Taking on the 5G nutjobs

[bd139]

So a question. The 5G nutjobs are crawling all over YouTube. We have a persistent one (Anthony Steele) who just keeps creating new channels which just get taken down. Then loads of new ones pop up from pooled accounts that he's either buying or is related to or being syndicated by even more idiots. Unfortunately this meme (in the traditional Dawkins sense of the word) is quite successful among the armies of poorly educated slop on this planet. After repeated attempts at reporting him to YouTube and our security authorities here, nothing is really being done. At the same time our infrastructure workers are being attacked (OR engineer was stabbed 5 times the othe day) and our infrastructure destroyed by their supporters.

What can we do about these idiots in the long run? Someone needs to break the cycle one way or another. This isn't some call to arms but a serious discussion about how to either remove them or discredit them quickly and efficiently.

[SilverSolder]

Create a less harmful diversion, somehow?

Put up decoy "6G" towers and spread the word that these are 100x worse than 5g, and must be stopped at all costs - 5g is nothing! 

Of course, the "6G" towers are really big Tesla coils! 

[Zucca]

I do not why everybody is still using Youtube, we should all jump off it.
Youtube is right now a serious problem, like a full loaded shotgun in the hands of a 4 years old.

[Specmaster]

Here is a channel that is trying to debunk a lot about 5G and I suspect that the channel he mentions without actually naming it, is carrying some of Anthony Steele's content on it as well. Incidently be aware that sometimes Anthony Steele also goes by the name of Mark Steele and I have tracked down a couple of videos featuring Mark which I have not yet watched to see if its the same person, BD139 believes that he has a brother called Mark, more on this later.

[Specmaster]

I do not why everybody is still using Youtube, we should all jump off it.
Youtube is right now a serious problem, like a full loaded shotgun in the hands of a 4 years old.

No no, there is a whole load of good content on it, what we need to do is to find a way of preventing them from hosting this dangerous crap in the first place. They must be able to weed out with the right algorithms all such content surely, if they put their mind to it.

[Specmaster]

Here is another channel trying take him down.

[sb42]

I do not why everybody is still using Youtube, we should all jump off it.
Youtube is right now a serious problem, like a full loaded shotgun in the hands of a 4 years old.

No no, there is a whole load of good content on it, what we need to do is to find a way of preventing them from hosting this dangerous crap in the first place. They must be able to weed out with the right algorithms all such content surely, if they put their mind to it.

Yes... the real problems are (a) poor education, which allows this nonsense to take root in the first place, and (b) the secondary effects of social media and their ad-driven user engagement algorithms.

The nutheads who think the earth is flat or RF transmits viruses have always been with us, but now it's automatically profitable to give them a soapbox and help them organise.

[madires]

Wear your conspiracy hat and tell people that it's a disinformation campaign run by the Chinese government as revenge for not buying 5G devices from Huawei or ZTE. And the persons spreading the disinformation are paid trolls.

[SilverSolder]

I do not why everybody is still using Youtube, we should all jump off it.
Youtube is right now a serious problem, like a full loaded shotgun in the hands of a 4 years old.

No no, there is a whole load of good content on it, what we need to do is to find a way of preventing them from hosting this dangerous crap in the first place. They must be able to weed out with the right algorithms all such content surely, if they put their mind to it.

The best way to do it right now is to claim some kind of copyright infringement!  E.g. claim that they are showing confidential company plans, or the music playing in the background is not licensed, or company logos or artwork is being used without permission, etc. etc.

Youtube will take down first, and ask questions later if this is done right!

[Cerebus]

Debunking and education don't work. That's hard for a bunch of engineers, scientists and other rationalists to hear. The people who fall for this stuff are making an emotional response, no amount of explaining why they are wrong, misinformed or, worst tactic of all, stupid will succeed.

The only effective counter, for the misled victims of this, is to get them to understand in a visceral way, that the likes of Steele and friends are setting out to con them, and make use of the misled to serve their own ends. Get that message through, and the energy that is going into fuel the conspiracy is going to go into toppling the demagogues that are misusing them.

So don't try and battle with explainations, start asking questions like "I know that's not true and most reasonable people don't believe that, why are you trying to get people to believe something that you probably don't even believe yourself? Whose purposes are you serving? Who's paying for you to say this?".

[Gyro]

Strap them all to chairs and test all of the new vaccines on them simultaneously using really big needles! 

[james_s]

.

[DrG]

Debunking and education don't work. That's hard for a bunch of engineers, scientists and other rationalists to hear. The people who fall for this stuff are making an emotional response, no amount of explaining why they are wrong, misinformed or, worst tactic of all, stupid will succeed.

The only effective counter, for the misled victims of this, is to get them to understand in a visceral way, that the likes of Steele and friends are setting out to con them, and make use of the misled to serve their own ends. Get that message through, and the energy that is going into fuel the conspiracy is going to go into toppling the demagogues that are misusing them.

So don't try and battle with explainations, start asking questions like "I know that's not true and most reasonable people don't believe that, why are you trying to get people to believe something that you probably don't even believe yourself? Whose purposes are you serving? Who's paying for you to say this?".

"The only effective counter, for the misled victims of this, is to get them to understand in a visceral way, that the likes of Steele and friends are setting out to con them, and make use of the misled to serve their own ends."" That sounds procedurally very much like what the "other side" does.

I have probably expressed the same sentiments (not just the quote but your entire message) and many times about many things beyond the instant issue. While I don't think you (or me) are completely wrong, there is another interpretation. Namely, that education has become less effective in practice. I mean this as a condemnation of the education system (not necessarily the educators) that has seen an unprecedented need, concurrent with massive under-funding, and while mental coercion has increased exponentially. Worse, the distribution of education quality has become bi-modal.

As a cultural phenomenon, we have lowered the value of critical thinking. Everyone is entitled to their own "facts".  "Evidence" is no longer an integral element of rational thinking...and so on and so forth.

I suppose this situation could turn around but I am of the opinion that evolution does not make U-turns.

In many ways I hope I am wrong, but fear that I am not.

[Specmaster]

He has another YT channel called 5g awareness

[Specmaster]

This website also gives him a platform and there are a few videos in the video section related to 5G https://www.cravenfreedom.com/news/technology/thefacialrecognitiongrid.html

[bd139]

I've reported that site to the hosting company's (orangewebsite) abuse service. I hope they take it seriously. If not I have their upstream lined up as well (advania). They are one of the few companies that takes payment in BTC.

[Cerebus]

"The only effective counter, for the misled victims of this, is to get them to understand in a visceral way, that the likes of Steele and friends are setting out to con them, and make use of the misled to serve their own ends.""[/i] That sounds procedurally very much like what the "other side" does.

No not really, unless you want to say a surgeon making an incision is the same procedurally as stabbing someone with a combat knife. For a start, there's the difference in our objective "get them to understand" as opposed to the objective of the Steeles of this world "get them to do what I want for my own ends". Worlds apart.

I have probably expressed the same sentiments (not just the quote but your entire message) and many times about many things beyond the instant issue. While I don't think you (or me) are completely wrong, there is another interpretation. Namely, that education has become less effective in practice. I mean this as a condemnation of the education system (not necessarily the educators) that has seen an unprecedented need, concurrent with massive under-funding, and while mental coercion has increased exponentially. Worse, the distribution of education quality has become bi-modal.

As a cultural phenomenon, we have lowered the value of critical thinking. Everyone is entitled to their own "facts".  "Evidence" is no longer an integral element of rational thinking...and so on and so forth.

I suppose this situation could turn around but I am of the opinion that evolution does not make U-turns.

In many ways I hope I am wrong, but fear that I am not.

Tempting, but na. That's just another version of the "The world was better when I was a lad" trope. We all know someone who we know has the education and the intellectual capacity to think logically, to know fact from fiction, but who believes in something irrational to the point where it determines the course of their life, or their entire world view. That belief might be in some religion or one of the many self delusions that we as a race indulge in, like doctors who smoke. People who do that are acting at an emotional level, often in the face and the teeth of the facts. The clue to this all lies there, not in some perceived intellectual or educational inferiority of the people holding weird ideas.

[Specmaster]

I discovered this YT channel and it is very informative and that nutter has been mentioned and interviewed on it as well, listen to the people describe symptoms that they have, laughable.

