The lottery paying for schooling is a clever self-defeating policy because it moves the tax-burden to the same people who would most benefit from a good public school system.
Each time there is an update to training algorithms and in response poisoning algorithms, artists will have to re-glaze, re-mist, and re-nightshade all their images?
Eventually I assume the poisoning artifacts introduced in the images will be very visible to humans as well.
And that's the problem here. They would have ended up looking for different jobs anyway. Others will leave too. The only people working there will be other assholes.
If they operate in regulated markets, then the regulations thereof determine their legality.
A ponzi scheme in itself isnt illegal (which is why there are so many crypto ponzi schemes) - it is when it is considered securities fraud that it becomes illegal.
The thought is that by regulating cryptocurrencies (i.e. treating it as a similar asset class as stocks, commodities, etc), such "investments" would be subject to the same rules - whether it has any real inherent value or not is irrelevant.
Ponzi and pyramid schemes are illegal in many jurisdictions. It's possible to be charged with securities or commodities fraud for security-based ponzi schemes, but there are laws against such schemes outside of the securities market. E.g. https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azle...
I didnt mention pyramid schemes specifically because there are (usually) other laws that deal wit those (as you have pointed out). They dont apply because the very definition requires the product to NOT be what you are purchasing. When it is the nature of the product that matters, it is the respective regulation that applies. Crypto has no regulation, hence the desire to treat it as another regulated asset class, so the existing laws apply to it.
Serious question: Do you think no people have been harmed by crypto? My guess is by the end, 10s of thousands of people will have been seriously financially harmed.
Netflix has fallen more than Bitcoin has this year. Netflix has no or very little in the way of underlying physical assets to back up their valuation -- they do have intellectual property that may or may not be worth something, but is not an intrinsically scarce good like, say, real estate or even like iPhones.
So, serious question for people who argue that Bitcoin deserves a special class of regulation: what differentiates Bitcoin and Netflix here?
One big difference is that Netflix is subject to securities regulations and must file regular reports with the federal government providing important information about how they have been making their money, how they plan to make their money in the future, and any potential issues they see on the horizon with their business plan. Major investors are disclosed. Names of managers are disclosed. And every potential investor can read these reports; they are public. If they lie, investors can sue.
I don't think Bitcoin has anything like that - its ledger is public, yes. But the important part, where fiat currency is turned into Bitcoin or vice versa... that is opaque, for the most part. This is a very big difference, in my mind.
Investors can sue if Netflix lies, though importantly if what you're worried about is a collapse in the value of the security, um... bad news. Suing is not going to recover the value of the security.
I don't think that Netflix itself has a responsibility to report the flow of fiat currency into and out of Netflix, certainly not in a timely enough way to prevent people from being burned by the outflow of capital from it (as, indeed, has happened this year). The stock exchanges themselves provide visibility into that.
Right, but if I'm sitting in the chair as a regulator whose goal is to reduce the harm that financial products can cause to an average member of the general public while still allowing the market to work on its own as much as possible... I'm going to look at Netflix and think "well, we did what we could." Do you honestly think I should look at Bitcoin and think the same?
I mean? Maybe? Bitcoin has generated more wealth for more people than Netflix and lost less value from its peak? Seems like things are going okay?
You seem to be hinting that there's a natural limit to what we "can" do for any given security. I don't think that's true: it's just all tradeoffs. Could a regulator have tried to stem the losses people experienced from Netflix? I mean, sure. They could've halted trading on Netflix. They could've artificially bought up Netflix's stock.
I don't think they should have done all that. The costs would have been extreme. But if you're all in on, "we did what we could," then I think the ball's in your court to describe exactly where the limits of that doctrine lie.
40% of bitcoin holders are underwater, and the vast majority of that so-called wealth is held by like 5 people. And for what? being in the right anarcocapitalist forum in 2009? Nice.
What percentage of Netflix holders are underwater?
