Independent thinker valuing discussions grounded in reason, not emotions.
I say unpopular things but never something I know to be untrue. Always open to hear good-faith counter arguments. My goal is to engage in dialogue that seeks truth rather than scoring points.
It’s quite funny how the virus originated in a city with a lab studying precisely that kind of virus, yet judging by the comments, it’s considered outrageous to even suggest the possibility that it might have escaped from that lab.
Nobody is claiming with absolute certainty that it did, but it seems strange to completely dismiss the idea.
I moved from Instagram to Pixelfed around a year ago and went from barely anyone seeing my photography to literally no one seeing it.
This is the best platform for constant live updates about what the people you don’t like are up to. Then there’s articles about everything that’s wrong in the world and also some memes - mostly political.
One million invested to the stock market pays you on average 70k a year in interests. Now imagine having a billion on the stock market.
Compounding interests. I don’t think that most people realise how powerful the effect of it is. Anyone can take advantage of it but there’s no getting around the fact that the more money you have the easier it gets to make even more which then makes it even easier and this just keeps accelerating.
I don’t see how this has anything to do with federated platforms. I’d argue that watching Loops is just as bad for one’s mental health than TikTok is.
I wouldn’t say that I don’t see the appeal of it. I would probably get sucked right in if I gave it a shot. It’s a consciouss decision on my part to simply not do that. I don’t not-consume short-form media because I’m better than the people who do, I prohibit it from myself.
Like I said, I’m not for this ban. In my view what ever reason is used to ban TikTok should then apply to every other social media aswell. I don’t want the government to dictate which content I’m allowed to consume - I should be free to decide for myself. I simply don’t view this issue thru the lens of free speech.
It’s similar to banning porn. While it’s objectively bad for you, so is drinking gasoline and that’s not illegal either. If you want to drink gasoline you should be allowed to.
I’m not for banning TikTok but the ban also doesn’t conflict with your freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not about having a megaphone, it’s about not being procecuted for the things you’ve said. You’re still free to say the exact same things you were allowed to before the TikTok ban - you just can’t do it on TikTok.
It’s quite amazing how much data can be recovered from hard drives that have been even in fires. I think they recovered like 95% of the data from the hard drives on the challenger shuttle that blew up.
I’m sure you’re never wrong about anything. Maybe you should start a podcast.
At times like early covid there wasn’t much facts and evidence available. Back then masks didn’t stop the spread of the virus but vaccines were supposed to. Who decides what the facts are in times like that?
Yeah, but the question was; who decides what is disinformation? If it was some truly competent and unbiased AI system then I perhaps wouldn’t be as concerned about it, though I can see issues with that too, but humans are flawed and I see this as a potenttial slippery slope towards tyranny and censorship.
Who decides what the facts are?
…and? We can’t have people having public conversations online then because some might take it too seriously? I don’t see how this is a criticism towards Joe.
He has never claimed to be a legitimate journalist. He has said repeatedly that you shouldn’t take him too seriously - he’s a cage fight commentator after all.
To be fair; that was 22 years ago. People change. He’s even different now than he was like 5 years ago when I started listening to the show. Way less confrontational for example. I’ve heard many people talk about him on other podcasts and say that he’s exactly the same person in real life than he’s on the show.
Even something like being anti-abortion is a perfectly logical stance to hold for someone who beliefs that soul enters the body at conception. That belief is based on what I’d argue is a false premise but I can’t exactly prove that either. It’s not logical from my perspective but it is from theirs.
I’m not so much talking about right wing beliefs per-se but about the shift towards the centre which is to the right. Where it crosses to the side of the right, I don’t know and I doubt there even is concensus on that. Something like being against DEI programs, I guess, is considered to be quite “right wing” yet virtually all of the people whose opinions I respect are against it and I’d hardly consider any of them right wing. Freedom of speech would be another - also fitting the context.
Who?