[DrG]

"The only effective counter, for the misled victims of this, is to get them to understand in a visceral way, that the likes of Steele and friends are setting out to con them, and make use of the misled to serve their own ends.""[/i] That sounds procedurally very much like what the "other side" does.

No not really, unless you want to say a surgeon making an incision is the same procedurally as stabbing someone with a combat knife. For a start, there's the difference in our objective "get them to understand" as opposed to the objective of the Steeles of this world "get them to do what I want for my own ends". Worlds apart.

I have probably expressed the same sentiments (not just the quote but your entire message) and many times about many things beyond the instant issue. While I don't think you (or me) are completely wrong, there is another interpretation. Namely, that education has become less effective in practice. I mean this as a condemnation of the education system (not necessarily the educators) that has seen an unprecedented need, concurrent with massive under-funding, and while mental coercion has increased exponentially. Worse, the distribution of education quality has become bi-modal.

As a cultural phenomenon, we have lowered the value of critical thinking. Everyone is entitled to their own "facts".  "Evidence" is no longer an integral element of rational thinking...and so on and so forth.

I suppose this situation could turn around but I am of the opinion that evolution does not make U-turns.

In many ways I hope I am wrong, but fear that I am not.

Tempting, but na. That's just another version of the "The world was better when I was a lad" trope. We all know someone who we know has the education and the intellectual capacity to think logically, to know fact from fiction, but who believes in something irrational to the point where it determines the course of their life, or their entire world view. That belief might be in some religion or one of the many self delusions that we as a race indulge in, like doctors who smoke. People who do that are acting at an emotional level, often in the face and the teeth of the facts. The clue to this all lies there, not in some perceived intellectual or educational inferiority of the people holding weird ideas.

Well, we have some different opinions and that is fine.

On the first point the similarity, in a general sense, but POSSIBLY less so in this one particular case because I am not going to take a lot of time to research him, to an appeal to visceral in contrast to rational is what is played out over and over again. That is what it is all about. The appeal to fear, the incitement of division and anger, the appeal to greed and 'something for nothing' and so on. My point is that the procedure is the same, I am not saying that the ends are the same in all cases.

Visceral means, "relating to deep inward feelings rather than to the intellect" (I know you know that definition), I don't like that. I am not immune to how compelling it is to want to pursue that avenue, but I do not like doing that as a way to move toward a "more perfect" behavior, so to speak.

To the second point, sure, there are all kinds of highly intellectual people - those that easily excel at advanced education, that are prone to failing in the ways you mentioned and many more ways. There are also highly intellectual people with high sociopathy that excel at all kinds of manipulation.

My response is that high intellectual functioning does not mean good at critical thinking. We all know of people who spend a lifetime chasing get-rich-schemes, but none of the regular users here would do that. There is a difference and it is because many folks here have developed critical thinking skills - not necessarily in all matters, but in at least some and there is generalization to others.

You would NEVER fall for an over unity device because you have those critical thinking skills. How did you get them? I don't know for sure, but believe, if not know, that critical thinking skills can be taught. I feel that way because I have learned my critical thinking skills, I don't believe that I was born with them.

The ability to question things, seek answers, learn facts and apply them to thinking and drawing conclusions - to gather evidence to reach some kind of rational decision is all part of critical thinking - but it is not, necessarily, taught in schools, or from a mentor or from analyzing your experiences - but it is acquired.

[BU508A]

Being poorly educated is a part of the problem. But if you want to convince the people, which are believing in such crap, you have to get and convince them on another level.

We as engineers are used to use logic, rationalism, physics etc. We have learned this and we can deal with it.
But try to understand hom people are thinking, which do not have these skills and/or education.

First, we have to admit, that all humans are very good at pattern recognition. this helped mankind to survive in a hostile enviroment.
Example: someone spotted an unusual movement of some grass, it could be, that the reason for this is a predator hiding in it,
therefore: run. This saved many lifes. So, people learnt over time to watch all kinds of patterns and are becoming very good in this skill.
And since the human brain is that powerful, this technique has been transferred to other parts of human life.
But the price for this are false positives. On the other hand, from an evolutionary point of view: better safe than sorry.

Second: humans are very bad at (statistical) probabilities.
Example: lots of people are gambling lottery.

Third: people tend to simplify things, even the complex ones which are ahrd to understand.
Example: all this sensational bullshit newspapers like "The Sun", "Bildzeitung" etc.
People like it, if somebody is explaining them the world in a black and white manner with big letters on the first page.

Today, we are living in a very complex world with lots of different requirements. The future is looking frightening and one as a person might feel overstrained and powerless.

If now somebody is coming like Mr. Steele and offers simple explanation and what one can do about this, this would be easily accepted.

My conclusion about all my scatterbrained statements  is:
We have to convince people on an emotional level. It is worthless to present mathematics, physics, diagrams whatever to this group. They would not listen, nor understand.
But if one is using pictures, easy to understand examples which may be ideally connected to their daily life experiences, then there is a chance, that they will listen to you and perhaps start kind of thinking.

I tried once to explain to some people, what it's all about the 1/r² law and the RF power per area. You know, the critic of all this mobile RF are using huge numbers, e.g. 10000µW/m² or so but all what would be recognized is the number of 10000.
I showed them a cube with a side length of 10cm and explained, that it containes 1 million mini cubes with a side length of 1mm. And then I said:
"Let's assume, that in 1m distance from the antenna we are having 1 million µW/m². This is our cube here and in 10m distance, we are having now 10000µW/m² which is now represented by these 10 cubes with a side length of 1cm.

I was nearly able to see how their brains worked on this and some persons I could see a "click".

What I'm trying to say, is: we as engineers are in responsibility to explain these things in a manner, which picks up the people from where they are, humble and with no attitudes of arrogance or elitism.

And of course we have to make it hard for people such as Mr. Steele to spread his misinformation.

P.S.
Sorry, if all this may come in a weird and disruptive manner, but I hope, that you'll catch the idea.

[Cerebus]

Well, we have some different opinions and that is fine.

On the first point the similarity, in a general sense, but POSSIBLY less so in this one particular case because I am not going to take a lot of time to research him, to an appeal to visceral in contrast to rational is what is played out over and over again. That is what it is all about. The appeal to fear, the incitement of division and anger, the appeal to greed and 'something for nothing' and so on. My point is that the procedure is the same, I am not saying that the ends are the same in all cases.

You seem to be making the assumption there that something that appeals on an emotional level has to be directed at base drives and responses - how would you feel if your Wife, Mum, Gran or Sister saw you talking about people as if they were all scum that can only be motivated by bad stuff? See what I did there, appealed to your sense of social norms or, if you prefer, your conscience? There are positive 'gut feelings' that can be appealed to as well as negative ones.

I'm not suggesting adopting the same tactics as Steele and Co, I'm saying "realise what you're dealing with". You will not dissuade one of these folks simply with hard cold logic, you will fail if you try to do so. These are people who are reacting to being marginalised and ignored by a flight into irrationality because they want to do something in reaction to those feelings, to generate a feeling that they are "fighting the good fight". Wading in with "You're wrong and here's the evidence why" will not get the reaction you would like to illicit, just hostility, veiled or outright. Whereas asking "So what's bothering you?" as an opening gambit might eventually get you listened to. The visceral appeal is "Here's someone who will listen to me", and if you actually listen you'll have a basis to continue a conversation.

Visceral means, "relating to deep inward feelings rather than to the intellect" (I know you know that definition), I don't like that. I am not immune to how compelling it is to want to pursue that avenue, but I do not like doing that as a way to move toward a "more perfect" behavior, so to speak.

To the second point, sure, there are all kinds of highly intellectual people - those that easily excel at advanced education, that are prone to failing in the ways you mentioned and many more ways. There are also highly intellectual people with high sociopathy that excel at all kinds of manipulation.

My response is that high intellectual functioning does not mean good at critical thinking. We all know of people who spend a lifetime chasing get-rich-schemes, but none of the regular users here would do that. There is a difference and it is because many folks here have developed critical thinking skills - not necessarily in all matters, but in at least some and there is generalization to others.

You would NEVER fall for an over unity device because you have those critical thinking skills.

