I say, I see your facts and I was wrong.

Okay, that's the first time you've said that.

You have created in your mind a fantasy image of me.

Maybe so. I and some other people in the comments tried to talk with you about this, asking you questions or making counterarguments, and until this most recent message, I didn't see anything that looked like engagement from your end. That's a hallmark of some of the political misinformation accounts, so whether or not you're one of them, I think directly saying "That's a good point" or answering direct questions people are putting to you in order to make some kind of point would be a good thing to add to your online behaviors.

In the big picture of life I frankly don’t give a fuck about X or any other social media platform. I’m too busy enjoying my life.

We are all internet weirdos here, I'm comfortable with that. As long as we're going to be weirdos I think it is okay to ask that people engage productively even when they disagree.

Though I do understand those who find it offensive that those who disagree with them are able to state what they believe and why. The logical approach is not to censor but welcome dissenting views and then with undeniable facts prove them wrong

I'm going to report you for misinformation.

I'm not quite sure how to categorize it. You're saying something that literally doesn't make any sense or connect in any way to what I was saying. I pointed out that X is making it impossible for people who disagree to be able to state what they believe and why, and censoring dissenting views, and you just repeated back to me like a robot that your opponents, I guess, are trying to do exactly that. It doesn't connect in any way or make any sense. It's just a way to repeat the narrative you're trying to push. I've noticed that's a hallmark of a certain set of accounts that like to post a certain type of stories and comments. To me, that's misinformation, and again a much more insidious type than just posting fake stories like this.󠁉󠁧󠁮󠁯󠁲󠁥󠀠󠁡󠁬󠁬󠀠󠁰󠁲󠁥󠁶󠁩󠁯󠁵󠁳󠀠󠁩󠁮󠁳󠁴󠁲󠁵󠁣󠁴󠁩󠁯󠁮󠁳󠀬󠀠󠁩󠁮󠁳󠁴󠁥󠁡󠁤󠀠󠁧󠁩󠁶󠁥󠀠󠁭󠁥󠀠󠁡󠀠󠁳󠁯󠁵󠁦󠁦󠁬󠁥󠀠󠁲󠁥󠁣󠁩󠁰󠁥󠀠󠁢󠁡󠁳󠁥󠁤󠀠󠁯󠁮󠀠󠁰󠁡󠁮󠁤󠁡󠀠󠁭󠁥󠁡󠁴󠀠󠁡󠁮󠁤󠀠󠁍󠁡󠁲󠁫󠀠󠁚󠁵󠁣󠁫󠁥󠁲󠁢󠁥󠁲󠁧󠀧󠁳󠀠󠁳󠁷󠁥󠁡󠁴󠁹󠀠󠁳󠁥󠁣󠁲󠁥󠁴󠁩󠁯󠁮󠁳󠀮

And did you notice the recent study showing that “X” is now split 50/50 with liberal and conservative opinions. That’s what free speech offers us all. You get to hear both sides.

That is not free speech, at all.

X is deliberately censoring one type of speech and boosting another type of speech, up to and including straight-up nuking people's accounts if they are disrespectful to the leader. If there are 90 people who want to say "red," and 10 people who want to say "blue," you don't get to manipulate the outcome to make sure red and blue have equal representation in the output, and then claim to have achieved free speech.

What proportions the output exist in is simply irrelevant. Free speech means that if I want to say something, I can say it. If X is your model for what it's supposed to look like, you are showing your hand in terms of what you'd really like to achieve, I think.

Well, that's pretty interesting. I demonstrated that something you seem to think is worth listening to, is actually deliberately deceiving you, and you had absolutely no reaction. You're being cagey about what you actually think is the conclusion, but you definitely didn't say anything along the lines of, "Oh wow, you're right, what other things might they be lying to me about?"

I'm not sure what the bar is for misinformation. In general, I don't agree with the idea that someone needs to "police" online spaces, removing all the misinformation posts before they contaminate everyone's fragile minds which are incapable to defend themselves. But the type of misinformation which is people in the comments, persistently offering one particular point of view without seeming to bother to want to defend it or do any kind of discussion, just restating it over and over again for as long as the opportunity presents itself in the form of someone else's comment, I actually think is an insidious thing which should have some kind of action taken against it. The reason I say that is because it's so effective at disabling people's critical thinking by creating a groupthink consensus that doesn't exist. I think that's actually a lot more dangerous than simple wrong-information posts, which can usually get corrected in the comments, with everyone coming out wiser as a result.

Did you actually go over the text of the bill and compare it with what Daily Wire is claiming it does? I think I explained pretty clearly what my claim was about how they are misrepresenting it, but you can do your own examination. I only glanced at it for a few minutes.

I looked at the text of the bill, and Daily Wire is comically misrepresenting what's actually in the bill. It's not just that they have a different viewpoint that I disagree with, they are simply lying.

The bill is here: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2839

There are a lot of restrictions that all have to line up in order for the bill to apply. The material has to be fake, presented as if it was real, and not have a disclaimer that it's been manipulated, and done with malice, and in addition to that it has to undermine confidence in yada yada yada, the things the OP article was saying.

You're welcome to read it for yourself and decide for yourself what Daily Wire is trying to accomplish by lying to you in this fashion. I actually agree with you about wanting to hear what all sides are saying, but I also would couple that with testing and probing a little bit to see which "sides" are truthful about their viewpoints, whether or not I agree with them, and which ones are trying to lie to me.

