Random Thoughts.....What Are You Thinking?

Well... I dont want to enter a political discussion, but this one is the shaddiest organization ever

IMO, obviously.

There is a difference between "point of view" and "verifiable facts".

Disinformation is NOT "different point of view". It's literally NOT the definition of this term.

It's "verifiable facts that's objectively wrong, created for a purpose".

Censoring verifiable facts that's objectively wrong isn't the same as censoring different opinions.

Again, if you want to argue the process of verifying fact, it is a legit argument which I would agree.

If you argue that regulating disinformation is the same as North Korea censoring different point of view, that's something I can't agree.

And dont come Eiryl-ing me with your continuous editing.

I already got bored of this discussion.

What time does Radial wakes up to take my place?

What about Harvard, which said the same thing as well?

It's okay, even if you don't agree with Harvard, I can link 400 other organization with a report that says the same thing as Harvard too.

You picked the wrong battlefield, lol. Fighting Harvard is going to be hard.

Even independent non-profit organizations like RSF(reporters without borders) says fake content industry hurts journalism freedom lol.

https://rsf.org/en/2023-world-press-freedom-index-journalism-threatened-fake-content-industry

Apparently RSF and Harvard all supported North Korea censorship! /s

This week i went for an aggressive diet to lose some fat.

It was 3 days with reduced carbs and proteins.

But in this 4th day Im already feeling tired and almost depressive, and its still morning.

Obviously Afania just made things worse, but it was 3h since i wake up and nothing productive was done so far.

I guess i will simply prepare to go to work earlier, and eat something more normal today.

It also didnt help i noticed my scales seems off. I took two measures back to back, and it had 700g in difference.

I already bought a new one, there is no control without measure

You gave Elon Musk WAY too much credits if you think what he is doing is "putting destructive ideology to center", lol. As a hardcore supporter of centrism I can tell you this is precisely NOT how centrism ideology functions.

You can't eliminate disinformation with disinformation, you eliminate disinformation with facts and truth.


You can't eliminate extreme left with extreme right. Because both sides of radicals are emotional driven. You eliminate emotional driven stances with logic, rational presentations of an argument and facts.

A large portion of Elon's posts aren't arguments based on logics and facts. They are emotional driven posts that aim to stir up people's emotions. And he 100% knows that and took advantage from it.

There is no way a true centrist would support this kind of posts. I worship centrism ideology on most political issues personally, everytime when I see radicals posting emotional arguments my braincells explode.

Saying Elon's posts are centrism is a complete misunderstanding on what centrism really is.

Disinformation is clearly harmful to democracy. If voters don't know the truth about the issues and people they are voting on, then their votes don't accomplish what they hope to accomplish.

The issue is with classifying disinformation. Allowing governments(or any central authority) to decide what is true or not is inherently authoritarian. Even if guardrails are added, it's been proven time and time again that it is easy to manufacture studies supporting any given viewpoint.

Thus, while disinformation is bad, there is no consensus or framework for establishing what is and isn't disinformation. Giving any authority the power to decide something is disinformation and censor it, or disabling access to a communication tool because of perceived amounts of disinformation, is very much not in the interest of the population.

People have been sold on it because they see their own party, or a party that shares more of their beliefs, in power. They believe that by allowing that government to 'combat disinformation', they will convince the entire world that their views are right. The problem is that their views are not inherently correct, and eventually the pendulum is likely to swing the other way. The best way to allow the truth to come out is to have a free marketplace of ideas.

Don't conflate misinformation with disinformation.

No one "mistakenly" posts misinformation. Weaponized disinformation spread by professional ***stirrers.

Then propagated by the morons as misinformation.

Morons are the problem, and the fact that they're allowed to be morons without consequence.

I corrected it as you were posting that, wouldn't want to use the wrong orwellian term.

But, if you give anyone the right to decide what is disinformation, the line becomes pretty blurred. Anyone opposing the authority is spreading disinformation, whether it is actually disinformation, misinformation, or fact.

I agree that the verification methods of disinformation is worth discussing.


if you think about it, people generally have np with justice system being independent in first world countries.

For example, if I am being arrested for stealing and put into jail in Canada, no one(I hope) would think that I was put into jail because I attacked Justin Trudeau online.

In other words, People in Canada generally agree that justice system functions independently from political factions. It's not "north Korea" to arrest people for crime despite justice system is part of government.

Therefore, it's entirely possible that certain part of government functions independently from main political factions, at least in first world countries with good transparency record.

So the whole "if a government verify disinformation it is North Korea" doesn't make sense to me. Because It all depends on how independent this organization is.

I do agree that the organization that verifies disinformation should be independent from political factions. The real discussion is how the people behind such organization are elected for this. Which requires a transparent process.