Oh I don't know, it depends how fuckable the redhead telling me about it was and how much I wanted to fuck her. Emotional drives can really mess up your ability to reason and get you to start thinking and believing things that you probably shouldn't.

How did you get them? I don't know for sure, but believe, if not know, that critical thinking skills can be taught. I feel that way because I have learned my critical thinking skills, I don't believe that I was born with them.

The ability to question things, seek answers, learn facts and apply them to thinking and drawing conclusions - to gather evidence to reach some kind of rational decision is all part of critical thinking - but it is not, necessarily, taught in schools, or from a mentor or from analyzing your experiences - but it is acquired.

Again, this is nothing to do with any lack of critical thinking skills in the people involved, but their response to an emotional need. Any attempt to analyse this as being shaped by intellect or critical thinking, or flaws in the same, is doomed to failure. Moreover, even if what we were dealing with was merely a deficiency in critical thinking skills, it'd be impractical to re-educate the entire public. That might be desirable as a long term strategic goal, but as a tactic it's impractical.

You seem to be saying that you feel that an appeal to reason is the only 'pure' approach to this. That's flawed in that it treats other humans as only intellectual creatures, and ignores what constitutes at least 50% of them. Also, note that your appeal for a purity of approach is not a logical one, it's one that caters to your own emotional need for something that feels right to you. See, we're back to needing to acknowledge that people can't be treated as purely rational, including you.

[BU508A]

@Cerebus:

Good to know you by my side here.     

[Cerebus]

@Cerebus:

Good to know you by my side here.     

Always. Well, except about what's the best bier. 

[BU508A]

@Cerebus:

Good to know you by my side here.     

Always. Well, except about what's the best bier. 

Perhaps one day we'll find out while discussing strategies about how to explain 5G etc. best.   

[DrG]

Well, we have some different opinions and that is fine.

On the first point the similarity, in a general sense, but POSSIBLY less so in this one particular case because I am not going to take a lot of time to research him, to an appeal to visceral in contrast to rational is what is played out over and over again. That is what it is all about. The appeal to fear, the incitement of division and anger, the appeal to greed and 'something for nothing' and so on. My point is that the procedure is the same, I am not saying that the ends are the same in all cases.

You seem to be making the assumption there that something that appeals on an emotional level has to be directed at base drives and responses - how would you feel if your Wife, Mum, Gran or Sister saw you talking about people as if they were all scum that can only be motivated by bad stuff? See what I did there, appealed to your sense of social norms or, if you prefer, your conscience? There are positive 'gut feelings' that can be appealed to as well as negative ones.

I'm not suggesting adopting the same tactics as Steele and Co, I'm saying "realise what you're dealing with". You will not dissuade one of these folks simply with hard cold logic, you will fail if you try to do so. These are people who are reacting to being marginalised and ignored by a flight into irrationality because they want to do something in reaction to those feelings, to generate a feeling that they are "fighting the good fight". Wading in with "You're wrong and here's the evidence why" will not get the reaction you would like to illicit, just hostility, veiled or outright. Whereas asking "So what's bothering you?" as an opening gambit might eventually get you listened to. The visceral appeal is "Here's someone who will listen to me", and if you actually listen you'll have a basis to continue a conversation.

Visceral means, "relating to deep inward feelings rather than to the intellect" (I know you know that definition), I don't like that. I am not immune to how compelling it is to want to pursue that avenue, but I do not like doing that as a way to move toward a "more perfect" behavior, so to speak.

To the second point, sure, there are all kinds of highly intellectual people - those that easily excel at advanced education, that are prone to failing in the ways you mentioned and many more ways. There are also highly intellectual people with high sociopathy that excel at all kinds of manipulation.

My response is that high intellectual functioning does not mean good at critical thinking. We all know of people who spend a lifetime chasing get-rich-schemes, but none of the regular users here would do that. There is a difference and it is because many folks here have developed critical thinking skills - not necessarily in all matters, but in at least some and there is generalization to others.

You would NEVER fall for an over unity device because you have those critical thinking skills.

Oh I don't know, it depends how fuckable the redhead telling me about it was and how much I wanted to fuck her. Emotional drives can really mess up your ability to reason and get you to start thinking and believing things that you probably shouldn't.

How did you get them? I don't know for sure, but believe, if not know, that critical thinking skills can be taught. I feel that way because I have learned my critical thinking skills, I don't believe that I was born with them.

The ability to question things, seek answers, learn facts and apply them to thinking and drawing conclusions - to gather evidence to reach some kind of rational decision is all part of critical thinking - but it is not, necessarily, taught in schools, or from a mentor or from analyzing your experiences - but it is acquired.

Again, this is nothing to do with any lack of critical thinking skills in the people involved, but their response to an emotional need. Any attempt to analyse this as being shaped by intellect or critical thinking, or flaws in the same, is doomed to failure. Moreover, even if what we were dealing with was merely a deficiency in critical thinking skills, it'd be impractical to re-educate the entire public. That might be desirable as a long term strategic goal, but as a tactic it's impractical.

You seem to be saying that you feel that an appeal to reason is the only 'pure' approach to this. That's flawed in that it treats other humans as only intellectual creatures, and ignores what constitutes at least 50% of them. Also, note that your appeal for a purity of approach is not a logical one, it's one that caters to your own emotional need for something that feels right to you. See, we're back to needing to acknowledge that people can't be treated as purely rational, including you.

You seem to be making the assumption there that something that appeals on an emotional level has to be directed at base drives and responses - how would you feel if your Wife, Mum, Gran or Sister saw you talking about people as if they were all scum that can only be motivated by bad stuff?

They seem to be ok with it.

You seem to be saying that you feel that an appeal to reason is the only 'pure' approach to this. That's flawed in that it treats other humans as only intellectual creatures, and ignores what constitutes at least 50% of them.

Not sure how you came up with that 50% figure, but no I am not saying that at all.

In fact an appeal to reason for "those" folks is not going to work and that needs to be understood and accepted. You seem to be saying that you need some kind of superior emotional manipulation that will convince them otherwise - that sounds a lot like more of the same as I already mentioned.

When has that worked? Show me the video or the citation.

I believe that too many folks who believe such things are too far gone. It is not my fault that they believe those things and it is not my job to convince them to sop believing such things - in fact, it is a fools errand.

One can, however, influence people BEFORE they have reached that point and that is where my emphasis on critical thinking skills comes in.

Apart from this simplistic emotional/intellectual dichotomy that I don't think you could operationally define, I look at it this way...Behavior (including beliefs) is maintained by reinforcement - something is keeping those folks believing (or saying or acting like they believe) that nonsense - something led to believing that nonsense. Nobody was born to believe in over unity devices.

Also, I stand corrected, you would believe in over unity devices if some hot redhead agreed to exchange sex for your expression of beliefs. You made my point, something reinforces your behavior and your beliefs....see what I did there?

Again, this is nothing to do with any lack of critical thinking skills in the people involved, but their response to an emotional need. Any attempt to analyse this as being shaped by intellect or critical thinking, or flaws in the same, is doomed to failure.


Again, we disagree, as I said. Further "this" has EVERYTHING to do with a lack of critical thinking skills. Any attempt to analyze "this" without considering "this" as NOT being dependent on a lack of critical thinking skills is doomed to failure. Nowhere has there been any discussion by me of an emotional need NOT coming into the situation - that is just not true, Your inability to grasp that the concepts, critical thinking and emotional need, are not mutually exclusive is mind-numbing.

 It is a particularly striking accusation (which is exactly what it is) especially to someone who has worked for decades as an Experimental Psychologist/Neurobiologist. I am not claiming that, alone, is a reason that means I am right and you are wrong. But, to claim that my position is "doomed to failure", is well, disinhibited, to say the least, and, in fact, somewhat arrogant. I get it, you like to argue.

Do you actually have some kind of evidence or credentials that your position, whatever it is, is correct and that mine is incorrect? - No, of course not, if you did, you would simply state that evidence and those credentials.

I am stating that "this" is not an issue that I have neglected in my thinking. To me, your position that it has nothing to do with intellect and everything to do with "emotional need" is a convenient oversimplification weakly used to rationalize a strategy that employs the same processes of manipulation to get a desired outcome.

"The only effective counter, for the misled victims of this, is to get them to understand in a visceral way, that the likes of Steele and friends are setting out to con them, and make use of the misled to serve their own ends."