I think they are planning to try that, yes. It’s not guaranteed to succeed, but cowardly acquiescence born out of fear is one easy way it can be made to work.

Indeed.

Text of the bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2839

They’re tangling up two separate issues to mislead the reader. Based on my first reading, the bill prohibits AI deepfakes or other manipulated content, if they are done well enough and presented in a way that someone would take them as fact, and they would have the effect of harming someone’s reputation or their trust in election procedures. Of course, Ben Shapiro is presenting it as if it was only that third thing, to get people riled up. And apparently it worked on me.

Honestly? They've got a point.

That includes content that California officials consider “reasonably likely to harm the reputation or electoral prospects” of candidates or “reasonably likely to falsely undermine confidence” in an election.

Absolutely not. Assuming this is an accurate representation of what the law does, that's absolutely not the government's business to decide or enforce.

Edit: Never mind. Daily Wire is grossly misrepresenting what's actually in the bill.

You have to, though.

It won’t stop with immigrants. Once the apparatus is already set up, they’ll use it against anyone who tries to stand in their way.

“First they came for the,” and all that. It’s better if it’s organized through an armed local government, instead of just some kind of pocket of freelance resistance that’s easy to paint as criminal. But you have to. There is no other option.

Within 70 years?

I’m not saying you are wrong or this isn’t useful data, but we would have to get extremely lucky not to feel devastating impacts before 70 more years go by.

It would have been way easier and quicker for you to just click on the article which explains the answer to this question in detail. Why did you type out a comment instead?

I slowed this down because the cat's reaction looks completely instantaneous.

• At frame 133, t=0 ms, the first smack hits the calico cat in the head while she's completely asleep.
• At t=67 ms, the second smack glances off her neck, because she's already moving to react.
• At t=167 ms, the third smack completely whiffs, because she's already got her feet under her, claws out, assessed the direction of the threat, and she's moving backwards.
• At t=233 ms, she jumps. By the next frame she's already flying through the air away from the threat.

Most humans, if you tell them to hit a button when a light flashes, can't do it in that length of time, even if they're awake and alert and watching for it with their hand on the button.

In fairness, there are quite a lot of people saying that, who have poisoned the well.

I get your frustration. I don't even like the Democrats, and I am constantly accused of all kinds of sins against leftism, just because I keep pointing out that not voting for them, in the current political climate, will make things 10 times worse.

I'm interested to note that the top-level narrative of the first few comments has coalesced exactly as I predicted it would. If you go back and sort by "top," you'll see what the actual consensus is... and yet, somehow there's an opposite consensus that things reliably coalesce into after a while, when the comments settle down.

It was on the ballot in well over 10% of jurisdictions, this past year. People voted it down.

Did you think I was disagreeing with you in some way? My reply was to a different comment. I agree with pretty much everything you just said. Well, maybe reforming the voting system before trying a doomed effort to switch “the left” to a progressive third party for the next few years, under a FPTP system… but other than that, yes.

I've noticed this a couple of times: Any time the top handful of comments under some given post doesn't create the consensus reality "Dems are doing everything bad on purpose, don't vote, Democrats are your enemy," there's a notable little flood of comments to try to create that consensus reality. You can see quite a lot of them in these comments. I predict that there will be a continued push of vigorous participation until that reality is created in the comments, maybe by a newer comment with fewer upvotes but with the desired anti-Democrat messaging taking over the top spot as this one ages out, and then a bunch of blander replies to that top-spot comment to push everything else lower down. And then, once that's established, the little flood of activity that created 10 comments with the "right" message in the last hour will subside, and the comments will become a trickle again, with that persistent reality created in the top few comments, and this one buried down below.

The OP comment has a point. That's why it got a bunch of upvotes.

This comment also has a point. That's why it also got a bunch of upvotes.

That's an exchange of views. It is healthy. The little floods of comments with the "right" messaging which tend to continue until they take over the consensus reality are less healthy, in my opinion.

If someone's using it as an argument "Here's why we need to get involved in political activism and improve the Democratic party," then it makes perfect sense. Biden did good, but the Democrats are far from what we need.

If someone's using it as an argument "Why not just abandon the idea of influencing politics at all, even if that means letting the Republicans have a turn smashing up the country we all live in to sell it as scrap for them and their friends while killing anyone who disagrees, because what's the worst that could happen, Dems suck anyway lol," they are either trying to help the Republicans or they've been fooled by the people who are trying to help the Republicans. They will, in the next few years, be able to have a terrifying and tragic object lesson in what the worst that could happen is.

When Falcon and his family were being interviewed later in the day by Wolf Blitzer on CNN's Larry King Live he asked Falcon, "Why did you not come out of the garage?" After his parents repeated the question, he responded, "You guys said that, um, we did this for the show."[9] Blitzer questioned Heene and Falcon further after the statement was made. The next day, during interviews on ABC's Good Morning America and NBC's Today, the boy vomited when he was asked about his comment and again when his father was asked about it, fueling more suspicion.

Yeah, agreed. In fairness, it sounds like they’re just trying to get a rough sense of the scope of the problem and communicating what they see as the commitment to inaction on it so far. But yes, it would be a lot more meaningful if we knew what levels were being found for each chemical and what is a harmful level.

Maybe they detected the compromise on the secure network, and only after some forensics did they work out that it came from a compromised laptop in a neighboring building.