That's the point of this whole thread: whenever you get crypto haters on these fora, they act like crypto is the only volatile asset that has no effective price floor. But in fact, there are loooooooooooots of assets that are volatile and have no effective price floor.
Are those assets dangerous to invest in? They sure are. I don't invest in crypto and I don't invest in Netflix, either.
But do those many other assets that are volatile and have no effective price floor draw all this apocalyptic talk and complaints? No, they don't. They may draw entirely reasonable discussions of the value of not investing all your eggs in one basket. Which suggests to me that all the hate that crypto draws is not in fact because they're volatile and have no price floor -- that's a smokescreen for people who, generally, are in some combination of: a. don't like the politics of some people involved in crypto, or b. are pissed off that they spent a decade saying that crypt was going to crash any day now and have been consistently wrong.
People have definitely been harmed by crypto. I was pointing out that pyramid and ponzi schemes harm people by definition. There is no mathematical way for them to benefit a majority of participants. That doesn't necessarily hold for crypto.
How not? The problem with pyramid schemes, gambling, ponzi schemes, and cryptocurrencies is: they're zero-sum games (or worse). As you say, there is no mathematical way for most people to benefit from cryptocurrencies.
Cryptocurrencies are not zero-sum due to the ability to create money via lending. E.g. if I make a currency with 100 tokens, I can lend them to you for a year at a 10% interest rate. Even though there are only 100 coins in existence, I’ve created an asset worth 110 coins. This is how money gets created in a fiat system created money as well. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation
The reason money creation is valuable in fiat currencies is because those are circular economies: the person taking on debt is presumably producing something of value, and able to pay back the interest.
Crypto is not a circular economy. It's a speculative investment whose expected return is always negative.
How is taking a crypto loan and using it to produce something "of value" in the U.S. different than someone taking a USD loan and using it to produce something of value in Turkey?
Let me be more clear: the value in money creation is the loan itself. Money creation in USD does not make the USD more valuable. It makes the economic output of the economic system (GDP) more valuable.
The point remains: someone spending $USD to acquire $<Crypto> should expect to lose $USD when they invariably want to sell their tokens for $USD later. Casino chips are also a negative-sum game, even though a loan shark may loan you some for interest.
Casino chips are a good example. It's the casino that is zero-sum, not the chips themselves. People don't do business in casino chips because of logistic and liquidity issues. If you could buy casino chips digitally from anywhere in the world, at any time, with no counter party risk, and write contracts against them, then I bet a lot of people would do so.
The violent attack on the capitol was the result of fake news media without anyone ever inciting violence. They simply need to repeat over and over that the election was stolen and that caused the violence and people died.
Incorrectly yelling Fire in a crowded theater is illegal and no one is inciting violence in that situation either. There are many commonalities between broadcasting fake news for profit and propaganda, and incorrectly yelling fire in a crowd. Both end up resulting in public safety hazards.
It is a difficult problem to deal with because there is always the possibility of corruption and a reduction in genuine free speech when there is regulation involved. But it is a problem that has to be solved.
It is also no longer social media only, it is Fox, OANN, NewsMax, Sinclair, etc that are increasingly filling up air time with lies solely to make a buck.
Do you have any other options? I don’t care who solves it, but when a company is run for the intent to produce propaganda it’s pointless to ask them to self regulate.
There is always the option to let the issue sort itself out. To allow space and time for a solution to emerge.
We should be careful not to fall into action bias. E.g. the thought that we need to do something, anything, since that can lead to counterproductive solutions.
I've begun to look at information problems like this not too differently than viruses of thought. Right now these viruses are running rampant because we've never had to deal with anything like them before on such a wide scale. It seems perfectly possible to me that over time we will develop social standards that immunize us from these viruses. More and more people will begin to disregard clickbait, outrage-inducing headlines, etc. They will simply become less salient the more and more we experience them.
