of, like, physical evidence and visual evidence for yourself individually on their side of the house.

But secondly, ask yourself, what does a tech company have to do in order to be successful at, like, doing all of this progressive propaganda? It has to get increasingly better at manipulating the data of each and every individual and garnering as much information about them for this propaganda to be successful. The more OG goes, "Oh, this is going to be so good because we're turning everyone into commies," the more they say that this company is going to dig even deeper into the preferences of each user.

It's going to get even better at cramming each data of every individual, and it's going to get even better at, like, literally harvesting all there is to know about you, right? This is important, right? Firstly, because it reinforces all of the principles that Aidan talked about, but also secondly because it means that every act of propaganda they do is going to be even more noticeable for you. They're going to get even better at targeting you with this information, so it's going to be, no thank you, even more obvious for you that, like, this is happening.

This is again a type of change that you don't have in the status quo. Thirdly, I think people in the status quo, the rational person—not like the Ben Shapiro fan—is like usually guided by this idea of, like, innocent until proven guilty. Like, that's why conspiracy theories don't usually become mainstream in a lot of issues in a lot of instances, right? Because until you see the actual fact, until you see all of these things that I talked about, and you have the visual evidence for what's happening, you're unlikely to say, "Oh yeah, we're all being ruled by the left-wing elite," or even if you say it, you don't actually believe it, right?

You know, it's probably kind of just a rhetorical talking point that your favorite talk show hosts do like to talk about, but internally, you're not yet scared about it. You know, it's like, you know, some punchline that they use in order to get a lot of clout for their videos, but you don't deeply believe in it. The moment this becomes a real thing, it's no longer deniable. It's no longer something that could potentially be conspiratorial; it is something true that you see as a fact.

Why is this important? Two reasons. No, thank you. Number one, because these are the very people who might have tilted on the other side, on our side of the house, right? Like, recognize that, like, Republicans, like, dead ass, like right-wingers—no thank you—are not going to be the type of people who are going to be able to change through repetition. Like, as many times as they're going to show them, like, "Oh, minorities aren't actually evil," they're still not going to believe in you.

But the very people that are on the center—no thank you—the very people that are on the center are the exact people that right now, instead of maybe opening the article because they feel like it’s something that has randomly appeared in their feed, are not even going to engage in it because they are going to see the engagement of clicking on that article as an active, like, forfeiture of their own individuality and personality.

Notice how propaganda works and how people generally think about the way propaganda works, right? Like, if you think about it, we tend—the reason we tend to hate propaganda is because we see it as an attack towards our own rationality, our own intellect, our own individuality, right? Oh, you think I'm so stupid that I worth being manipulated, right? This is why people hate it.

And this proves to you that the very people who you might be willing to tell on our side of the house—no thank you—the fear of people who might potentially change because they're not as politicized, they don't think everything left-wing is bad, and are opposed to them, are exactly the type of people that you lose on their side of the house.

Before going any further, closing. If there's any POIs opening,

<poi>
we know that Facebook and Instagram met out intellectuals and steal our data every single day, yet we use them every single day for eight hours because we’re more addicted to our market brain than backwards to shorter mistakes.
</poi>

Yes, I have two responses here.
First of all, it's clearly not to the same extent. Like, it's one thing to have some bots that, like, put some information out there, but you still have kind of a lot of control over your feed. And it's another thing to have, like, the literal person who created the literal feed that you're on, like, distribute this like like propaganda.

But the second response here is that the comparative is not just, like, right-wing TV. Like, in the status quo, you can still have, like, in what we're still supporting, is like maybe a lot of left-wing people, like, deliberately building, like, really big left-wing pages, right? Where they have a really, really big left-wing page where they talk about their left-wing things, right? We’re fine with users disseminating a lot of left-wing values.

We're fine with users talking a lot about progressivism. What we're not fine with is sort of, like, counteracting those, like, big fighting forces equally. We're probably fine with, like, stopping that type of, like, you know, like the spam that comes from motion input bots on the internet. All of those are better solutions than getting the main person that, like, literally controls the whole social media to deal with that.

So essentially, and like, to sum this up, because, like, yeah, just to sum this up, this fundamentally is like a principle that, like, steals people. If they're right, it breaches the contract that people create between them and the companies. It is not

Likely to be effective because the immediate response you're going to get from people is to disengage from it entirely. It is likely to politicize and anger the very people that might have tilted your way. For all of these reasons, I oppose.
</dlo>

<mo>
Awesome, I'll take POI's in chat, please. That would be great.
People are very unlikely to voice caught mainstream social media companies on our side of the house for at least two reasons. The first is that social media, as an industry, demonstrates strong network effects and hence tends towards natural monopoly. You usually go to social media for the friends, connections, and communities you can find there.

The problem then with small social media companies is you lack those network economies of scale because there are not as many friends and people to talk with. You kind of have as many meaningful and deep conversations, which is why there are naturally a small number of social media companies which, under our side of the house, implement this policy. Hence, rendering the prospect of a mass boycott of smaller platforms unlikely.

And even if that boycott occurs, people are likely to naturally gravitate back towards larger companies. The structural reason why is not what opening government says, which is that social media is addictive because presumably small corporations also have addictive algorithms and are able to trap you in that way.

The better reason is because large companies by nature dominate the industry. In many cases, governments explicitly regulate that only a small number of social media companies are deemed viable. In many other countries, particularly in the developing world, social media companies have a stranglehold over user bases because they are the company that provides access to internet services in the first place, like the laying of internet infrastructure in Burma by Facebook and Meta.

But it’s also because naturally larger corporations have better services. They often have better server infrastructure; for example, they're able to maintain a larger user base and provide greater integration of different platforms like WhatsApp and Facebook and so forth.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.