richlind33: The public commons have long since been hijacked for propaganda purposes. For a time the internet was an "equalizer", until social media showed up. If you want to maximize propaganda potential you're not going to shut them down, you're going to structure them in such a way as to preclude rational discourse, primarily by conditioning people to respond emotionally, and imposing rewards/punishment by means of social credit systems that favor compliance, as opposed to critical thinking.
When literally everything has been politicized, proscribing the discussion of politics is like saying ignore the pink elephant that's sitting in the middle of the living room. At that point, "reality" is whatever those in power say it is, which is precisely what philosophers like George Orwell warned humanity about.
marcob: Sorry, I disagree. I think you're a bit too much into suspect culture. I know of the influence on debates that a partial moderator can have, especially one with a monetary gain or a desired result in mind but you are not dealing with some political behemoth here, just a large set of closed rooms that don't want enough fresh air. I would not call it a dictatorship or so, it must have some real-life solid grounding and a pervasiveness in everyday matters that media alone, especially medium-sized discussion boards or facebook group and the like, don't really have, even if it seems they do, because of the undue emphasis news and digital enterprises put when talking about something that indeed has great impact...but on them. Say, Disney/Facebook/EA/ecc. make a huge case about comments about this or that line of dialogue in a movie/game. Of course they do, because it's their field and their success and their business. Someone who works in a different sector and/or is unrelated to the topic and to movies and games, can probably live not knowing anything about the next "outrage of the year" between an internet commenter and a movie director!
So, trends about reality and discourse on near future can be dominated by "what those in power want to be on top of people's concerns" (I think this idea itself is so near to conspirationism you have to be very documented and careful to be sure of these plans, but is just sane to doubt about stated good intentions when someone is actively trying to
benefit only him/herself as a habit, so to say). But reality is a completely different matter. It's what hits your intuition and your senses, it can't be misunderstood and ignored past a very low line (remember the old story of the king who said it was sunny and everybody agreed while they were all in the palace? The the king went for a stroll...)
You misconstrue. I'm saying that any company that chooses to prohibit discussion on the basis of highly ambiguous standards that lack even a minimum of objectivity, is helping to facilitate what is being done by the corporate behemoths.
Conspiracy is one of the commonest features of the human landscape. The best and most blatant example of this is the limitation of liability for those who deem themselves to be "elite". It's not a theory, it's a fact, and well-documented in the public record. Another example is the World Economic Forum, that has been primarily concerned with grooming global "leaders". Again, not a theory, a fact. Conspiracy doesn't necessarily imply illegality, but even by that standard, the majority of white collar crimes entail conspiracy.
Those who promote conspiracy skepticism conflate conspiracies with conspiracy theories, in an effort to get the masses to think that conspiracies are an uncommon phenomenon. They aren't. We are under no obligation to give those who have power and authority the benefit of the doubt, because that path invariably leads to tyranny.
richlind33: Pretend the world isn't dying, and go along to get along? Sure, if you don't have any dignity, and who does these days, right bruh?
DoomSooth: Political stuff isn't even allowed here,
bruh, so there's no point in participating. If you go looking for trouble then don't be surprised when you find it,
bruh. Namean,
bruh?
When did "bruh" become an abbreviation for "brother"? It used to only be a sound effect. Did all of the English teachers die from COVID?
A long time ago, in internet years, along with colloquialisms like "teh" and "pwn".
I think you might benefit from reading Thoreau's brilliant essay, Civil Disobedience.
Cheers.