mozz

Yeah. Gaben has a strong track record of bringing technology to the market that works, from a company that wasn't already around and doing things better overall before he got involved with it.

Yeah. I've been out of the loop apparently, because today was the first that I heard of it.

My take on any enemies of the US is uncritical support

So if a third party won the presidency someday, and the US turned against Israel, you'd uncritically support Israel?

How in the WORLD had I not heard of this

Bro, it's not a fuckin contest

I'm not in favor of Abu Ghraib, or Guantánamo, or the Uyghur detention camps, or the genocide in Gaza. From my point of view as a person who likes human rights, it's actually not really that complicated to say that I'm not in favor of any of those things. It wouldn't even occur to me to bring up one of them as a defense for any of the others, because I would have no reason to want to defend any of them.

This is exactly why I wanted to ask you that seemingly unrelated question. I was curious whether you were an overall pro-human-rights person who came organically to your viewpoint about not wanting to vote for the Democrats, or whether that "of course I hate that Palestine protestors in the US are being abused" -- a pretty sensible view, tbh -- came alongside some other views which were incongruous and surprising, and wouldn't commonly be encountered in a person who has strong feelings about human rights as they pertain to domestic US politics.

Sounds like I got my answer.

(Edit: Oh, not that this is the point, because (1) as I said it's not a contest (2) it is actually a little unfair to compare Hong Kong's mini-insurrection against peaceful US Palestine protests -- but Hong Kong protestors absolutely were shot in the head with nonlethal rounds, shot with live ammunition, given brain injuries and broken bones, sexually assaulted, and in some cases had their eyes shot out. Maybe they can get together with the BLM people who had eyes shot out and the lot of them could start working out how we can get these assholes out of power please.)

I have this surreal experience sometimes where I'll say something like "I don't think the US government is alone in wanting that gone so they can control the narrative instead" and then find someone lecturing me about how exactly what I just got done saying might be true.

That said, the person I was talking to was clearly implying that banning Tiktok would be a bad thing because people can get unfiltered information through it. You can try to say they were saying something else that's more sensible, if you want. I won't stop you. They don't seem to want to clarify it themselves, so it's hard to say.

100x more gentle than the US is

Faaaaascinating

Also, look at all the happy Uyghurs leaving their re-education camps after the Chinese government helped boost their job opportunities. Sounds great.

The person I was responding to, if I've read them right, was trying to argue that Tiktok was the next target because people could get unfiltered information about the world through it. My point was that Tiktok is about the worst possible tool for getting useful unfiltered information about the world that one could possibly imagine, and then adding some context and detail to that.

(And normalizing violence as a means of governing in general)

Yeah. I think as his dementia is getting more pronounced, his general admiration for people who kill you if you disagree with them is getting more explicit and weirdly specific and he's talking about it a lot more openly.

It's hard to tell even what the hell he means when he's talking about Hannibal Lecter. That's the only reason I say it's worse when he's talking about deporting protestors, because it's very clear what he means and it has more of a pathway to becoming reality. But I agree; my best guess when he talks about Hannibal Lecter and Al Capone is simply that he's playing it straight -- he admires someone who can casually talk about murdering other people, and aspires to be like that, because that means strength.

Musk is a useful idiot. He ruined Twitter and the US government quietly thanks him for it because it no longer serves as a tool to see unfiltered events happening on the ground (like Israel murdering Palestinians). So mission accomplished there

Yeah. Twitter back in the day actually used to be a usable substitute for print journalism, without the editorial bias and selective coverage. If you paid attention to who to follow, you could actually get a lot better picture of the world from Twitter than from almost anywhere else.

I don't think the US government is alone in wanting that gone so they can control the narrative instead, but they're definitely one party that was happy about it.

and now the new target is TikTok

And this is where you went straight off the fuckin deep end.

I do not know a single person who gets their picture of the world from Tiktok whose viewpoint isn't reliably dogshit takes on literally every single issue. (Specific e.g. antivax, "BLM protestors are just running around beating people up, they have to be stopped," "everyone's moving out of California to Texas and Florida because Republican politics are better") Maybe there's an accidental alignment of pro-Palestine-protestors news from Tiktok right now, but it's not like that narrative is un-heard-of in any MSM news or other social media. The whole landscape at this point is Palestine flags as far as I see, and the other platforms are usually a lot more nuanced and informative.

I don't know why you'd object to an algorithm controlled by Elon Musk or the US government or just a lawful-evil alignment to sell advertising and hook people to dopamine loops and nothing else (all very good things to be suspicious of, yes), but all of a sudden when the Chinese government's involved, you're like "finally someone trustworthy to put in charge of public opinion, no way this can go wrong."

I think a large part of this is that X is the only major social media which has no dedicated team for detecting and banning the propaganda bots / troll farms.

I have no idea how much of the Q / antivax / conspiracy material on social media is deliberate campaigns to destabilize American politics in general (as opposed to perfectly organic homegrown nuttiness which the US has always had plenty of anyway), but I know it's not 0.

Here's the video. In context, it doesn't make a whole lot more sense than what's in the article. Here's a story that goes into the other more coherent things he said which are actually a good bit worse.