I think that they really want to spread the concept of "Those Who Cannot Remember the Past Are Condemned To Repeat It" into more places, since the D. T. already practices it. Though I suspect that he's in fact repeating certain parts of history because it works for him.
I read several comments of people getting angry when someone compares something he just did to some past (and usually nefarious) event, but it's slowly becoming less of a "weaponization of past events to make D. T. look bad by claiming they are similar" and more of just, well, describing what is happening.
If one can't see the parallels, they should do the opposite of what they want from the military personnel and just read, you know, books.
If one hears a tale from a liar, they might think it's true. But if they listen to several liars, none of them knowing what the others claim, then even if the person still doesn't know the truth, they at least see that all of them are full of crap.
It's the same with propaganda.
I can have an educated guess about why they want the people of the US disinterested about history (and any news that don't happen in the country, for that matter)
Interesting view. It is easy to grumble when things get worse without seeing the bigger picture.
If I read it correctly, though, they included things that don't need their servers to function in the features that are paid now.
Regardless of the fact that they didn't plan their business model well enough (unexpected things happen all the time, one can't always do everything perfectly)
If they don't have enough money to keep the servers up without subscription, I think that giving the customer the choice of "devices not connected to the central network, but no bill" and "full experience, but you pay, because we need help running the infrastructure" would be a more fair way to treat the people who bought their devices, and I believe the backlash could be less severe, leaving more resources to actually sustain the company instead of hunting down disgruntled customers trying to crack their devices' firmware.
In this scenario, even a company that would never make it through bankrupcy would leave the remaining devices in operational state.
Since you mentioned the question about what should be done if a company becomes defunct entirely, I have been pondering about the option of releasing the software to the public if that happens. If the company has no hope of ever recovering, they could agree to that, right? Are there any legal things preventing that? I was thinking about it when I read about the emotional support robot getting shut down (an article here on Techdirt)
I have been researching self-hosting options (since I'm getting into DYI electronics and decentralized services lately) and while not everyone has the know-how to do that stuff, open-sourcing the software could open the door for other actors to pick up the bricked devices after the company died. Centralized model of service will always be at risk and the same scenario of defunct devices keeps happening, so we truly need a way to minimize the damage to people.
Just pondering here... I enjoy discussions.
Every time I see the new post from this series, I half-expect the next to be "oh yes, we were just joking, testing you if you can figure out that we were messing with you".
But hey, I'm new here.
I was writing a very lengthy comment about the effects AI has on the value of art and creativity in the world where attention has became a commodity, but then I looked at it and realized it's written in a quite "eloquent", literary way. AI could write like that. So I erased it and then kind of sidetracked.
What if people start to think that the ones who put a lot of effort into their writing or drawing all use AI?
I was once accused by a person that a drawing of mine is AI because it was "too perfect." It's not only AI being used to "rip off" things made by people. The very existence of content made by a machine puts a shadow of doubt on everything we encounter. I think this is the scariest part when it comes to the presence of generative AI in the creative field.
Now I'm imagining the future:
People write poorly written comments, articles and books with grammatical errors in there on purpose to prove their humanity. When there is enough material on the web, AI slowly starts mimicking that. At this point, nothing is proven to be real. Maybe they'll just turn their appliances off at this point and go outside to "touch grass" as some people say nowadays.
Honestly, if one wants to control people (in general) common enemy is more than just a distraction.
It unites people and makes them feel like they belong to one group (tribe). It has been like this since the dawn of humanity.
I just don't understand why people keep falling for it again and again. Maybe because it's such a deeply rooted instinct.
A group of people is picked. It must be small enough, so it doesn't have the numbers to fight back, and misunderstood enough, so they can spread misinformation about it more easily. Bonus points if people are already uneasy about the group or feel injustice for any (even fictional) reason. (Example: Jews in the past, usually good with business and money, which played on the nerves of the general public who didn't understand the effort behind it, and were easy to convince that they are "ripping off" the people, and then it just rolled and the rest is in the history books on WWII.
It is told to the people outside of the minority that the minority is the enemy.
People who become convinced make the hatred for the minority part of their identity. That makes it more difficult for the people to adjust their opinion, even if they get new information. They consider themselves a part of the tribe now.
At this point, the manipulator can "inject" basically any bullcrap into the paradigm, because people don't want to fall out of the tribe, or even be considered the ally of the common enemy, which would happen if they started to question.
I think that based on this, one course of action could be informing the public about what exactly is that minority, and showing that they aren't as small and harmless as they look. But it would have to be by people outside the minorities, so it doesn't look like the "enemy" is attempting to mess with their heads.
As it seems, according to this article, the ones that actually can do this (having enough influence and stability to withstand the pressure) are doing the exact opposite.
I won't be saying which minorities I belong to, it's kind of irrelevant here (more than I'm comfortable with, though) but I can relate to the comment from Heart of Dawn. Just leave us alone....
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by H the Historian.