Those are your words. I disagree with them. There may be other ways and they may be too far gone to be changed (for a lot of reasons). Your proclamation that your so-called visceral approach, especially since you are offering absolutely no evidence that you have actually done that, is, to me, just another opinion. I am ok with that - be ok with mine. As I said, we disagree.

I will let you actually have the last word if you like - at least for now, because I am tired of this go-round and it does not matter so much to me because I doubt you are "convinceable" (much as those you claim you will convince by emotional coercion) - but you might remember.

[Cerebus]

OK, now you just seem to be arguing for argument's sake, like talking about "manipulation" which is something you're introduced and I have never suggested. I don't see continuing that line of discussion as fruitful. I'm particularly persuaded by watching you deliberately goad Dave in another topic that "You're not here for the hunting" as the old joke has it.


Let us be clear, the point here is not intellectual self stimulation, or to mock the 'crazy people', or to feel sorry for them, it's to devise some practical responses to mitigate the blight of 5G conspiracy theories. Lest we forget, the 5G conspiracies have already led to direct and indirect harm to people, even as extreme as highly violent assaults and arson.

My argument, as far as debunking this is concerned, which I will restate is:

To regard this problem, of people who have become embroiled in 5G conspiracy theories, as one where merely providing people with the facts is an adequate solution would be wrong.

The problem is not one of lacking access to facts, nor of not being able to properly process those facts. The problem is the result of a particular emotional response having been invoked in these people - one that is likely to have led to the creation of a self-supporting belief system. We're not dealing with simple lack of understanding, but something more akin to a religion or a cult.

Any attempt at countering this problem has to be viewed in that light. Simple presentation of the facts will fail, one has to take into mind the mindset of the people you are trying to convey the facts to. That mindset includes the emotional reasons why they want to believe this stuff - without understanding that you are likely to fall at the first hurdle.

Yes, there will be people to whom 5G, biology and other technology is 'magic' (cf Arthur C Clarke) but don't confuse ignorance with stupidity. (And for safety's sake: Don't confuse knowledge with wisdom.  ) The idea that 5G can spread a viral disease is arrant nonsense, but to express it that way with a "trust me, I know what I'm talking about" to the people we'd like to dissuade from that idea would be, to put it mildly, counterproductive.

Before one can set about formulating a strategy for debunking this one has to answer several questions:

• What does this group of people believe? (I think we already have some pretty clear, if broad, answers to this.)
• Why does this group of people believe this?
• What makes them want to believe it?
• What is being done to make them believe this?

with a side-order of

• What is the motivation of the people proseletising this?

There's a completely different track to be followed as regards "shutting down" the likes of Anthony Steele, who seems to be a candidate for incarceration rather than persuasion of the error of his ways.

[DrG]

OK, now you just seem to be arguing for argument's sake, like talking about "manipulation" which is something you're introduced and I have never suggested. I don't see continuing that line of discussion as fruitful. I'm particularly persuaded by watching you deliberately goad Dave in another topic that "You're not here for the hunting" as the old joke has it.


Let us be clear, the point here is not intellectual self stimulation, or to mock the 'crazy people', or to feel sorry for them, it's to devise some practical responses to mitigate the blight of 5G conspiracy theories. Lest we forget, the 5G conspiracies have already led to direct and indirect harm to people, even as extreme as highly violent assaults and arson.

My argument, as far as debunking this is concerned, which I will restate is:

To regard this problem, of people who have become embroiled in 5G conspiracy theories, as one where merely providing people with the facts is an adequate solution would be wrong.

The problem is not one of lacking access to facts, nor of not being able to properly process those facts. The problem is the result of a particular emotional response having been invoked in these people - one that is likely to have led to the creation of a self-supporting belief system. We're not dealing with simple lack of understanding, but something more akin to a religion or a cult.

Any attempt at countering this problem has to be viewed in that light. Simple presentation of the facts will fail, one has to take into mind the mindset of the people you are trying to convey the facts to. That mindset includes the emotional reasons why they want to believe this stuff - without understanding that you are likely to fall at the first hurdle.

Yes, there will be people to whom 5G, biology and other technology is 'magic' (cf Arthur C Clarke) but don't confuse ignorance with stupidity. (And for safety's sake: Don't confuse knowledge with wisdom.  ) The idea that 5G can spread a viral disease is arrant nonsense, but to express it that way with a "trust me, I know what I'm talking about" to the people we'd like to dissuade from that idea would be, to put it mildly, counterproductive.

Before one can set about formulating a strategy for debunking this one has to answer several questions:

• What does this group of people believe? (I think we already have some pretty clear, if broad, answers to this.)
• Why does this group of people believe this?
• What makes them want to believe it?
• What is being done to make them believe this?

with a side-order of

• What is the motivation of the people proseletising this?

There's a completely different track to be followed as regards "shutting down" the likes of Anthony Steele, who seems to be a candidate for incarceration rather than persuasion of the error of his ways.

First, I expected more from you than a pathetic attempt to bolster your argument by attacking me over your interpretation of a completely different thread that has nothing at all to to do with you - but as the old saying goes, the hurt dog whelps. To his credit, he did not delete my post nor did he ban me and I stand by what I posted and your opinion on the matter is less important to me than the corn in the shit that I just took.

You are not used to having people stand up to your bullying and actually hold you accountable for your professed beliefs, e.g., your so-called only way to stop these people. That is why you have now repackaged your extreme ideas into a much more palatable and less confident and less offensive approach. Good for you.

Here is the bad news, you are not the first freaking nerd to ask why people believe in conspiracy theories. In fact this has been asked by scientists for many years and many theories have been offered and none, IMO, with much evidence. I have even posted links to such literature (and at least one video) on this very site.

You have decided that you know why I am here (I'm not here for the hunt as you said). Let me tell you why I am here so that you will be less confused. I am here to learn more about electronics and particularly computer programming and electronics. Something that I have loved for a very long time and only in recent years have had the appropriate amount of time to spend on just that.

I have learned a good deal from reading and following many threads here (and elsewhere) and that is a good thing. Along the way, I have tried to help others when I could. Yes, I will also give my opinion on other threads, particularly CoVid, but also like this one. I will also stand up for myself. If I am wrong I will admit it, but I will always stand up for myself and I do that knowing that people like you are likely going to get angry.

You know how you came across (and I remember your posts from old CoVid threads where I did not think you were a clown at all)? Let me tell you that also. You came across as a clown who thinks he knows just exactly how you can control human behavior. I read your "stuff" and thought, this guy has no clue about anything to do with the behavioral sciences and probably has never even taken an Intro Psych class. Yet you are expounding on how we have to use visceral techniques, there is no other way, and don't you dare call it emotional manipulation, call it visceral techniques, because that makes you sound like you know what you are talking about. That is the only way to convince these conspiracy theory followers that they are wrong.

More bad news, you have no clue how to do that - you are not a politician and my guess is that you score very low on any legitmate sociopathy test. You are spewing what you want to believe and anybody who dares to question you must suffer your wrath. Fuck your wrath. Learn to stand up for yourself and not live off validation from others when people challenge you because it is just possible that they could know more about it than you.

You want to hate me, pity me - fine, get in line. Show me that you are tolerant of other peoples opinions and that you have some kind of well thought out and educated opinion to express. Try to be an authority on something that you know almost nothing about and you will get called out and I am not about to apologize for that.

NOW we understand each other.

[SilverSolder]

[...] What does this group of people believe? [...]

They believe that there is something wrong with their lives - they do not feel happy and fulfilled as human beings - and they believe this is caused by factors external to themselves, factors that they have no control over.  These two factors are key:  unhappy + external cause.

[...] Why does this group of people believe this? [...]

The particular "thing" they are attacking (foreigners, 5G towers, etc.) is just a symptom of their emotional anchor that something must be wrong with the world to make them feel this way.  Some of them attack 5G towers, others think building a wall will make them happy, still others lash out at their local trade bloc, etc. etc. - the specific thing they have chosen to strike out at in their rage and frustration isn't actually that important.  The important part, and the driver, is their unhappiness and the belief that there is nothing they can do themselves.

[...] What makes them want to believe it? [...]

