Live data from Hacker News

We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

the.ink

491–500 of 520 posts

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, how do you know that 5G doesn't cause Coronavirus when it's February and no one knows anything about the virus? We now know that both subjects are unrelated, but I followed this virus from early January and it took the general population 2 WHOLE MONTHS to pick up on it. Those 2 months were filled with conspiracy theorists, and actually a huge number of them turned out to be right, like the very existence and se…

I’ll go and enjoy my truth in a country with no outbreak. The problems you speak of are US problems. Good luck on the way down, there is a long way to fall for you guys. Some fun points for you to not change your mind on: - China mandated masks in January (as did Taiwan). No conspiracy or confusion, that was a US thing... - Radio waves causing a virus... there is zero evidence of that ever happening. So why would any…

>- China mandated masks in January (as did Taiwan). No conspiracy or confusion, that was a US thing...

Yes, and the US didn't for a long time because of no supplies. Chinese citizens bought out all masks in January and early February and shipped them to China, and while we were saying that this was going on and that the government should focus on not letting that happen, the media, academia and elite society called everyone racists for suggesting that and that masks weren't important.

>Radio waves causing a virus... there is zero evidence of that ever happening. So why would anyone believe it now... or ever

The theory was that it suppresses your immune system, not that it literally causes the virus to appear in your body out of thin air. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2020-00249...

>actually none of the conspiracy theories were ever correct. Not one of them. Nor were they plausible to anyone outside of the lower educated half of the US.

Factually false. But why would I bother explaining.

>It’s funny you turned out to be an example of why these things need to be fixed.

It's as I said previously, we won't be able to have a reasonable and logical discussion. I'm glad you finally agree with me. I will also say this: I will not have my views "fixed". The more you try to impose censorship, the more people will speak out against it. You are, willingly or unwillingly, knowingly or unknowingly, by the very fact that you believe science can be used to accurately shape policy, part of an elite class of individuals in the world that is scared the "lower educated half" is coming for you, and they are, because your class is corrupt beyond belief and their time is coming.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#492
post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay. So, according to [0], about 6% of the covid related deaths have only covid as a cause. According to [1], there have been 291,522 covid related deaths since Jan 21 of this year, and according to [2], there were 2,977 fatalities in 9/11. All numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number. EDIT: Except for the 6% and final results, for obvious reasons. 291,522 * .06 = 17,491 deaths with no related comorbidity. Th…

So by your number, only 978 death last week ? Even if its true that is still such a low number and probably skewed towards old people. With this number you want to have shutdown business, restrict business, prevent gathering, implement all those silly safety theatre for the rest of population? Yeah very very not worth it.

978 deaths is equivalent to 1/18 of the entire year to date. The rate is increasing, and there's only one way to stop it.

Edit: And again, this number is with absolutely no comorbidities. Had diabetes for your whole life? not counted. Broke your arm? not counted. High blood pressure? not counted.

Plenty of people who would've lived decades more are not included in this number.

> With this number you want to have...

> shutdown business

Nope. I want masks and social distancing.

I recognize that businesses need to be open. Heck, I'm still working.

> restrict business

Depending on your point of view, yes.

Meaning that I think social distancing should be practised at all businesses, and people should decide themselves not to go to businesses that they don't have to. Note, this is "Free market" restriction, not government mandated.

> prevent gathering

Not precisely. I would say don't gather with people from outside of your region, and social distance when you do gather with people inside your region.

> safety theatre

Still waiting on a source for this, assuming you are talking about masks.

I haven't said anything about any measures other than the above, and masks to point.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#493
post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder why facebook usage isn't "sowing discord" in Netherlands or, say, Germany, or other EU countries? From what I know, Facebook makes some real euros there, so adoption rate is quite high, but still, democracy is not "under attack" in these countries because of "automated newsfeed". Yes it is. Polarization is increasing in a lot of countries, and there is heavy criticism. But while US news are exposed to the…

Exactly. I live in California, and recently had a conversation with a family member in The Hague. She was telling me about her frustrations with Anti-Maskers and Covid-deniers she has been arguing with locally. Apparently these are not just US political issues.