"History"
I think that they really want to spread the concept of "Those Who Cannot Remember the Past Are Condemned To Repeat It" into more places, since the D. T. already practices it. Though I suspect that he's in fact repeating certain parts of history because it works for him. I read several comments of people getting angry when someone compares something he just did to some past (and usually nefarious) event, but it's slowly becoming less of a "weaponization of past events to make D. T. look bad by claiming they are similar" and more of just, well, describing what is happening. If one can't see the parallels, they should do the opposite of what they want from the military personnel and just read, you know, books. If one hears a tale from a liar, they might think it's true. But if they listen to several liars, none of them knowing what the others claim, then even if the person still doesn't know the truth, they at least see that all of them are full of crap. It's the same with propaganda. I can have an educated guess about why they want the people of the US disinterested about history (and any news that don't happen in the country, for that matter)
Interesting view. It is easy to grumble when things get worse without seeing the bigger picture. If I read it correctly, though, they included things that don't need their servers to function in the features that are paid now. Regardless of the fact that they didn't plan their business model well enough (unexpected things happen all the time, one can't always do everything perfectly) If they don't have enough money to keep the servers up without subscription, I think that giving the customer the choice of "devices not connected to the central network, but no bill" and "full experience, but you pay, because we need help running the infrastructure" would be a more fair way to treat the people who bought their devices, and I believe the backlash could be less severe, leaving more resources to actually sustain the company instead of hunting down disgruntled customers trying to crack their devices' firmware. In this scenario, even a company that would never make it through bankrupcy would leave the remaining devices in operational state. Since you mentioned the question about what should be done if a company becomes defunct entirely, I have been pondering about the option of releasing the software to the public if that happens. If the company has no hope of ever recovering, they could agree to that, right? Are there any legal things preventing that? I was thinking about it when I read about the emotional support robot getting shut down (an article here on Techdirt) I have been researching self-hosting options (since I'm getting into DYI electronics and decentralized services lately) and while not everyone has the know-how to do that stuff, open-sourcing the software could open the door for other actors to pick up the bricked devices after the company died. Centralized model of service will always be at risk and the same scenario of defunct devices keeps happening, so we truly need a way to minimize the damage to people. Just pondering here... I enjoy discussions.
Every time I see the new post from this series, I half-expect the next to be "oh yes, we were just joking, testing you if you can figure out that we were messing with you". But hey, I'm new here. I was writing a very lengthy comment about the effects AI has on the value of art and creativity in the world where attention has became a commodity, but then I looked at it and realized it's written in a quite "eloquent", literary way. AI could write like that. So I erased it and then kind of sidetracked. What if people start to think that the ones who put a lot of effort into their writing or drawing all use AI? I was once accused by a person that a drawing of mine is AI because it was "too perfect." It's not only AI being used to "rip off" things made by people. The very existence of content made by a machine puts a shadow of doubt on everything we encounter. I think this is the scariest part when it comes to the presence of generative AI in the creative field. Now I'm imagining the future: People write poorly written comments, articles and books with grammatical errors in there on purpose to prove their humanity. When there is enough material on the web, AI slowly starts mimicking that. At this point, nothing is proven to be real. Maybe they'll just turn their appliances off at this point and go outside to "touch grass" as some people say nowadays.
"How To Control The Masses" Introductory Course
Honestly, if one wants to control people (in general) common enemy is more than just a distraction. It unites people and makes them feel like they belong to one group (tribe). It has been like this since the dawn of humanity. I just don't understand why people keep falling for it again and again. Maybe because it's such a deeply rooted instinct.
- A group of people is picked. It must be small enough, so it doesn't have the numbers to fight back, and misunderstood enough, so they can spread misinformation about it more easily. Bonus points if people are already uneasy about the group or feel injustice for any (even fictional) reason. (Example: Jews in the past, usually good with business and money, which played on the nerves of the general public who didn't understand the effort behind it, and were easy to convince that they are "ripping off" the people, and then it just rolled and the rest is in the history books on WWII.
- It is told to the people outside of the minority that the minority is the enemy.
- People who become convinced make the hatred for the minority part of their identity. That makes it more difficult for the people to adjust their opinion, even if they get new information. They consider themselves a part of the tribe now.
- At this point, the manipulator can "inject" basically any bullcrap into the paradigm, because people don't want to fall out of the tribe, or even be considered the ally of the common enemy, which would happen if they started to question.
I think that based on this, one course of action could be informing the public about what exactly is that minority, and showing that they aren't as small and harmless as they look. But it would have to be by people outside the minorities, so it doesn't look like the "enemy" is attempting to mess with their heads. As it seems, according to this article, the ones that actually can do this (having enough influence and stability to withstand the pressure) are doing the exact opposite. I won't be saying which minorities I belong to, it's kind of irrelevant here (more than I'm comfortable with, though) but I can relate to the comment from Heart of Dawn. Just leave us alone....