It is very difficult to see the limitations that you, yourself, put on the level of happiness that you are able to achieve.  Most people do have at least a sense that they can be their own worst enemy at times (indeed, some go too far in that direction), but there is absolutely a significant subset of people that cannot process the idea that they might be doing something sub-optimal at all.  They so strongly need to protect their ego that they only look for causes external to themselves.  No matter how crazy those causes are, they beat having to own up to any explanation that involves themselves.

[...] What is being done to make them believe this? [...]

Some people instinctively understand how the frail ego people think, and "help" them by feeding them with plausible sounding (to a non expert) beliefs.  The "victims'" payoff is that by being a member of a group of people who subscribe to the same belief, each individual is not required to question the beliefs but can instead point to the leader or his writings, and/or the fact that many others believe the same thing, if they are ever asked to justify what they are saying or doing.

[...] What is the motivation of the people proseletising this? [...]

The proselytisers are generally in it for their own gain...  financial gain (YouTube views?),  votes,  fame, wine, women, and song, depending on the personality and needs of the person doing the proselytising.   There are even proselytisers that do it because they believe it themselves, and believe they are genuinely doing good by helping others "see the light".


These kinds of spiritual problems are not easy to alleviate or solve, since learning to cope with life's challenges (both internal and external factors) takes a long time and a lot of often unpleasant experiences.

[Cerebus]

OK, now you just seem to be arguing for argument's sake, like talking about "manipulation" which is something you're introduced and I have never suggested. I don't see continuing that line of discussion as fruitful. I'm particularly persuaded by watching you deliberately goad Dave in another topic that "You're not here for the hunting" as the old joke has it.


Let us be clear, the point here is not intellectual self stimulation, or to mock the 'crazy people', or to feel sorry for them, it's to devise some practical responses to mitigate the blight of 5G conspiracy theories. Lest we forget, the 5G conspiracies have already led to direct and indirect harm to people, even as extreme as highly violent assaults and arson.

My argument, as far as debunking this is concerned, which I will restate is:

To regard this problem, of people who have become embroiled in 5G conspiracy theories, as one where merely providing people with the facts is an adequate solution would be wrong.

The problem is not one of lacking access to facts, nor of not being able to properly process those facts. The problem is the result of a particular emotional response having been invoked in these people - one that is likely to have led to the creation of a self-supporting belief system. We're not dealing with simple lack of understanding, but something more akin to a religion or a cult.

Any attempt at countering this problem has to be viewed in that light. Simple presentation of the facts will fail, one has to take into mind the mindset of the people you are trying to convey the facts to. That mindset includes the emotional reasons why they want to believe this stuff - without understanding that you are likely to fall at the first hurdle.

Yes, there will be people to whom 5G, biology and other technology is 'magic' (cf Arthur C Clarke) but don't confuse ignorance with stupidity. (And for safety's sake: Don't confuse knowledge with wisdom.  ) The idea that 5G can spread a viral disease is arrant nonsense, but to express it that way with a "trust me, I know what I'm talking about" to the people we'd like to dissuade from that idea would be, to put it mildly, counterproductive.

Before one can set about formulating a strategy for debunking this one has to answer several questions:

• What does this group of people believe? (I think we already have some pretty clear, if broad, answers to this.)
• Why does this group of people believe this?
• What makes them want to believe it?
• What is being done to make them believe this?

with a side-order of

• What is the motivation of the people proseletising this?

There's a completely different track to be followed as regards "shutting down" the likes of Anthony Steele, who seems to be a candidate for incarceration rather than persuasion of the error of his ways.

First, I expected more from you than a pathetic attempt to bolster your argument by attacking me over your interpretation of a completely different thread that has nothing at all to to do with you - but as the old saying goes, the hurt dog whelps. To his credit, he did not delete my post nor did he ban me and I stand by what I posted and your opinion on the matter is less important to me than the corn in the shit that I just took.

You are not used to having people stand up to your bullying and actually hold you accountable for your professed beliefs, e.g., your so-called only way to stop these people. That is why you have now repackaged your extreme ideas into a much more palatable and less confident and less offensive approach. Good for you.

Here is the bad news, you are not the first freaking nerd to ask why people believe in conspiracy theories. In fact this has been asked by scientists for many years and many theories have been offered and none, IMO, with much evidence. I have even posted links to such literature (and at least one video) on this very site.

You have decided that you know why I am here (I'm not here for the hunt as you said). Let me tell you why I am here so that you will be less confused. I am here to learn more about electronics and particularly computer programming and electronics. Something that I have loved for a very long time and only in recent years have had the appropriate amount of time to spend on just that.

I have learned a good deal from reading and following many threads here (and elsewhere) and that is a good thing. Along the way, I have tried to help others when I could. Yes, I will also give my opinion on other threads, particularly CoVid, but also like this one. I will also stand up for myself. If I am wrong I will admit it, but I will always stand up for myself and I do that knowing that people like you are likely going to get angry.

You know how you came across (and I remember your posts from old CoVid threads where I did not think you were a clown at all)? Let me tell you that also. You came across as a clown who thinks he knows just exactly how you can control human behavior. I read your "stuff" and thought, this guy has no clue about anything to do with the behavioral sciences and probably has never even taken an Intro Psych class. Yet you are expounding on how we have to use visceral techniques, there is no other way, and don't you dare call it emotional manipulation, call it visceral techniques, because that makes you sound like you know what you are talking about. That is the only way to convince these conspiracy theory followers that they are wrong.

More bad news, you have no clue how to do that - you are not a politician and my guess is that you score very low on any legitmate sociopathy test. You are spewing what you want to believe and anybody who dares to question you must suffer your wrath. Fuck your wrath. Learn to stand up for yourself and not live off validation from others when people challenge you because it is just possible that they could know more about it than you.

You want to hate me, pity me - fine, get in line. Show me that you are tolerant of other peoples opinions and that you have some kind of well thought out and educated opinion to express. Try to be an authority on something that you know almost nothing about and you will get called out and I am not about to apologize for that.

NOW we understand each other.

Well, we understand that you are spoiling for a fight, and are self centred enough to distract from a thread that is trying to do something good, I hope, in the real world. We also understand that you're good at taking my attempt at communicating a strategy for debunking this that is going to sink in to the intended recipient and insert all sorts of insinuations of what I've said that my own words don't bear, including the ridiculous claim that I'm bullying you or that I'm plotting some sort of Machiavellian strategy to manipulate people. If you think I am bullying you, you are always free to report it to the Mods. It was certainly not my intent but I suspect that my real crime in your eyes is to disagree with you - uneducated fool without a psychology degree that I am. Now, why don't you give it a rest. Funnily enough, this isn't about you (or me for that matter) but you seem not to get that.

[DrG]

OK, now you just seem to be arguing for argument's sake, like talking about "manipulation" which is something you're introduced and I have never suggested. I don't see continuing that line of discussion as fruitful. I'm particularly persuaded by watching you deliberately goad Dave in another topic that "You're not here for the hunting" as the old joke has it.


Let us be clear, the point here is not intellectual self stimulation, or to mock the 'crazy people', or to feel sorry for them, it's to devise some practical responses to mitigate the blight of 5G conspiracy theories. Lest we forget, the 5G conspiracies have already led to direct and indirect harm to people, even as extreme as highly violent assaults and arson.

My argument, as far as debunking this is concerned, which I will restate is:

To regard this problem, of people who have become embroiled in 5G conspiracy theories, as one where merely providing people with the facts is an adequate solution would be wrong.

The problem is not one of lacking access to facts, nor of not being able to properly process those facts. The problem is the result of a particular emotional response having been invoked in these people - one that is likely to have led to the creation of a self-supporting belief system. We're not dealing with simple lack of understanding, but something more akin to a religion or a cult.

Any attempt at countering this problem has to be viewed in that light. Simple presentation of the facts will fail, one has to take into mind the mindset of the people you are trying to convey the facts to. That mindset includes the emotional reasons why they want to believe this stuff - without understanding that you are likely to fall at the first hurdle.

Yes, there will be people to whom 5G, biology and other technology is 'magic' (cf Arthur C Clarke) but don't confuse ignorance with stupidity. (And for safety's sake: Don't confuse knowledge with wisdom.  ) The idea that 5G can spread a viral disease is arrant nonsense, but to express it that way with a "trust me, I know what I'm talking about" to the people we'd like to dissuade from that idea would be, to put it mildly, counterproductive.

