throwkeep

> That being said, the effort to prevent vaccine hesitancy has suppressed media reporting on these events, understandably.

This works with toddlers, but not with adults. Suppressing information ultimately leads to less trust, more hesitancy and more conspiracy theories (they were hiding X, what else are they hiding?). It'd be better if they would just be be transparent and upfront from the start.

They're using Strike, which has no fees, nearly instant transfers, can send globally (again for free) and only need a name and phone number. Isn't that better than a bank aside from clawbacks?

https://strike.me/

That's bizarre because we've known for a long time now that Covid doesn't really spread outside. Doubly bizarre if vaccinated.

> Taxation always has been, and continues to be, a burden for the servile class to bear.

How does that square with the fact that the top 50 percent pays 97% of taxes? The top 1% pays 40% of taxes.

I don't understand. How that is a reasonable alternative to income? The degree to which your stock goes up or down is irrelevant for tax purposes, until you sell.

A good start would be:

Remove the algorithmic feed

Remove the Trending bar

Increase character length

Ban witch hunts

> And the consequences for the accuser are nothing.

That's a great point. Accusers are not only incentivized to whip up a mob, but have virtually no downside. No skin in the game if they're wrong. That asymmetry needs to be resolved somehow.

Twitter is a particularly well refined mob machine. No room for nuance, distribution at the speed of light directly into your feed and/or Trending, participants immediately rewarded for generating and spreading outrage.

I get that a lot of this was unintentional, but the dynamic has now been known for a decade and has only gotten worse. Why has Twitter the company and its employees not taken action to deal with this? Instead spending their time creating tools and methods to censor non-mob participants? (e.g. those who were exploring the lab leak hypothesis) Why isn't the mob a top priority?

Yes, the news media is a slower and more centralized outrage machine. The upside of social media is that it's harder to manufacture consent (h/t Noam Chomsky) as it consists of millions of voices. Though that's threatened by the coordinated censorship of big tech, as we saw with the lab leak hypotheses and people being silenced on twitter, facebook and youtube for challenging the approved narrative on that. It finally broke though, but it took over a year! Although without social media, maybe that process would have taken decades?

Yes, they're using the same naming tactic as demonstrated by the Patriot Act and the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea. Old school liberals and progressives recognize that our labels are being usurped by illiberal regressives. Hence why ACLU has an identity crisis. There is a generational divide that's hollowing out liberalism and progressivism in service of political activism.

Thiel isn't at all the cartoon villain he's made out to be. That's just lazy partisan propaganda. Read his book "Zero to One" or watch a few of his interviews for a nuanced perspective.

Did you read the comment? They have healthcare and said there's $500-$1000 leftover each month, which is a healthy amount for retirement investment. More than enough to max out a Roth IRA. That's on top of social security too.

So true, it's really taken for granted. Especially these days with Github and package managers which make it so easy to end up incorporating a dozen or more 3rd party libraries. There's something impersonal about it, and trivializes the amount of sweat that was poured into the code you're npm installing.

Part of it may also be that people don't want to know. Take the ongoing Uyghur genocide right now, but most are ignoring it. Why isn't it an emergency and headline news every day?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide

The corporate media is good at memory holing things, but here's a compilation of them calling it the "Wuhan Coronavirus", "Chinese Coronavirus" and "China's Coronavirus":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eZtCq1aj2g

Bonus complication of when "the flu is worse" was the narrative:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVDPVBZF2Xg

It's misinformation in the same way the lab leak hypothesis was "misinformation".

> The deal announced on Saturday, between the US, the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Italy and Japan, plus the EU

If all these nations can strike this kind of deal, won't they do the same with Bitcoin to render it useless?

That exaggerated oppression claim only reinforces the heuristic. In reality, approximately 99% of the time people use the correct pronouns based on name and appearance. The remaining rare cases consist of honest mistakes (that can be politely corrected) or bullies (who the rest of us already denounce).

> Paul ends up tweeting about it and making a huge deal around something he has no idea about. He gets a bunch of people on Twitter upset about something they don't know about.

I gave him the benefit of doubt, but should have been more skeptical upon seeing pronouns in bio. It's a curiously predictive heuristic. For whatever reason, pronoun people tend to be particularly good at generating internet drama.

The absurdity of this comment is actually useful because it forces you to question how much is too much.

Smart. Honestly, every country should ban Twitter and Facebook. They are a net negative; this century's version of tobacco companies. Arguably worse, as they are a cancer on the entire discourse and well being of society writ large.

Matt Taibbi contextualized the main quote here: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/on-the-hypocrites-at-apple-who...

Sam Harris and his conversation with Antonio covers the whole thing in more depth: https://samharris.org/podcasts/251-corporate-cowardice/

Out of context excerpts from a 500 page book written in the style of Hunter S. Thompson is not compelling evidence to anyone but the mob and those seeking to be offended. People who have actually read the book don't find them to be so problematic, including the reviewers at New York Times, NPR, Washington Post, Techcrunch and others who gave the book a big thumbs up.

Not quite. It's about ideological alignment and purity. The cancel mob just got Antonio García Martínez fired, for example. And they are constantly trying to cancel Glenn Greenwald, a gay man married to a minority POC, and with minority kids.

Has anyone else noticed how often the loudest voices have the most baggage in the very subject they advocate against?

According to the publisher it was an NYT bestseller: https://www.harpercollins.com/products/chaos-monkeys-antonio...

It's worse than that, only the purest of the pure can be employed. Look at Apple's recent mob firing of Antonio García Martínez. Who made the mistake of writing a best selling and critically acclaimed book just 5 years ago. Featured as one of NPR's best books of the year, recommended by NYT, Washington Post, etc. But now it's suddenly a fireable offense.

“An irresistible and indispensable 360-degree guide to the new technology establishment.... A must-read.” New York Times

“Incisive.... The most fun business book I have read this year.... Clearly there will be people who hate this book — which is probably one of the things that makes it such a great read.” New York Times

“Reckless and rollicking... perceptive and funny and brave.... The resulting view of the Valley’s craziness, self-importance and greed isn’t pretty. But it’s one that most of us have never seen before and aren’t likely to forget.” Washington Post

It reminds me of The Incredibles where the boy wasn't allowed to compete because he's so much faster than everyone and has to hide his ability. At the end when he is allowed to compete, he is told to only barely win; to downplay his capabilities.

Are they actually overwriting history though? Or are they just adding another record, and hiding the previous version(s)?

That graph with housing starts is wild. No wonder housing prices are out of reach, we haven't been building for the past decade!