There seems to be a relatively large covid-denial movement in the Netherlands compared to the rest of Europe, and focussed on The Hague in particular. The administrative capital is a good place to protest when the whole country is around an hour by train.

But, the politics is quite different from the US. Some restaurant and bar owners threatened to stage a protest and re-open against the law, giving six weeks notice that they might do this. This has since been defused.

https://nltimes.nl/2020/12/02/restaurants-bars-defy-dutch-ba...

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#494

In an earlier era, people's opinions were shaped by a small number of newspapers and newscasts. Some of these old media were so biased and agenda driven that they caused wars. Not that much has changed, except that people now rely on centralized, AI-driven funnels of information and entertainment. Democracy has always been fragile, barely functional, easily corrupted, warped by money. The best and only way to defend…

I have the same inclinations as you. I see there are various kinds of bias from different sources, and that you have to be able to think critically in order to maintain some sort of perspective. I also think that we need a bunch of different perspectives, so in that way it's good there's a lot of people talking. But we also live in a world that is more educated than ever, and a lot of those people who went to school…

>But we also live in a world that is more educated than ever, and a lot of those people who went to school can't figure out why they should believe in the moon landings, or dinosaurs.

The problem is that "education" doesn't necessarily train people to think critically. Indeed, the current educational system often does the exact opposite. This becomes more apparent the farther you advance through the system. Success in most post-grad programs is primarily about a student's willingness and ability to absorb established dogma and conform to orthodoxy. Those who are not willing or able to conform (culturally, socially, politically and educationally) will find their academic progress severely inhibited at every turn and eventually find themselves on the outside looking in.

The paradox is that those in power do not (and have never) want a necessarily skeptical, inquisitive and free-thinking population. They want a docile population that is easy to control. A population that uncritically absorbs and believes whatever messages are disseminated by those in power. This system works well when you have a virtual monopoly on information, and all of the people get their information from ABC, CBS or NBC. It stops working so well when a decentralized system of spreading information comes along, whether its referred to as "the internet" or "social media", and suddenly you have a population that has been conditioned for generations to lack skepticism that is blasted with conflicting messages, ads and propaganda from all angles.

Those in power are now left with a problem that has two possible solutions. Either start a massive campaign where every man, woman and child is taught to be necessarily skeptical, to think critically in all things and reject all established orthodoxies, or to try to put the information genie back in the bottle. The former strategy (if successful) would lead to a population that is very difficult to control and govern. A society filled with critical thinkers and those who question and scrutinize every policy and every assertion by those in power (and everyone else). The latter strategy (the one that has been chosen) is to attempt to close down those decentralized systems of spreading information. Regain control over the information narrative through a massive censorship campaign where those who are not actively working to push the establishment narrative are silenced. Unfortunately, its clear which path our benevolent overlords have embarked on. Whether the excuse is, "hate speech" or "disinformation" or "foreign influence", the desired result is the same. Silence dissenting voices, regain the information monopoly, and feed the gullible dullards you have cultivated the diet of information that you wish them to consume. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view), its always very difficult to put the genie back in the bottle - which is why we are seeing the battles over free speech, censorship and information control play out before our very eyes.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#495

Corporate-based media doesn’t like competition. Perhaps we need more journalists and not National Enquirer-type ones. After all, who is really turning off the lights to this “Democracy dies in a darkness”?

>Perhaps we need more journalists and not National Enquirer-type ones. I totally agree. But I think even now it's too little, too late. HN loved Glenn Greenwald, and then immediately turned against him overnight because he dared to say bad words about a Democratic presidential candidate.

I’m sure he has his source. Did he cite his opinion as a journalist or a blogger?

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#497
post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So by your number, only 978 death last week ? Even if its true that is still such a low number and probably skewed towards old people. With this number you want to have shutdown business, restrict business, prevent gathering, implement all those silly safety theatre for the rest of population? Yeah very very not worth it.

978 deaths is equivalent to 1/18 of the entire year to date. The rate is increasing, and there's only one way to stop it. Edit: And again, this number is with absolutely no comorbidities. Had diabetes for your whole life? not counted. Broke your arm? not counted. High blood pressure? not counted. Plenty of people who would've lived decades more are not included in this number. > With this number you want to have... >…

>978 deaths is equivalent to 1/18 of the entire year to date. The rate is increasing, and there's only one way to stop it.

