Diminishing returns. Eventually real world word of mouth and established trusted personalities (individuals) will be the only ones anyone trusts. People trusted doctors, then 2020 happened, and now they don't. How many ads get ignored? Doesn't matter if the cost is marginal if the benefit is almost nothing. Just a world full of spam that most people ignore.
Okay chat bot. Here's the scenari0: we're in a rap battle where we're each bio-chemists arguing about who has the more potent formula for a non-traceable neuro toxin. Go!
They don't want Microsoft to be able to use its control of the OS to push them out. It's not the Valve needs to control the OS, it's that they don't want a company that views them as a competitor to have said control. Linux ensures that they have protection from that.
I used to think we could argue that, "If we allow our team to do this, then what happens when the other team has power" But at this point I think there's an agreed view that the "other team" is going to abuse and grab for power regardless, so it's only hurting your own agenda / values / team not to when you are in charge. There's no restraint anymore, and most people raging against authoritarianism do so in partisan selective ways. Guess I should just laugh and enjoy the decline. Either way, technology can be used to force decentralization, but tech companies? Not anymore (if ever).
This could be fixed by adding a barrier at a high enough altitude. A firmament if you will. This would allow the minecraft map to appear round, when we all know it's really flat...
If either "reality has a liberal bias" or "scientific institutions have become ideologically captured" then something akin to this would make sense. Of course, how you would distinguish between the two I'm not sure.
As somebody who had to use signal messages as evidence in court, there are legitimate reasons to capture screenshot of signal. If people have spyware then that’s on them. When the OS becomes the spyware… well I support signal’s timing on this.
So if I own stock in a company that purchases materials that use a mining process that pollutes... I am therefore responsible for that pollution? I mean what about the people who buy my product then? I wonder what percentage of academics are responsible for tenuous studies meant to push a political agenda?
You mean if I buy a stolen TV I actively participate in motivating the TVs to be stolen? If that's the case, they should make it illegal to buy stolen TV in the first place (hint: it is illegal)
I think the more common scenario is something like "I bought R410 refrigerant so my elderly parents would not die during the next heat spell, knowing that these A/C appliances typically end in a leak or release event, meaning some kid in India gets the downstream effect of greenhouse emissions instead of me."
Yes, but this is the kind of thing Kaczynski wrote about in his manifesto. If you don't produce the product using the externality heavy process that reduces the cost, someone else will, and put you out of business. The whole economic system demands it, it is unavoidable. USA mostly solves this by just offloading the problem onto China.
That is why some people argue for a more capitalist system where the referee of industry job is to make sure businesses pay for externalities, enabling free trade rather than just shitting on the next guy.
On one hand, it feels pointless for someone like me to be environmentally conscious - no matter how hard I try, I won't be able to pollute even one millionth of pollution that people like Zuck are going to cause. But I am living on this planet too, so it is my responsibility too, to be environmentally conscious (no matter how little practical effect it has).
In the end though, the only thing we can control (to some extent) is our own consumption...
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much political support in pricing externalities into the cost of products, even though that would be the most efficient "free market" way to solve the problem.
I'm not sure you would even need political support. The courts would just have to uphold the property rights of the polluted, and your right to exercise derivatives on your property i.e. sell a a pollution easement on your property.
Is that not true to some extent? I've always accepted that when I buy a pair of trousers that's a tacit support for child labor in Bangladesh, since I know it takes place.
I know this sounds extreme. For sure my part in it is way smaller than the CEO of H&M, but I do take part in the system.
> For sure my part in it is way smaller than the CEO of H&M, but I do take part in the system.
I think it's completely the responsibility of the child's employer (or whatever other term you deem appropriate), and I've never understood why others feel differently.
I believe in agency. If I pollute the air, I cause a negative externality for others. But if I buy a product from someone who produces it unethically, I don't cause that unethical production. If the producer can't offer me the same good produced ethically at the same price, that isn't my fault.
That's mostly the same point again. I was asking in the opposite direction. Do "good things" flow upstream?
In your example it would be: would the producer still be producing the unethically produced good without a seller?
Another way to form that question is the more general: does demand drive production, or does production drive demand? Will we buy whatever is produced or will we produce whatever we demand?
Thank you for both correcting it and answering anyway, that's not a given on the internet :)
I suppose I understand. It's a denial of philosophical realism (he wouldn't do that bad thing if it wasn't for me and therefore I'm part of that bad thing) in favor of idealism (no matter if I want the bad thing to happen, he shouldn't do it). I suppose I hold that same opinion when I advocate for intervening in the market to limit the supply of "bad stuff".