Reframing the question at hand around this metaphor: What would an effective vaccine look like for these thought viruses? I'm not at all sure, but I can't imagine any kind of partisan response that would work, since these viruses infect left and right alike, and many people will bend over backwards to argue otherwise. Until we can face that fact honestly, I don't see how we could even begin to have a productive conversation about a solution.
>Reframing the question at hand around this metaphor: What would an effective vaccine look like for these thought viruses? I'm not at all sure, but I can't imagine any kind of partisan response that would work, since these viruses infect left and right alike, and many people will bend over backwards to argue otherwise. Until we can face that fact honestly, I don't see how we could even begin to have a productive conversation about a solution.
Actually, there are effective ways to identify the credibility of information. From the well known CRAAP.[0] test to "lateral reading"[1] and a host of related [2][3][4][5] methods to clarify the credibility of online (or offline, for that matter) material. There are even curricula[6] that addresses these issues.
And no, none of these methods are partisan. Rather, they give the reader tools to help them determine the validity and credibility of information.
That many folks don't do so is definitely a problem. One of the less involved methods is "lateral reading" as described in [1]. I heartily recommend it, as well as other methods.
They're not partisan, no, but as you kind of allude to ("many folks don't do so") a prerequisite for using them properly is a certain ideological flexibility that is... less common these days. If someone is ideologically possessed, they will use these tools to skewer outgroup ideas but not apply them to ingroup ideas. As the letters in this very post demonstrate even our congress people can't apply them to their own thinking!
And as far as a governing apparatus, I'm not sure these tools really help provide the structure needed to declare any given piece of media misinformation or not.
>And as far as a governing apparatus, I'm not sure these tools really help provide the structure needed to declare any given piece of media misinformation or not.
If my post came across as suggesting that the methods I linked to should be used in some sort of [quasi]-governmental way to determine what is "good" or "bad" information, then I apologize.
My focus was strictly on answering GP's question[0] on an individual basis:
"What would an effective vaccine look like for these thought viruses?"
I was also trying to imply that there are already ways to "separate the wheat from the chaff" that are quite well-known and well thought out.
But they are just tools. And what use someone (doesn't) makes with such tools is up to them.
> If someone is ideologically possessed, they will use these tools to skewer outgroup ideas but not apply them to ingroup ideas.
Not just that, but ideologically-possessed people will flat-out reject a truth-finding methodology that results in conflicts with their worldview.
There's no point in giving someone the tools to find the truth if they're so wedded to their "truth" that evidence will not make them change their minds.
>There's no point in giving someone the tools to find the truth if they're so wedded to their "truth" that evidence will not make them change their minds.
Are you making the argument that because some folks won't use them, such tools/methods are useless?
>Perhaps useless in the sense that those who need them the most will either refuse to use them or misuse them.
I'd argue that such tools are valuable to everyone, even those who have no interest in verifying the credibility or veracity of information sources.
As the old saw goes, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." Or both more snarkily and (IMHO) more accurately, "you can lead a fool to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
>Going further... I think it might be fair to say that those tools just don't scale.
I'm not sure what your mean by "scale" in this context.
Determining for oneself the credibility/veracity of information or an information source is (and should be, IMHO) inherently an individual pursuit.
> Reframing the question at hand around this metaphor: What would an effective vaccine look like for these thought viruses?
Well, if stopping disinformation is too hard for various reasons, maybe we can
focus on the problem from the other direction: we need to find ways for accurate information to be easier to find and to verify.
If you think of misinformation more like a bacteria, then one of the common causes of bacterial infections is that the regular good bacteria have been wiped out for one reason or another. Antibiotics might help, or they might make the problem worse.
I do think we have some serious institutional problems that are preventing the usual sources of accurate information from operating effectively. News that's become overtly partisan, and an economic model that selects for the most sensational headlines. Scientific research findings that aren't reproducible. Universities becoming increasingly run like profit-focused corporations, and too expensive for many to attend due to lack of public funding. Misinformation is always a problem even in the best of times, but it can also fill the void when there's a lack of accurate information.
