Airing of the SAME problems time and time again over years in public simply undermines Fran IMO.
Doesn't seem to have. And this has been kind of a catch-all thread for things that a lot of us deal with. Lab spaces, storage, rent vs buy, income sources, expense management, taxes etc.
FYI, there is a new platform coming that will actively not invite political/controversial channels at all. Guess who's one of the first sign-ups
https://tokin.video/
FYI, there is a new platform coming that will actively not invite political/controversial channels at all. Guess who's one of the first sign-ups
https://tokin.video/This means it will be infested with SJWs. There is nothing controversial about their content, it's just basic (modern) science
Headquartered in the US and run by tech bros, you just know what to expect.
FYI, there is a new platform coming that will actively not invite political/controversial channels at all. Guess who's one of the first sign-ups
https://tokin.video/This means it will be infested with SJWs. There is nothing controversial about their content, it's just basic (modern) science
Headquartered in the US and run by tech bros, you just know what to expect.
They are going to focus on "science, electronics, tech, health, film, music, gaming and sports."
99% chance of the platform becoming a nothing burger of course, but zero downside for me.
What are Tokins?
Tokins are limited. All users will be granted an equal amount.
Tokins are NOT a currency.
Tokins are NOT a cryptocurrency.
Tokins will never be bought or sold.
It's not like firms would pay users for thier votes or setup plenty of shill accounts to up the tokins.
I have youtube premium because apart from hating adds I think it's value for money and would like the creators to get something
About 1/4 of my Youtube review comes from Premium subscribers. I have it too, no ads is great, and part of that money goes to videos that I watch that month.Quotetoo bad "someone" insists on odysee exclusives , and no I am not signing up to their pro thing until they deal with the rightwing nutcase conspiracy theorists that litter their platform.
Someone has to help build alternative platforms to Youtube. I decided to step up to the plate.
"rightwing nutcase conspiracy theorists" on Odsyee? Have you seen Bitchute or Rumble?
At least Odysee's top 100 channels is absolutely littered with electronics, science, tech, and space channels, many of whom I convinced to join. I see literally zero content I don't want to see on Odysee, I'm logged in and only see the channels I follow, easy.
Also, almost all those same "nutjob" channels are also on Youtube.
The #1 channel on Odysee is Veritasium, a science channel.
I bet there are zero of those channels on Bitchute and Rumble's Top 100 channel list.
FYI, there is a new platform coming that will actively not invite political/controversial channels at all. Guess who's one of the first sign-ups
https://tokin.video/
Yea, I guess so. what concerns me is that although I may not see them as it learns what I don't like people do find them and sadly - humans, and worse, it affects us all as a society. I'd make this argument for any of the platforms, until one takes the lead in throwing out the garbage no one will. It's got nothing to do with free speech, people telling lies is not the same as free speach.
Takes some guts of them to say "we're unaffiliated with crypto/web3" and then use a word "tokinomics" which is one letter and 0 syllables away from hit crypto term "tokenomics".
Yea, I guess so. what concerns me is that although I may not see them as it learns what I don't like people do find them and sadly - humans, and worse, it affects us all as a society. I'd make this argument for any of the platforms, until one takes the lead in throwing out the garbage no one will. It's got nothing to do with free speech, people telling lies is not the same as free speach.
We saw the problem with that approach during covid.
Countless people lost way more than a platform to speak their mind.
Sorry, you can't just ban people "telling lies" without the system being absolutely corrupted to the core.
I like the new Twitter approach of Community Notes.
Yea, I guess so. what concerns me is that although I may not see them as it learns what I don't like people do find them and sadly - humans, and worse, it affects us all as a society. I'd make this argument for any of the platforms, until one takes the lead in throwing out the garbage no one will. It's got nothing to do with free speech, people telling lies is not the same as free speach.
We saw the problem with that approach during covid.
Countless people lost way more than a platform to speak their mind.
Sorry, you can't just ban people "telling lies" without the system being absolutely corrupted to the core.
I like the new Twitter approach of Community Notes.
When you have someone claiming to be a doctor telling people that a facemask will kill you due to the CO2 you will breath back in you have a problem. If thunderfoot can find out that the guy was actually struck off for malpractice I think youtube can. But thunderfoot's video explaining the truth was taken down while the fake doctors video remained despite his best attempts to explain it to youtube. These are the same facemasks that surgeons wear for hours to do operations. You need humans in the loop, algorithms can't do it and a free service cannot pay enough quality humans to moderate.
The core problem is that the general public wants answers. Doesn't matter if the answer makes sense or is right/wrong. In the past this was filled in by religion. During the past decades modern media like TV and more recently, internet has taken over that role.
Just look at TV when a dissaster happens. You get an endless amount of talking heads, most of which are self appointed experts, spouting their wild theories & speculations simply to give people the sense the situation is being handled.
More specifically, doi:10.1111/jebm.12424 states that while there is not enough clinical or preclinical data wrt. SARS-CoV-2, "RCT evidence for other respiratory viral illnesses shows no significant benefit of masks in limiting transmission but is of poor quality and not SARS-CoV-2 specific".
Surgeons and dentists do not wear masks to avoid spreading or contracting viral infections or aerosols, they use them to avoid ingesting and emitting droplets and gobbets of bodily fluids.
And you have just fallen for the trap.
I simply stated that there was this nutty guy that was firstly a lyer and a fraud before he even started talking about masks, what he had to say about masks is easily found to be yet another lie.
censoring content based on the author, instead of the content itself
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet.
Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe
And you have just fallen for the trap.No, my post was about the fact that science provides no facts or truths. You yourself wrote "thunderfoot's video explaining the truth". Truth based on what?I simply stated that there was this nutty guy that was firstly a lyer and a fraud before he even started talking about masks, what he had to say about masks is easily found to be yet another lie.Problem is, all those adjectives are opinions, not verifiable facts. Especially "Easily found to be", when I just linked to a recent study that explicitly says we do not have reliable data on this. See?
Just because you (or I) feel something is obviously true, does not make it objectively true.
My point is, whatever you think is obviously the truth or obviously a lie, is relative to your opinion. If you start censoring based on that, no matter how good intentions you have, it will sooner or later devolve into a corrupt system where only correct opinions are allowed. No such censoring system has ever, in the known history, been able to avoid becoming a corrupt one. Not even the academic ones.
The most dangerous path is when you start censoring content based on the author, instead of the content itself. It is itself a corrupt method, anti-scientific, because instead of the content of the message, it examines the messenger.
As a media, the only correct option is to avoid having to mark posts "true" or "false"; and not to try and filter or censor them using "truth" as a criteria.