Before one can set about formulating a strategy for debunking this one has to answer several questions:

• What does this group of people believe? (I think we already have some pretty clear, if broad, answers to this.)
• Why does this group of people believe this?
• What makes them want to believe it?
• What is being done to make them believe this?

with a side-order of

• What is the motivation of the people proseletising this?

There's a completely different track to be followed as regards "shutting down" the likes of Anthony Steele, who seems to be a candidate for incarceration rather than persuasion of the error of his ways.

First, I expected more from you than a pathetic attempt to bolster your argument by attacking me over your interpretation of a completely different thread that has nothing at all to to do with you - but as the old saying goes, the hurt dog whelps. To his credit, he did not delete my post nor did he ban me and I stand by what I posted and your opinion on the matter is less important to me than the corn in the shit that I just took.

You are not used to having people stand up to your bullying and actually hold you accountable for your professed beliefs, e.g., your so-called only way to stop these people. That is why you have now repackaged your extreme ideas into a much more palatable and less confident and less offensive approach. Good for you.

Here is the bad news, you are not the first freaking nerd to ask why people believe in conspiracy theories. In fact this has been asked by scientists for many years and many theories have been offered and none, IMO, with much evidence. I have even posted links to such literature (and at least one video) on this very site.

You have decided that you know why I am here (I'm not here for the hunt as you said). Let me tell you why I am here so that you will be less confused. I am here to learn more about electronics and particularly computer programming and electronics. Something that I have loved for a very long time and only in recent years have had the appropriate amount of time to spend on just that.

I have learned a good deal from reading and following many threads here (and elsewhere) and that is a good thing. Along the way, I have tried to help others when I could. Yes, I will also give my opinion on other threads, particularly CoVid, but also like this one. I will also stand up for myself. If I am wrong I will admit it, but I will always stand up for myself and I do that knowing that people like you are likely going to get angry.

You know how you came across (and I remember your posts from old CoVid threads where I did not think you were a clown at all)? Let me tell you that also. You came across as a clown who thinks he knows just exactly how you can control human behavior. I read your "stuff" and thought, this guy has no clue about anything to do with the behavioral sciences and probably has never even taken an Intro Psych class. Yet you are expounding on how we have to use visceral techniques, there is no other way, and don't you dare call it emotional manipulation, call it visceral techniques, because that makes you sound like you know what you are talking about. That is the only way to convince these conspiracy theory followers that they are wrong.

More bad news, you have no clue how to do that - you are not a politician and my guess is that you score very low on any legitmate sociopathy test. You are spewing what you want to believe and anybody who dares to question you must suffer your wrath. Fuck your wrath. Learn to stand up for yourself and not live off validation from others when people challenge you because it is just possible that they could know more about it than you.

You want to hate me, pity me - fine, get in line. Show me that you are tolerant of other peoples opinions and that you have some kind of well thought out and educated opinion to express. Try to be an authority on something that you know almost nothing about and you will get called out and I am not about to apologize for that.

NOW we understand each other.

Well, we understand that you are spoiling for a fight, and are self centred enough to distract from a thread that is trying to do something good, I hope, in the real world. We also understand that you're good at taking my attempt at communicating a strategy for debunking this that is going to sink in to the intended recipient and insert all sorts of insinuations of what I've said that my own words don't bear, including the ridiculous claim that I'm bullying you or that I'm plotting some sort of Machiavellian strategy to manipulate people. If you think I am bullying you, you are always free to report it to the Mods. It was certainly not my intent but I suspect that my real crime in your eyes is to disagree with you - uneducated fool without a psychology degree that I am. Now, why don't you give it a rest. Funnily enough, this isn't about you (or me for that matter) but you seem not to get that.

*yawn*

[Cerebus]

Guys, I'm going to drop out of this thread.

It's pretty clear that DrG has decided to try and have a punch up with me  and will persist while I'm still contributing to it if I dare to wander into subject matter that he's decided is his sole province - I think we all know his type. If I can avoid polluting this thread by removing his target then that seems the best strategy for not giving him a excuse to carry on. Sorry chaps, was trying to be helpful by toddling along and pitching in on the subject but well, good intentions and all that...

No doubt he'll crow to himself that he's 'won' some sort of victory and 'made the bully turn tail' but I'll happily take that on the chin to hopefully give you some peace and quiet. I know that enough of you know what I'm actually like that I can be quite confident of the judgements you're making at the moment.

Pretty much as expected I can see that he's posted yet another riposte while I'm typing this. Well, isn't that a surprise. I haven't bothered reading it. Ho hum, another one for the ignore list.

[bd139]

Well that went off the rails quickly 

[tszaboo]

Debunking and education don't work. That's hard for a bunch of engineers, scientists and other rationalists to hear.

Absolutely, people just need to believe in something. It can be "5G is bad", "government is bad", conspiracy theories, imaginary super friends, or that not easing meat will make you healthier. They are just going to do it, otherwise it is just chaos and disarray, and that's fine. Even people who say they dont believe, they believe in something.
That can be science and that can be the ethics, and moral obligation to do good.
We probably ended up with this due to evolution. If you wouldn't believe in things that are told you, you end up too much of your precious time on fact checking, and not hunting deer or collecting seeds. But evolution is a slow process, and the emergence of internet is fast. Nobody prepared our primitive cognitive system for this. In the ancient times, you met like 50 people in a month. Now kids watch 50 tiktok video in an hour.

[bd139]

If providing idiots with misinformation works, then not providing them with misinformation will also likely work.

[Specmaster]

The thing is, that he was bad enough last time on YT with his dissection of a standard street light fitted with a radio transmitter to transmit error signals back to a maintenance dept on YT when he only had a small group of followers. Now he has grown to 1,000s of followers and is publicly inciting people get prepared, to go to their own home towns and recruit more followers, to do what?

We have already seen massive damage done existing 5G infrastructure by fire damage etc and now we are seeing personal attacks on people engaged in installing 5G equipment, even when that is just installing Fibre cabling, which while maybe carrying data to 5G stations, could also be carrying other things as well such as landlines and TV services etc.

Guys, if you have not yet watched his videos on the YT channel then please visit the site 5g awareness and watch the videoson there, many by Mark Steele. He has even been in Denmark promoting action against 5G and now even Covid-19 and now there is website as well https://www.5gawareness.com/. He is not alone in his beliefs there are other sites as you will discover from watching the banned  YT video on the aforementioned website, but the arguments put forward there are more rational and thought out and IMO not as dangerous as those that Mark Steele / Anthony Steele are which seem to incite people.

                                                                                                           

[Specmaster]

@bd139 Thanks for the thank you, but I had not finished updating the post, there is additional info there now.

[bd139]

Cool reading now 

[Simon]

...................

• What does this group of people believe? (I think we already have some pretty clear, if broad, answers to this.)
• Why does this group of people believe this?
• What makes them want to believe it?
• What is being done to make them believe this?

with a side-order of

• What is the motivation of the people proseletising this?

.......................

...............................

.........................

*yawn*

Does that mean your done? just state your opinion, no need to correct!

[DrG]

...................

• What does this group of people believe? (I think we already have some pretty clear, if broad, answers to this.)
• Why does this group of people believe this?
• What makes them want to believe it?
• What is being done to make them believe this?

with a side-order of

• What is the motivation of the people proseletising this?

.......................

...............................

.........................

*yawn*

Does that mean your done? just state your opinion, no need to correct!

Not sure I understand exactly what and who you are asking. If to me and the question is me being done with the thread, well no, my answer is that I am not.

My opinion is that a concerted effort to evaluate what SMEs (and I am not talking about myself) have to say about why people follow conspiracy theories would be a very good idea, if you are truly interested in how one might change their minds, if that is possible. Such would be a good starting point but not a recipe to accomplish the task.

Further, it is my opinion that one might have to face the possibility that for some followers, maybe even most followers, you may not be able to realistically "change their minds" and it might also be a good idea to think about mitigation through discouraging new followers.

[DrG]

She is/was a graduate student at the time. This is simplistic but a decent treatment and entertaining. Simplistic in the sense that any part of the biological processes that she talks about could be discussed for many years.