I don't know what the solution is. I tend towards more distributed models of information sharing that have fewer institutional gatekeepers declaring who the experts are, but I don't know exactly what that looks like, or how to do that in a way that tends towards more credibility rather than less.
So in other words no, but you don’t think it’s a long term problem?
I honestly think your fath in humanity is refreshing. Personally, I think this is just reversion to the mean where simply lying was historically the most common response.
> I honestly think your fath in humanity is refreshing. Personally, I think this is just reversion to the mean where simply lying was historically the most common response.
Its your faith in humanity that's "refreshing" if you think giving the people with the guns the power to police speech is the proper solution.
Don’t put words in my mouth, I didn’t suggest government regulation of speech.
Though I will admit debate rules where each side gets equal time back to back to be somewhat humorous. That’s mostly my love of chaos and the spectacle of such an idea.
Odd, I was initially thinking in terms of a non governmental organization to regulate the terms Reporter and News much like how Doctor is a protected. But, that doesn’t seem viable.
The medical monopoly is more expansive than that. It regulates not just the use of the terms but the practice of medicine itself. And those rules are backed by the force of the government. If that’s what you’re suggesting for journalism, it’s even worse. It ultimately has the backing of government, but without the political accountability.
That’s one of many issues, however the peanut butter vs peanut spread line feels like a useful benchmark.
You could call your a current events organization and say anything or call yourself a News organization and be held to some standard. That IMO avoids limitations on free speech as the body of the message is what’s important not the label of such a method. As you say using government force to require organizations to change their name is distasteful.
However, coming up with a new term like whizphish that currently has no meaning but could gain meaning in this context should avoid stepping on any toes while achieving similar goals. LEED Platinum certified doesn’t directly have government backing, but a building falsely claiming such is simple fraud.
In my previous comment, I am roughly equating incorrectly yelling fire in a crowded theater with broadcasting fake news to millions of people.
If there were a way to clearly differentiate between free speech and fake news, then yes, I would support legal ramifications for spreading blatant intentional fake news created solely as profitable propaganda that causes harm, and treating that as intentionally lying about fire in a crowd.
I don't know what the best organization or process for setting that up would be. After a certain number of complaints, can we transparently look into the owners of the news media, their revenue streams, their involvement with foreign governments, to determine whether a company is a legitimate news source or not? Can we get non-profits and media-freedom watchdogs involved to ensure fairness? Can we get the fairness doctrine running again? I don't see why not.
It was made more specific in Brandenburg v. Ohio but it was not overturned. ie, if someone is falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater which is "speech brigaded with action" then it is a situation where a person could be prosecuted for speech. They used that very example.
Why was this downvoted? garg is quite plainly correct:
> The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre.
> This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. [...] They are indeed inseparable and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused.
> Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution.
This couldn't be more explicit in saying that falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre is a prosecutable offense. (As long as an injury occurred.)
And "speech brigaded with action" would still have to pass the muster of being "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action". One would have to prove a criminal element (almost always a mens rea) in addition to such speech rather than holding the presumption that the words themselves carry a distinguishing factor among other things. You're right to say it's prosecutable (although technically anything is prosecutable), however what you appear to allude to (and I could be wrong in assuming that of your claim) is that "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is prima facie unprotected speech. If so, then that hasn't been true since the Brandenburg test was instituted.
The violent attack on the capitol was the result of the sitting President of the United States claiming the election was stolen and telling them to march on the capitol.
That is decidedly not a social media thing.
Social media gave him the mob, but it was a man with a podium that incited the action.
> The violent attack on the capitol was the result of the sitting President of the United States claiming the election was stolen and telling them to march on the capitol.
If true, this would be much more convincing with a direct quotation and a source, rather than your interpretation.
> we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
> I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
The government should be regulating the broadcast of false information that is blatant propaganda. Freedom of speech is not freedom to broadcast blatant lies to millions of people.