Its still such a low number. There is no conclusive evidence that mask will reduce the death and even if wearing mask will avoid those 978 death, it still not worth it.

Don't get me wrong, reducing death is good and I will support it but not if it require forced mask/lockdown.

That being said, I can support voluntary mask recommendation though.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#498
post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

978 deaths is equivalent to 1/18 of the entire year to date. The rate is increasing, and there's only one way to stop it. Edit: And again, this number is with absolutely no comorbidities. Had diabetes for your whole life? not counted. Broke your arm? not counted. High blood pressure? not counted. Plenty of people who would've lived decades more are not included in this number. > With this number you want to have... >…

>978 deaths is equivalent to 1/18 of the entire year to date. The rate is increasing, and there's only one way to stop it. Its still such a low number. There is no conclusive evidence that mask will reduce the death and even if wearing mask will avoid those 978 death, it still not worth it. Don't get me wrong, reducing death is good and I will support it but not if it require forced mask/lockdown. That being said, I…

> Its still such a low number.

Again, there are much more than this that should be attributed to covid, these are just the most perfectly healthy people who still died, despite medical care.

> There is no conclusive evidence that mask will reduce the death

Have you looked at any other countries handling of the pandemic?

> and even if wearing mask will avoid those 978 death, it still not worth it

Again. Much more than 978 deaths.

> That being said, I can support voluntary mask recommendation though.

How do you feel about businesses requiring masks for entry?

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ll go and enjoy my truth in a country with no outbreak. The problems you speak of are US problems. Good luck on the way down, there is a long way to fall for you guys. Some fun points for you to not change your mind on: - China mandated masks in January (as did Taiwan). No conspiracy or confusion, that was a US thing... - Radio waves causing a virus... there is zero evidence of that ever happening. So why would any…

>- China mandated masks in January (as did Taiwan). No conspiracy or confusion, that was a US thing... Yes, and the US didn't for a long time because of no supplies. Chinese citizens bought out all masks in January and early February and shipped them to China, and while we were saying that this was going on and that the government should focus on not letting that happen, the media, academia and elite society called e…

You are repeating US domestic BS. There isn’t a lower half in my country. We have high minimum wage, free health care, and lots of masks even though Chinese live here too. No ones coming for me and my kind because we haven’t disenfranchised a huge portion of our population... instead we have compulsory voting.

Honestly, please read some Taiwanese news... why didn’t they have a mask shortage? Or HK or Singapore? You quote complete nonsense like it’s fact.

5G suppresses the immune system... so Wouldn’t the outbreak have been bigger in Shanghai and Guangzhou that have the largest 5G installation and population in the world... but no, instead they had one of the smallest outbreaks per capita. I’m happy to keep feeding you knowledge for the all the hair brain ideas you present.

Please do explain the factual nature of the conspiracy theories... your answer implies you don’t actually have an explanation.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think the problem is a lack of education or understanding? I don't think so, it's something else - being left behind, feeling unheard of, destitute, incapable of changing the situation no matter how you vote. Then people start breaking away from the official story and invent their own explanations, and why would they have solidarity with the mainstream society when it betrayed them? Better to vote in an antagonis…

Honestly, having studied a bunch of official figures that I « was surprised of », I found there were just blatant lies covered by a scientific stamp (actually someone succeeded to pass a paragraph from Mein Kampf into the same journals, after replacing « Jews » by « Men »). The « scientific evidence » we’re governed with is frequently grossly manipulated, and yet it routinely passes peer review, journal publication a…

Very true, especially on side topics science is extremely vulnerable. You have no counter study and peer review is a lot of work, so some works might just stay uncontested for a very long time.

Meanwhile, a lot of proved studies are dismissed for political reasons. Sometimes that is good, sometimes not. But it is safe to say that it would indeed not be prudent to derive policy impetus from a lot of sciences without a public debate.

And I mean public, not just academic circles.

Post reply on HN