A Neuroscientist Explains What Conspiracy Theories Do To Your Brain | Inverse

[DrG]

https://slate.com/technology/2017/04/explaining-science-wont-fix-information-illiteracy.html

An interesting editorial by a science writer (not a scientist). While I strongly disagree with this person because I think that the job of scientists is to do science (which is presumably what they do well) and not PR (which they have no training in). I think it is well written for pop science, has a number of important study links, and makes a couple of relevant points to the issue at hand....


"Kahan added a twist: He asked respondents what climate scientists believed. Respondents who knew more about science generally, regardless of political leaning, were better able to identify the scientific consensus—in other words, the polarization disappeared. Yet, when the same people were asked for their own opinions about climate change, the polarization returned. It showed that even when people understand the scientific consensus, they may not accept it.

The takeaway is clear: Increasing science literacy alone won’t change minds. In fact, well-meaning attempts by scientists to inform the public might even backfire. Presenting facts that conflict with an individual’s worldview, it turns out, can cause people to dig in further. Psychologists, aptly, dubbed this the “backfire effect.” "

So, education on the issue (e.g., 5G) can backfire and make people dig in. BUT, the author's conclusion is short-sided. Even if true, there is no attempt to study the impact of that education on potential conspiracy followers - that is an important point I think.

A second point made relates to the appeal to emotion (again, and obviously, I don't care for that approach) but it is relevant to the discussion.

They may have more luck communicating if, in addition to presenting facts and figures, they appeal to emotions. This could mean not simply explaining the science of how something works but spending time on why it matters to the author and why it ought to matter to the reader. Research also shows that science communicators can be more effective after they’ve gained the audience’s trust.

The citation there is to another pop science article...
It’s Time to Give Up on Facts Or at least to temporarily lay them down in favor of a more useful weapon: emotions. https://slate.com/technology/2017/02/counter-lies-with-emotions-not-facts.html

Again, not agreeing with what is written there, but it is not a novel idea.

[DrG]

Second: humans are very bad at (statistical) probabilities.
Example: lots of people are gambling lottery.

Yes and no, I think. Humans, and other animals, are actually very good at accurately perceiving and acting upon probabilities, but only to the extent that is useful in a natural selection sense. IOW, it is a great advantage to learn the different likelihoods of receiving food at different locations. They will spend their time at the "better" places in a proportionally "correct" manner.

But when the task is discriminating .0001 from .000001 not so much, again IMO.

A little book came out in 1988, Innumeracy, which is a pretty good treatment and made some good points
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innumeracy_(book) not sure what is going on with that link but it is there eventually
https://www.amazon.com/Innumeracy-Mathematical-Illiteracy-Its-Consequences/dp/0809058405

I still have my copy.

[DrG]

A few more pop science / main media articles specifically about 5G and conspiracy theories. Not going to do them justice by short comments, but relevant to the topic.

https://theconversation.com/four-experts-investigate-how-the-5g-coronavirus-conspiracy-theory-began-139137
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/05/great-5g-conspiracy/611317/
https://www.bbc.com/news/53191523
https://www.vice.com/en/article/pke7yv/5g-coronavirus-conspiracy-theory-origin
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/01/5g-conspiracy-theory-coronavirus-misinformation/

[DrG]

Why do you NOT believe 5G conspiracy theories?

Is it because you believe that it is irrational to do so? That there is no evidence supporting them? No known process that could allow you to believe such nonsense? All that stuff describes why I don't believe in them and I would speculate that view is shared by many here.

Take a step further an imagine that you want to convince someone who is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia that they are wrong about their beliefs. I don't think one can have much success using education, appeals to reason or appeals to emotion. There is no visceral convincing. The condition is characterized as a gross thought disorder and none of those tools work. In fact not much less than pharmacologics can make a dent in that condition (although people do sometimes get better on their own and other forms of therapy can also have benefit).

I am not saying that conspiracy believers are all paranoid schizophrenics (some could be), but take a step back and consider how your approach to change their mind would be modified in that case. You might come to the conclusion that you just can't do that. No matter how much you want to, the techniques are just not there. (To be sure, some people will say they believe in conspiracy theories when they really don't but being part of that "group" speaks to their needs in some complicated way.)

If that is the case, then a rationale approach may just be not to try to change their minds, but to impact those who are not that steeped in the beliefs. Simply put, that comes close to how I am feeling about the issue and why I am convinced that appealing to fostering critical thinking as the major tool for mitigation. The target, again, is not those "too far gone", it is those that are not.

[SilverSolder]

In the "olden days" there were magazines like Popular Science, Popular Electronics, etc. etc. that attempted to foster an interest in real science and technology (and conversely, discourage the descent into witchcraft).  There were also various TV programmes that did the same thing.  Kooks like some of the ones we see on Youtube would never have received air- or print time. 

So, I think a coherent argument could be made that Youtube and other forms of social media (Facebook et al) tend to act as BS amplifiers in the sphere of science and technology, just like they do in politics.

[Simon]

I think it's partly a decline in interest that has possibly been spurred on by the other easier interests. I used to buy an electronics magazine in italy, by the time I stopped buying it it had become a computer magazine.

[AVGresponding]

Ruling any approach in or out at this point seems somewhat premature, to me.

However, while I would agree there is a general lack of the ability to perform critical thinking nowadays, which must surely primarily be a result of the changes to the education systems, and parenting methods in recent decades, I fail to see how improving that situation can have any impact save in the long term.
It just isn't something that can be taught overnight, nor even in a week, to pick an arbitrary timeframe.

As for trying to solve it by getting individual videos or channels taken down, I suspect this will have the effect of limiting the influence of the promoters of this nonsense in the short term, though it's not a long term solution as far as I can see.
Indeed, I've no doubt that every time a video/channel gets taken down, this will just be used as "evidence" of the "conspiracy.

I think it likely that there is no single thing that will work to cure this epidemic of misinformation and paranoia, rather many and all ideas may well be needed.

[Simon]

As I have said before the only way to stop this is laws, let them howl about censorship and free speech, if it's factually wrong then it should not be up. Those that go to great length to produce videos should be sued. The problem is that our legal system seem to care about money than anything else. If people can sue for defamation why can't science sue for defamation?

[james_s]

That wouldn't fly here, people take freedom of speech very seriously. Trying to silence someone like that would create an uproar and backfire by amplifying their message greatly.

[SilverSolder]

The technological changes that have made e.g. the EEVblog possible, have also made it easier for proselytising kooks to get published.   

The gullible have always been with us, but in the past would have been somewhat more protected from proselytising kooks by the existence of magazine editors and other people "of good standing" that reviewed material prior to publication.

Nowadays, this editing process has to be replaced by something else.  I don't like the idea of things having to be approved in advance...   but the idea of "taking out the garbage" and prevent fly tipping in the digital commons is something we are going to increasingly need to get to grips with.

With the "right" kind of proselytising kook, a truly dangerous situation could be created.

[Simon]

That wouldn't fly here, people take freedom of speech very seriously. Trying to silence someone like that would create an uproar and backfire by amplifying their message greatly.

well tell them to defame a person instead and see how fast they get sued!

[SilverSolder]

That wouldn't fly here, people take freedom of speech very seriously. Trying to silence someone like that would create an uproar and backfire by amplifying their message greatly.

I think the answer to that, in America particularly, is to sue those that publish false statements.  E.g. a cell phone company could sue a 5G nutcase for damaging their potential market through libelous claims -  even I, as a non-lawyer, could probably make that one stick in court with a jury trial.

The reason we don't already do this, is because the EEVblog forum is ahead of its time! -  I am 100% certain that at some point, this kind of thing will be completely normal and the expected result of lying online will be that it is not "free" speech if your speech is untrue and also costs other people money!

[james_s]

That wouldn't fly here, people take freedom of speech very seriously. Trying to silence someone like that would create an uproar and backfire by amplifying their message greatly.

I think the answer to that, in America particularly, is to sue those that publish false statements.  E.g. a cell phone company could sue a 5G nutcase for damaging their potential market through libelous claims -  even I, as a non-lawyer, could probably make that one stick in court with a jury trial.

The reason we don't already do this, is because the EEVblog forum is ahead of its time! -  I am 100% certain that at some point, this kind of thing will be completely normal and the expected result of lying online will be that it is not "free" speech if your speech costs other people money!

