Ogmios

That’s exactly my point. If you come into a conversation and start declaring the definitions have to be different from how the speaker uses their own words, because people they’ve never even met said so, that’s not a good faith effort.

The point is that you have to make a good faith effort for communication to be possible, which you are not doing here. Language evolves organically, not by the dictate of a legally mandated authority.

Well if you actually want to communicate with others outside of academia, you’re going to have to get used to attempting to understand people rather than constantly trying to “fix” them.

In common usage, I’d argue it just means a society which is run by technology rather than people, which everyone is trying to do these days.

technocratic

I was unaware this was a feature of society unique to the political far right.

Read as much as you like, so long as you don’t mistake the words on a page for an accurate representation of the real world.

I’d argue that you’ve just described one source of error, but it still furthers my point that allowing strangers to tell you what you’re seeing and why will not result in providing you an accurate picture of reality, and potentially return a highly distorted one.

it’s the job of the press to tell us what we’re seeing and why

That’s a pretty dangerous way to approach other people. Journalists are just as capable of error or corruption as everyone else.

You gotta have a public position and a private one, just like Hillary said. Say whatever is useful in the moment while staying on course to achieving your true intentions of obtaining more power.

No u

You ever hear the phrase “never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance?”

Generalities like that can be useful when applied appropriately, but counter-productive when applied blindly. That positions of power are held primarily by those who are motivated primarily by power ought to be the most straight forward assertion possible.

Understanding that I can’t solve the whole issue right here and now on my own, the very first thing I’d take a look at is changing from having an ‘on by default’ connection to other machines, to having an ‘off by default’ connection. I’d also worry about complicating the entire process to the point where parents can’t reasonably understand/control how their machines are used by their children (the first point assists with that).

One other thing which I believe is important to actually protect children would be to establish and maintain national borders, similar to China’s great firewall. The more automatic systems become, the more opportunity exists for bad actors to exploit them for untoward purposes. Understanding that we can’t conclusively resolve every potential issue, we ought to at least do what we can to ensure that those participating in the ecosystem share similar goals and values with each other, which is really the point of borders in the first place.

My problem with all this nonsense is that it doesn’t actually solve the problem, while causing many more. You’d need to fundamentally rethink the basic design of the technology if you were to actually prevent children from accessing sexual material with it. That’s something they don’t want to do, however, presumably because they’re addicted to the power it offers them to spy on everyone, and exploit the population for profit.

We’re in this mess right now because the one absolute truth preempting every other decision made by those who wield power is that the solution must first increase their power. Literally everything else is an afterthought.

As long as you follow the golden rule: Pay no attention to the middle eastern ethnostate behind the curtain.

I presume that Europe will continue to participate in American politics, as is tradition.

I’m okay with any weebs who want 9yo girls moving to Iraq.

Better than the UK…

I’m fairly sure that’s exactly what the point is. Middle-Earth is the centre of their world, while Skyrim is the land at the very edge of their world.

Try thinking about what those other things are, related to corrupting children, which people are often upset with Israel for, and you might understand why I said it that way here.

Not at all. I’m suggesting that people are upset with Israel for more reasons than just the killing. They kill people because they refuse to stop doing those other things which upset others.

Have you considered that even when Israel doesn’t kill children, people get upset about their children being corrupted in other ways instead?

Edit: /s I guess?