Why is anyone still deferring to a legal construct whose entire basis of existence is derived from how many likes they achieve on a special day every few years?
Germany is clearly a conspiracy theorist. Vaccine injuries and faulty manufacturing ins Alex Jones-tier cringe. What's next, Germany offers diplomatic immunity for Qanon?
Vaccines have never harmed anyone. I can't believe this is on HN.
Every time I see one of these neuromyths about how the brain works being applied to politics, it always bends over backwards to make sure groups of people, when given huge media and financial resources and the motive to influence the decision-making behavior of hundreds of millions of people, are not liable, accountable, or involved in how effective their influence campaigns are. Example:
> Segments of Group: Cut off your children's genitals.
> Person: Well, uh... okay... for the good of the cause, I guess.
> Other Segments of Group: We didn't tell you to cut off your children's genitals.
> Apologists of Group: Anyone who would recommend such a thing would NEVER be part of our group!
Those groups are absolutely liable for their influence campaigns. It's just that individuals have absolutely no recourse to hold these groups accountable.
For proof of that, notice the frequency of active words like "revenge" and "wrath" decrease over time for neutral, passive, and nonthreatening words like "balance" and "equality". People are so demoralized, they just get fed bogus neuromyths about political behavior and accept them because they known there is fuck all they can do about it anyways other than acquiescence and servitude.
Snide Response: In Soviet Russia, media watches you!
Substantive Response: Mass Produced Journalism, be it's consumption or production, is purely a therapeutic exercise for the vain and the neurotic. Actual Investigative Journalism is dangerous for the investigators.
The only thing keeping journalist outfits going is the monumental amount of blackmail they've accumulated since the dawn of the camera. We all get to suffer with the journalist's delusions of grandeur because they have footage of a Rothschild grandchild slumming it once.
And you don't have the freedom to measure the presumed audience reach of someone's speech.
Furthermore, your calculation of someone's reach isn't entitled to be the standard of how reduction of reach is to be applied.
In fact, you don't even own the audience or the platform that you claim you have the right to deny others from using.
You have absolutely no say, sway, or stake in anything you are discussing. You're just hiding behind a Google lobbyist's buzzphrase and pretending you are targeting people you don't like.
You seriously cannot find a single correlation between the mass availability of programming talent which extracts and transforms data, the vast majority of Internet hardware and servers being at least 70% powered by open source software, and the unstoppable destruction of privacy made possible by said infrastructure?
Open source made Internet hardware affordable for mass use.
Mass use of Internet hardware destroyed privacy.
Even at its peak, 1950s IBM didn't have enough money in the world to violate privacy the way Google does. And the only reason Google can do it is because it stands on the infrastructure of Internet servers that were able to proliferate to the point of pennies per megabyte due to open source code.
Yes, open source code is DIRECTLY responsible for the economics that has made the destruction of privacy endlessly cheap.
What did you think making programming widely available was going to do? Did you think nation-states and their bloated bureaucracies would magically step in and go full North Korea about privacy to protect us from you?
This accountability-denying pearl-clutching HN does every time they see an OSINT technique is ridiculously predictable... and only demonstrates your culpability in creating this mess in the first place.
We must bring back segregation to prove how anti-racist we are.