"I think this party sucks *** so we should vote for a different party":

This is opinion, not disinformation. But it is opposing authority.

"This party just passed a 5 billion bill against (name of group)" despite the bill has not been passed:

This is disinformation, because facts in this case is verifiable.


I thought the difference between opinion and facts is easy to differentiate. Facts are verifiable, opinions are not. Censoring verifiable incorrect statements are not the same as censoring different opinions.


Whether it is opposing certain political factions or not is completely irrelevant. What matters is if one thing can be verifiable using scientific means or not.

They are easy to differentiate if that is your intention. If you're part of a partisan organization that isn't ideologically dedicated to solely censoring verifiable falsehoods, then it's not likely your intentions are such.

I think people in the US are inclined to distrust this sort of thing, given the way the misinformation and disinformation terminology and censorship were used around the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of the things that were enforced via government-social media collaboration turned out to be false. The burden of proof for their 'disinformation removal' was far too low.

UBI works exactly like it should. The people would *** it up.

More money does not automatically raise the price of everything, greed does. The drive for wealth corrupts any and every thing.

UBI allows a human to be what a human is supposed to be, not a worker drone. Our system can't exist without worker drones. UBI allows you to not be forced to sell your body for survival. Capitalism can only exist under those conditions. Desperation cannot be allowed to be eradicated.

I don't always trust every government advertisement campaign as well. However government using sources from 3rd party fact checking organization is probably pretty creditable.

If the justice system uses statements from 3rd party fact checking organization as a way to determine if this information is false, then it is probably fairly believable. Since justice system should be independent from politics, so does 3rd party organizations.

Obviously this only works in democracy society with high level of transparency and freedom index ranking of course.

There are no successful UBI example that I know of. It's all a theory.

Because there are no strong evidence to support UBI can work as intended, I wouldn't trust pro-UBI statements unless there are stronger evidence to back it up.

Economy is an extremely complicated subject, it's difficult to prove or disprove certain model works better than another. Especially when you consider other factors such as different regional demographics and history may change the result of a model in practice.

Sadly a lot of people approach economy issues with political lens but not science.

I feel like Afania is feeling like in Disney today.

Having a blast

This is kind of false. I think there are enough evidence to prove that amount of money available in a market absolutely affects price of everything.

Otherwise how do you explain the phenomenon of crazy 2022 inflation AFTER QE, and inflation rate came down after interest rate increase?

Does people's greed also fluctuate every year? Of course not. Inflation is mostly caused by market condition and how much money are available, not just a vague concept called "greed".

Keynesian economics is a very questionable theory. More money increases the amount of people able to buy any high-demand product, which means the limited supply will have price increases. Greed is just a boogieman, if a company is selling out of a product they are stupid to continue doing so instead of raising price.

If you want to get into price controls and government intervention and all that, you'd have a better case for UBI without causing price inflation. Of course, in practice, I think a well-implemented UBI in the US would probably decrease prices. Our current social welfare programs are so heavily abused, and a system with less bureaucracy and overhead would be easier to keep straight.

The act of having money does not cause you to expend it. Being stupid with money, does.

This is why we purposely avoid teaching people financial literacy. Always live beyond your means, always want more, your reach should exceed your grasp. It's all to keep you consuming. If we have financially literate humans the system would collapse. There wouldn't be hummers and ferraris and mcmansions.

You dont need a car that can do 200mph or a 50,000 square foot home, but you want one and he has one so why don't you.

I'm not the best person to judge this, since I don't hang out with poors. But, my impression is that financial literacy comes second to poor impulse control. You can teach financial literacy, but self-discipline and the ability to plan to the future are more tied to intellect and dopamine regulation.

The basic ability to disconnect from social media and stop caring what other people have seems to be the biggest factor in responsible money management.

It's all in the same box. Being stupid. Impulse buys. Jealousy buys. Ignorance buys. At the base level it all stems from the same core issue.

You left the Profanity Filter on? That's cute. Oh, the UK.

If stupid and impulsive were synonymous, there wouldn't be any obese or drug-addicted smart people. There's substantial data to indicate that smarter people often have worse dopamine management. I don't really disagree with what you're saying, but there's no feasible path to spreading [impulse control, intelligence, financial literacy, whatever] across an entire population.

The only reason I think UBI could work is the amount of money we're already handing out through poorly managed programs that are ripe for abuse. If the government wants to nuke all these other entitlements and do UBI instead, go for it. The most impulsive folks on the current entitlement programs will end up with less to spend, and the country will probably be better off for it.

...Nobody is ordering doordash and thinking 'This is the best financial decision I could make'. They know it's a bad financial decision, it's just outweighed by the need for immediate gratification.