On the one hand I hate Elon Musk. On the other hand I also hate advertisement.

So… win / win?

Hmm well arguably I ought to rethink my opinion now that lemmy is working well enough.

Look at how many niche communities tried to move from reddit to lemmy and failed. Basically all of them. Even just a little pushback of reddit did a lot (not letting communities be abandoned or closed). Then lemmy is becoming increasingly fragmented (e.g. US imperialists and socialist instances). Then you have people deleting years worth of contribution and valuable content on reddit, answers to questions etc. Or what happens when ~20% of the current lemmy instances fold because of server cost or lost interest? And ultimately how much of a dent on a civilization level is the fediverse going to make?

All that are example of how network effects create a “toll” if you try to leave them.

The EU recently mandated that messenger apps need to create a compatibility layer and afaik even that looks like it’s going to fail to work as thought.

Because of network effects the understanding of a monopoly has to grow with changing technology.

The fundamental problem is that it wouldn’t even be desireable to split up many of the new social media and internet technologies because that would reduce the quality for everyone, increase costs to support as a business and increase environmental damage from duplicating server storage and power consumption.

What we need is to turn them into public utilities that have significant democratic input by their own workforce (the experts and enthusiasts) and the users (the billions of people who actually create the value for the thing).

Well I believe the government had to clamp down on opposition because they actually are in league with the imperialist side of the US and want a coup and overthrow democracy in Venezuela. I don’t think they falsified the results, until I see actual evidence, and not just claims of having evidence by the lying US.

It’s similar to Iran: The guardian council was established to prevent coup attempts by e.g. the CIA. Election interference creates a legacy of problems. Many countries in the world can’t have a free democracy because the US can bring such a huge influence to bear. The USA deserve to be hated by many people of the earth. The US experienced that kind of interference the first time in 2016.

But my point is that if your country is under siege by a hostile foreign power you have to hold fast and prevent the take over at any cost. This is where crackdowns and oppression become less black and white and the use of force and violence is an imperative.

The Venezuelan government has been remarkably calm and measured though. They didn’t even arrest Juan Guaidó who clearly is a US puppet.

Fascism is also on the rise because of improved technology for thought control / propaganda / public relations / advertising. Social media lets the worst of humanity band together and pool their energy.

But wealth inequality, both worse effective quality of life for the poor and increased economic power by the wealthy is I believe a main driver. Technology is just the tool. The ultra wealthy and their lackeys today have more power than ever and are more isolated and inundated with ideology that is basically insane.

I wonder if there are studies that show correlations between quality of life and fascism in different nations.

My dad fought the Nazi’s they lost

“Oh I’m sorry. How did they die?”

“Die? No, we lost them. And now we cannot find them”

“Oh there they are! Right there!”

The US defines sanctions as acts of war, like economic warfare. So the US is at war with Venezuela. How can that fact not play a role in the evaluation of the claims? It’s like giving claims by Russia equal weight as claims from Ukraine about their own election.

And of course, how could you even expect free and fair elections while under siege?

Economic warfare

You mean we should just cut emissions and not try to remove CO2? Or am I missing something in the article?

I don’t think we can do enough off that list to make enough difference. And we’re already hitting positive feedback cycles so we need some way to remove CO2. I doubt either of those things will happen, but theoretically we need both now.

Sorry I don’t have any great sources on this. It’s rather speculation because how could you research this scientifically? Even if you could, an experiment like that would actually be unethical! And who would fund this, there is no way to talk in mainstream about advertising without running against massive financial interests. There are some search results but most of those articles look like mental garbage.

My guess is that because we’re constantly being told what to consume our minds work quite differently from what they would without advertising.

Our minds constantly have to resist intrusive advertising and psychological manipulation which means we constantly have to switch between and adversarial mindset and whatever content we were watching / reading. Or we become obedient and just “let the advertising wash through us”. And advertising constantly has to find new ways to activate our emotions.

Just as massive is the effect on content produced, there is a “natural selection” that any content that helps sell advertisement is more successful on the market. It’s not just that you can’t piss off your advertiser but that generally you want the consumer to be in a certain mood - or that content producers who do this naturally are more successful and grow.

Then there are privacy concerns which reduce humans to machines and creates a powerful system that can and is abused for political control (public relations).

How can any of that not have massive societal impacts, since it’s being done on a massive scale and is near ubiquitous? How can anyone assume these effects are not incredibly bad?

You could have a country banning advertising that has a kind of “content tax” that is funded publicly and administered independent from the government through separate elections. And that has strict mandates and distributes the money to news papers, websites, movies and video creators dependent on views - similar to music rights agencies. But none of this is even talked about. We’ve completely lost the ability to even think seriously about how to improve our society. I believe in large part this is due to advertising.

PS: There is a film called “Branded (2012)” about the “horrors of advertising”.

Constantly being brainwashed to consume is one of the great evils of our time. Consumerism is bad for mental health and the environment. But advertising also creates many biases in content creation.

When was the last time you heard anything about bad effects of advertising? Not just superficial “stupid ad” but as a massive corrosive force on society? That is how much freedom of speech we have.

So what is the point of acquiring them if they just dismantle the company? Seems stupid unless it’s funded by the CIA or something.

I think logically you need the same order of magnitude to remove CO2 from the atmosphere as you gained form burning the fossil fuels. But I’m not sure where the practical limit is.

The only solution that makes remotely sense is using large areas of the ocean where nothing grows anyway and have a fleet of hundreds of ships that seed out algae that grows, absorbs sunlight and CO2 and then rains down on the ocean floor to sequester the carbon. Otherwise we don’t have the land, energy and resources and money to do any of this.