macilacilove

> Zuckerberg is sitting in his office deciding which country to bring genocide to when it's absurd to think he has made a decision to that effect

I don't find it absurd at all that one of the most powerful people on earth would make such decisions.

The point is not to give one person such power, not for us to decide if he is just an awkward mostly harmless geek (as portrayed in a movie) or not.

I agree that it is probably a lie. Zuckerberg has shown that he prefers Biden/Trudeau for understandable reasons (from his perspective).

However the important point is that the ranking algorithm is a very powerful and very opaque tool affecting 1B+ people and controlled by effectively 1 person who has unchallengable lifetime reign over it due to priority shares.

We need to find a way to democratise Big Tech without straight handing it over to politicians.

Breaking monopolies and mandatory interoperability is one possible step, but we may need to go beyound that.

Faces are extremely densely packed with information about the subjects genetic makeup, wellbeing, average and current emotions.

Humans are very well adapted to process such visual information and can produce statistically significant(although nowhere near perfact) predictions of some 'hidden' qualities including trustworthiness in a real sample of humans.

People in 2022 are perfectly rational to think this. Even if this wasn't possible and criminals could perfectly signal trustworthiness (sometimes they don't even bother or intentionally try to look scary), the face-> trust instinct would still be a real world phenomenon worth studying.

Calling into question the decision to publish something(or the reputation of the publisher) based on simplified and incorrect expectations about how the world should be needs to stop if we want too keep calling ourselves an enlightened society.

Moscow never said it is planning to invade. They are holding military drills near the border from time to time since at least 2014. All this fearmongering is coming from US leadership, who incidentally are the only ones who would benefit from such conflict. It is very difficult to see them as herous in this situation.

Russia claimed it was a military drill. Also Russian military active personnel is 1,014,000, so most of it was not at the border. Also, no one really gave a convincing reason why Russia would benefit from invading Ukraine now.

Does US leadership have an infinite reserve of credibility so that no matter how many times they are wrong or don't have a convincing case in the first place, they are to be trusted?

Then don't use it. Simple. :)

NATO did not do anything substantial nor does it have any obligation to do something. There was one (always the same) NATO country claiming that the ivasion is definitely going to happen and they were wrong.

Does fb messenger have a profanity filter?

*Uninstall

Sure. Are they massing Saddam Husseins' WMDs too? At this point, why bother?

People spontaneously cooperate all the time based on their selfinterests. I don't intend to argue for the commenters position, but this blanket argument against everything that even remotely resembles a 'conspiracy' is not correct.

Any public discussion forum that is susceptible to such attack is already drowned in spam.

If there is any suspicion that the prominent child's death was not an accident, it can very quickly become a free speech issue.

It is more like they are blackmailed that they will lose access to their friends if they leave. We don't use fb because it is a good product. We use it because it was 'hot' and now we are stuck with a company that agressively (ab)uses its network effect to gain profit and other benefits for itself.

Most people I know use fb because something called the collective action problem. Each individual would lose by leaving, but if everyone left at the same time, we'd have a more human centric platform. This is the case when laws should be written that state the what we expect from a copmpany operating here.

Zuck has priority shares that have like 10x voting rights. Even if he only has a small percent of the shares he will be in control.

The more effective treatment will shrink the market, therefore market forces incentivize competitors to cooperate. It is the same reason that the OPEC exists. It is called game theory, not conspiracy theory.

> As I understand it, the reason an HIV vaccine has been so difficult to create is that HIV mutates so easily.

Nope. There are exactly two species of HIV since at least the '80s. HIV-1 and HIV-2. HIV however can trick the immune system into creating non-neutralizing antibodies, that can't fully prevent the progression of the infection.

If you run a large pharma company you probably already make a lot of money from long-term HIV/AIDS treatment. From the CEO's perspective developing a HIV vaccine may shrink the antiretroviral market if at-risk groups vaccinate themselves. Therefore you prioritize more lucrative projects.

HIV vaccine makes sense if: 1. You can hope for a general mandate of your product, or: 2. You are a small pharma company looking to make a name for yourselves.

Regarding the benefit of mRNA vaccines over non-mRNA vaccines for HIV, I don't know. I have yet to learn if there is significant medical benefit to mRNA other than reduced cost and TTM.

AFAIK mRNA does not enable producing new types of proteins, only this time they are produced by your body, right?

I am dpark from 2032. I have absolutely no human rights, and I never need to think about what to buy/watch/read, because Google consolidated all markets. I don't vote anymore because every aspect of life is controlled by G anyway. I have access to a shiny new tech that you don't yet have a name for! Google is still a net positive "historically".

everything you think you know about "history" is misinformation. In 2032 Google AI-generates colorful VR videos of the Real Past and boy, I am telling you, we are much better off now!

Keep Googling, dpark, 2032

I think it is important to praise diversity at every opportunity on your site for SEO reasons. I may be wrong. They call it "Machine learning fairness"

It is not a strawman if it speculates motivations, because people are rarely honest about their motivations, even to themselves.

Most people in North Korea believe the party is actually really popular.

Many countries treated Covid as a kind of war.

If by any chance it turns out that someone restricted treatment that they knew would have probably saved 10s or 100s of thousands of lives, will we treat them as a kind of war criminals, or will we make up excuses and use heavy censoring to save the narrative?

There are some whistleblowers indeed, but for the most part many dominant tech companies semiopenly proclaim these groups to be "dangers to society" and many admit to use "throttling", shadow-banning, and "machine learning fairness" to reduce the exposure to these thought crimes.

The only reason there are limited numbers of whistleblowers is that Tech companies actively brainwash their employees to think that the marginalized opinions are just some "small dangerous fringe nazi thing", similarly to how the commenters I replied to seem to think.

On the contrary I think the reduced progress on preventing global warming is not primarily because of sceptics, but due to the fact that believer leaders often have very specific solution(s) in mind, instead of being open to any solution that works.

Many green politicians seem more interested in Europes energy independence than climate change for example. And at times those two goals don't work together.

Other times conflicts of interests favor subsidizing less than optimal solutions.

These issues also undermine public trust in climate change efforts.

I think it is time that we demand green leaders to take an impartial approach to climate change solutions and not let them get away with just blaming "deniers".

> the immune system can get "stuck" with whatever initial antibodies it comes up with and doesn't adapt well

Original antigenic sin. However I don't think it predicts that the alpha-based boosters we have will be any more effective, and I don't think that we are observing particularly impressive effectiveness either.

985 lines in rut plus the haders, if anyone woners.

Anti-wokeness is very popular. Not trusting the presidential elections is very popular. Not trusting big pharma is very popular.

All of these are algorithmically suppressed.

If the definition of popular is what you see on twitter, etc, then nothing popular is being censored by definition.

No one wants their unpopular ideas to be "promoted" she gives anecdotal accounts of popular creators being gradually shadowbanned.

It is the very point that propagation of speach is not dependent on popularity but increasingly on alignment with powerful interests and it does a lot of damage. How could you miss that?

Do you think that buying these shirts break these conditions somehow?

Just because something is 'illegal' does not mean both sides of the transaction had the legal responsibility to not trade.