5 ms·

> as if they already operate effective mind control at systemic scale. If the logical conclusion of your reasoning is a mass mind control conspiracy, you shoul

by clucas 3y ago

> as if they already operate effective mind control at systemic scale. If the logical conclusion of your reasoning is a mass mind control conspiracy, you should revisit your assumptions. > somehow they can bully into submission basically the entire universe I don't think anyone is bullying all of society. I think most people just don't care. It's really not that crazy, no mind control involved. Just good old fashioned apathy and ignorance.

sharemywin 3y ago
it's like any kind of other long tail problem. if it doesn't directly effect you or someone you know you generally don't care about it too much as an aggregate.
xphos 3y ago
If they can kick the former president off his platform they can bully joe schmo off there platform. Whether you agree with the former president, he was in theory the most powerful person on the planet and had to submit to the powers of large tech companies. I think the idea that most people don't care is not a supported or found assumption either rather you just asserted it.
- PopAlongKid 3y ago
  >he was in theory the most powerful person on the planet You need to provide a practical definition of "most powerful" before your phrase can be evaluated.
  - xphos 3y ago
    He had the ability to give the order to start thermonuclear war and end humanity... He had the ability to radically tariffing and regulatory execution in America. I argue that it something that a more precise definition is excels from but I also think a more robust definition isn't really required to demonstrate the point. I'd felt that the president of the US is extremely powerful more so either one of us most likely
- stubish 3y ago
  You are demonstrating that power is distributed, which many consider a good thing. Checks and balances and all that. What would be worse than the media having too much control is the media having no control.
  - xphos 3y ago
    Absolutely but the idea that you can basically "deperson" someone's voice without any review in the case of most large social media platforms seems more like a concentration of power than a distribution of. In this context its against a president so its a check but in the context of Joe Schemo its just an abuse you have to take. Regardless of if it is the CCP or Social Media Companies censoring its still censoring
nologic01 3y ago
I sort of accept the apathy and ignorance argument for individuals (though crowds would get worried, even enraged if they were to receive warnings from institutions they trust, so one still needs to explain why there are none). But the list of affected entities involves far more than addicted consumers. Digital gatekeepers interfere and reshape the information flows which form the fabric on which all economic, cultural and political activity takes place. There is already plenty of evidence of the potentially dramatic impact. Highly trained and responsible individuals in the corporate world or the public sector cannot possibly be ignorant or detached from this extreme and unprecedented concentration of control that affects their very own roles and power bases. I didn't really want to speculate as to what perpetuates this (by historical standards) rather extraordinary situation. There is clearly some accommodation taking place. E.g when the entity now known as Meta attempted to introduce a digital currency it was summarily pushed back into its corner. The mind control possibility was a joke, but - mind you - conspiracy theories thrive in the lack of transparency.
MSFT_Edging 3y ago
Yeah this is a super deep issue but its not mind control. It's a mix of middlemen being the only industry that can still extract more profit, and a level of control over markets by Capital that makes most opinions meaningless. Its essentially a return to feudalism, where certain people own vast swaths of productive space, they're untouchable in the legal system and real life, and one is forced to work for them. To escape the system means leaving behind most of society depending on your convictions. These groups can kill you physically(Monsanto poisoning people with pesticides) or metaphorically(you lose all connection to the general societal social media) and nothing can be done. For the first one, if you were to suggest violence against those doing violence against you, you're essentially told that violence is never the answer, except when its in the form of collateral damage for profit motive. For the latter, its not nearly as life ending, annoying, but not life ending or even altering unless your livelihood is based around grifting on social media. For social media it is ironically democratic, if most people find you to be an annoying asshole, they sorta kick you off so you leave everyone alone. No different than getting kicked out of a bar for demanding to see someone's genitals.
- mindctrla 3y ago
  [dead]
mindctrla 3y ago
[dead]

by clucas 3y ago

sharemywin 3y ago

it's like any kind of other long tail problem. if it doesn't directly effect you or someone you know you generally don't care about it too much as an aggregate.

xphos 3y ago

If they can kick the former president off his platform they can bully joe schmo off there platform. Whether you agree with the former president, he was in theory the most powerful person on the planet and had to submit to the powers of large tech companies. I think the idea that most people don't care is not a supported or found assumption either rather you just asserted it.

PopAlongKid 3y ago
>he was in theory the most powerful person on the planet You need to provide a practical definition of "most powerful" before your phrase can be evaluated.
- xphos 3y ago
  He had the ability to give the order to start thermonuclear war and end humanity... He had the ability to radically tariffing and regulatory execution in America. I argue that it something that a more precise definition is excels from but I also think a more robust definition isn't really required to demonstrate the point. I'd felt that the president of the US is extremely powerful more so either one of us most likely
stubish 3y ago
You are demonstrating that power is distributed, which many consider a good thing. Checks and balances and all that. What would be worse than the media having too much control is the media having no control.
- xphos 3y ago
  Absolutely but the idea that you can basically "deperson" someone's voice without any review in the case of most large social media platforms seems more like a concentration of power than a distribution of. In this context its against a president so its a check but in the context of Joe Schemo its just an abuse you have to take. Regardless of if it is the CCP or Social Media Companies censoring its still censoring

nologic01 3y ago

I sort of accept the apathy and ignorance argument for individuals (though crowds would get worried, even enraged if they were to receive warnings from institutions they trust, so one still needs to explain why there are none). But the list of affected entities involves far more than addicted consumers. Digital gatekeepers interfere and reshape the information flows which form the fabric on which all economic, cultural and political activity takes place. There is already plenty of evidence of the potentially dramatic impact. Highly trained and responsible individuals in the corporate world or the public sector cannot possibly be ignorant or detached from this extreme and unprecedented concentration of control that affects their very own roles and power bases. I didn't really want to speculate as to what perpetuates this (by historical standards) rather extraordinary situation. There is clearly some accommodation taking place. E.g when the entity now known as Meta attempted to introduce a digital currency it was summarily pushed back into its corner. The mind control possibility was a joke, but - mind you - conspiracy theories thrive in the lack of transparency.

MSFT_Edging 3y ago

Yeah this is a super deep issue but its not mind control. It's a mix of middlemen being the only industry that can still extract more profit, and a level of control over markets by Capital that makes most opinions meaningless. Its essentially a return to feudalism, where certain people own vast swaths of productive space, they're untouchable in the legal system and real life, and one is forced to work for them. To escape the system means leaving behind most of society depending on your convictions. These groups can kill you physically(Monsanto poisoning people with pesticides) or metaphorically(you lose all connection to the general societal social media) and nothing can be done. For the first one, if you were to suggest violence against those doing violence against you, you're essentially told that violence is never the answer, except when its in the form of collateral damage for profit motive. For the latter, its not nearly as life ending, annoying, but not life ending or even altering unless your livelihood is based around grifting on social media. For social media it is ironically democratic, if most people find you to be an annoying asshole, they sorta kick you off so you leave everyone alone. No different than getting kicked out of a bar for demanding to see someone's genitals.

mindctrla 3y ago
[dead]

mindctrla 3y ago

[dead]