Im pretty sure I said "the point of it and not that it was 100% ready to go now.

Also, no one thinks advertising works on them. So, I’m sure you don’t believe it 👍

What if the point of AI is to have it create a personal model for each of us, using the vast amounts of our data they have access to, in order to manipulate us into buying and doing whatever the people who own it want but they can’t just come out and say that?

Online therapy, self help books, right-wing grifter rabbit holes, medications with varying degrees of efficacy and legality

All else fails, adverts for bulk order discounts on paracetamol, strong alcohol and sturdy plastic bags.

It’s bizzare, you started off by saying “No” in a willful display of poor social skills but then went on to say very little that I’ve disagreed with.

I mean, I didn’t say that each country didn’t have their own lobby, now did I?

The pressure and the money to actually change things and control your country’s entire online media narrative is controlled by a very small number of US companies. They use this power to rig elections and force law like the above through. I understand that wi be difficult reading for some Americans who don’t like that they’re now the colonising Empire but, that doesn’t change that the main problem with sorting our own digital data laws hasn’t been meddling by American business interests.

Have you got anything more than “I don’t like this. So, it isn’t true?”

Yeah but the IDF did show the effect their mass starvation was having on the Israeli hostages. So, I guess we’re even right?

Right?

You say this as if the problem isn’t American corporations and pooled special interests bribing, blackmail and rig elections in every country they can until they get what they want.

But, if people chat privatelywith each other in public spaces, how are we meant to control the conversation and tell people what to think?

No, A.I. generated kompromat-capture is the only possible way people can receive therapy.

Why would the tories oppose thier own bill?

I don’t think you’re fully aware of all the factors here.

“Oh, i see. You want to help paedophiles do you? Why do you hate children then, hey? Of course keef comes out to help the Jimmy Savile brigade again.”

Congratulations, you just lost the media narrative and now all but one paper is going to write about how all the things that hurt every child in the UK is your fault, for the next 3 years. The whole system is compromised and they’re passengers, only a little more engaged than we are.

This makes me feel like they were in a bind here. The so called “online safety bill” was a tory concoction that took years to pass through the courts because of how invasive it is and how anyone could easily bypass it.

If labour want to stop it, they’ll be accused of not wanting to protect children.

Whatever anyone thinks of labour, I’d ask people to ask themselves, if you were in that position, what option do they have other than to let it play out as the spectacular failure it was always going to be and making sure everyone knows who’s fault that was afterwards?

I could teach you but I’d have to charge.

Its just a dance both sides are doing.

China claim the straight and, under maritime law, if that’s accepted then it’s theirs. So, British etc. ships sail through it saying “what a lovely straight of water. I’m going to sail through here, as no one owns it.” If China doesn’t react, they have relinquished their claim to the straight. So, they have to follow up with “hey you, get off my lawn!” Every so often, the dance is repeated.

Nothing to worry about.

In other news, my toaster absolutely wrecked my T.V. at making toast.

Just like the UK, it always has been. It really screws with the narrative of billionaires trying not to pay for the health, infrastructure and welfare that allows them to extract their wealth.

The first rule of colonisation is to make the colonised pay for their colonisation. It’s just that we all, collectively, forget that our governments colonise at home too.

Thats crazy because rich people keep telling me low tax on them funds growth and helps everyone.

I mean, why would rich people lie?

I mean, you might as well call it the Walmart expansion model

They know how much control they can assert of the population through controlling social media. They’re not about to allow anyone else to use that, if they can help it. Also, it’ll dilute their messaging, even if it wasn’t as problematic as something like tiktok.

It makes sense the second you stop presuming any good faith.

Its estimated that this will stop underage people accessing porn for at least 30 seconds while they download tor browser

If you consider the price of equipment, food, training, transport etc. it sounds like a bargain to me.

I mean, the price of an American soldier.

Its not whataboutism. Its trying to help you see something youre clearly missing. Its applying the same logic somewhere else, to see if it still works. Its literally how you explain fallacies.

Its not an all lives matter response either. Instead its you attempting to reject intersectionality, in the name of feminism, without a hint of irony or self awareness. Luckily for you, no one else seems to have read theory post the 1980s either.

“Men are trash” being acceptable for all women implies that every man ever has always suffered less power imbalances than every woman ever. For example, it would mean that black male slaves in the 1800s would have to of suffered less at the hand of power imbalances than Queens of the United Kingdom, for your “power imbalance makes sexism ok” argument to hold any weight. Its just a safespace for sexism, provided it’s only directed one way.

Lol no, intersectionality isn’t a false equivalence, as you’re attempting to paint. It’s the rejection of upper class white women, for whom all the men in their lives were all powerful, declaring that all men are always in a higher position of power than all women because that’s the only thing they ever saw (bougouise feminism).

Turns out, for all their talk of equality, people like yourself just want to be at the top of a new hierarchy, exacting revenge.

You literally tried to refute intersectionality with “thats like saying all lives matter.”