But that would just amplify it. Hoards of their believers would take that as an example of the big evil corporations trying to stamp out the truth in the relentless pursuit of profit. People like that dig in their heals and go on the defense, you can't stamp out a religion, you can't (directly) control what people believe. There is just no way to silence something like this through force. You can aggressively prosecute anyone who damages property, attacks anyone or advocates violence though.

[SilverSolder]

As I have said before the only way to stop this is laws, let them howl about censorship and free speech, if it's factually wrong then it should not be up. Those that go to great length to produce videos should be sued. The problem is that our legal system seem to care about money than anything else. If people can sue for defamation why can't science sue for defamation?

I think "they" actually can, it is just that in the past, the thought of doing that would be preposterous.   It isn't preposterous any longer!   

Sooner or later, a young and creative lawyer will see an opportunity.  They will probably decide to go after Youtube or Facebook for not preventing the garbage from being displayed, since they have all the money...   meaning, the big sites will have to get better and better at self censorship, effectively, in order not to be raked over the coals in court.

[SilverSolder]

That wouldn't fly here, people take freedom of speech very seriously. Trying to silence someone like that would create an uproar and backfire by amplifying their message greatly.

I think the answer to that, in America particularly, is to sue those that publish false statements.  E.g. a cell phone company could sue a 5G nutcase for damaging their potential market through libelous claims -  even I, as a non-lawyer, could probably make that one stick in court with a jury trial.

The reason we don't already do this, is because the EEVblog forum is ahead of its time! -  I am 100% certain that at some point, this kind of thing will be completely normal and the expected result of lying online will be that it is not "free" speech if your speech costs other people money!

But that would just amplify it. Hoards of their believers would take that as an example of the big evil corporations trying to stamp out the truth in the relentless pursuit of profit. People like that dig in their heals and go on the defense, you can't stamp out a religion, you can't (directly) control what people believe. There is just no way to silence something like this through force. You can aggressively prosecute anyone who damages property, attacks anyone or advocates violence though.

You can definitely also go after the proselytising kooks by issuing take-down notices to the ISPs, and so on.   Why make it so easy for the proselytisers?  -  Make them work for it - make it harder for them to recruit new members.  Get them used to dealing with being taken down every month or so - it's just part of a kook's life!   Make it socially unacceptable - force them to use the dark web (which is, conveniently, probably the most monitored by the security services!).

Look at how the music industry dealt with piracy...

[james_s]

You can definitely also go after the proselytising kooks by issuing take-down notices to the ISPs, and so on.   Why make it so easy for the proselytisers?  -  Make them work for it - make it harder for them to recruit new members.  Get them used to dealing with being taken down every month or so - it's just part of a kook's life!   Make it socially unacceptable - force them to use the dark web (which is, conveniently, probably the most monitored by the security services!).

Look at how the music industry dealt with piracy...

Yes, that is an excellent example. They tried the hard line approach and it backfired, piracy exploded, customers got tired of being sued, virtually nobody sympathizes with the RIAA. The only thing that eventually reduced piracy is the availability of convenient online streaming services that give people what they want (being able to listen to a huge library of music on many different types of devices wherever they are) without jumping through hoops. The piracy is still out there though, anything popular will be widely available in torrents and is trivial to find. If streaming services got expensive enough or became less convenient the piracy will make a near instant comeback. The music industry utterly failed in their attempt to stamp it out, the pirates won and the industry capitulated after it became obvious that they were on the losing side of a war and allowed the streaming services to exist after years of fighting against them.

[bd139]

After reading all this I think the best outcome is to ridicule them and make them look stupid to their peers.

[tautech]

Don't overlook these nut cases are money driven and only leakages of their financial details will indicate if this is a fact. How to impact on their income stream is another matter............

Decades ago a very busy NZ activist's financial position was subject to bank worker official secrets act yet those in the know were shocked at the savings accumulated......can't reveal my sources. 

[Simon]

That wouldn't fly here, people take freedom of speech very seriously. Trying to silence someone like that would create an uproar and backfire by amplifying their message greatly.

I think the answer to that, in America particularly, is to sue those that publish false statements.  E.g. a cell phone company could sue a 5G nutcase for damaging their potential market through libelous claims -  even I, as a non-lawyer, could probably make that one stick in court with a jury trial.

The reason we don't already do this, is because the EEVblog forum is ahead of its time! -  I am 100% certain that at some point, this kind of thing will be completely normal and the expected result of lying online will be that it is not "free" speech if your speech costs other people money!

But that would just amplify it. Hoards of their believers would take that as an example of the big evil corporations trying to stamp out the truth in the relentless pursuit of profit. People like that dig in their heals and go on the defense, you can't stamp out a religion, you can't (directly) control what people believe. There is just no way to silence something like this through force. You can aggressively prosecute anyone who damages property, attacks anyone or advocates violence though.

we are past that, it is now the norm to say what you you like and call the truth lies (fake news). We are at a bit of a point where we go down hill or stamp this shit out. Find a willing layer and crowdfund

[bd139]

Don't overlook these nut cases are money driven and only leakages of their financial details will indicate if this is a fact. How to impact on their income stream is another matter............

Decades ago a very busy NZ activist's financial position was subject to bank worker official secrets act yet those in the know were shocked at the savings accumulated......can't reveal my sources. 

That doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. If you find something out confidential the simplest trick is to use parallel construction to lead to them exposing themselves either via the state or legal intervention. So look for mistakes they make and refer them to someone who gets revenue or purpose in reaming them a new arsehole. Hence why I usually dig around and set HMRC on ‘em first.

[PlainName]

The reason we don't already do this, is because the EEVblog forum is ahead of its time!

Actually, it's because it's impractical. Take the current coronavirus thing, which I think you'd agree is important enough for the science types to treat very seriously. Yet they couldn't agree on whether masks were better or not for proles to wear. Whether lockdowns help or hinder. Even whether someone died from covid19 or just coincidentally happened to reach terminal age at the same time.

And that's with straight-up facts. Get onto opinions and how are you going to frame a law that penalises uneducated, or uncritical, thought said out loud? Instead of a video saying "Here is antigravity at work" just make it "Here's a strange effect I can't account for, kind of like antigravity". Sort that one out then you might be in shape to attempt the nod & wink kind next.

What you'd end up with is cancel culture on the scale of a state. See how even daring to think un-great things about the king works in Thailand.

[Simon]

The reason we don't already do this, is because the EEVblog forum is ahead of its time!

Actually, it's because it's impractical. Take the current coronavirus thing, which I think you'd agree is important enough for the science types to treat very seriously. Yet they couldn't agree on whether masks were better or not for proles to wear. Whether lockdowns help or hinder. Even whether someone died from covid19 or just coincidentally happened to reach terminal age at the same time.

And that's with straight-up facts. Get onto opinions and how are you going to frame a law that penalises uneducated, or uncritical, thought said out loud? Instead of a video saying "Here is antigravity at work" just make it "Here's a strange effect I can't account for, kind of like antigravity". Sort that one out then you might be in shape to attempt the nod & wink kind next.

What you'd end up with is cancel culture on the scale of a state. See how even daring to think un-great things about the king works in Thailand.

it's not going after every twit but people that make up rather elaborate crap and put a lot of work into it consistently need stopping, not stopping them just makes them more right.

There is only one thing lbry is good for other than Dave's video's and those of a few others: porn! everything else is conspiracy crap. We are now at the point were everyone of them starts with: "I am not a conspiracy theorist but here's a really batty conspiracy theory".

[james_s]

The biggest problem with Covid is that it was brand new less than a year ago so at the start almost everything was pure speculation based on experience with other diseases thought to share similarities. Recommendations also had to take into account the irrational and self centered nature of people in general, whether masks are effective or not, if they were recommended early on enough people would have rushed out to buy up as many as they could get when there were already difficulties in getting enough for medical workers. Looking at it objectively, it makes sense that protecting medical workers should be higher priority than protecting the general population because any one medical worker could potentially save a larger number of lives of the general public. Even now we still have to speculate on many things because the disease is still new enough that we just don't have a lot of concrete facts, for that we will have to wait until years down the road when the entire history of the pandemic can be studied in detail and broken down. At that point I have no doubt that countless smug people with the benefit of hindsight will revel in how wrong so many experts were about this or that and how they themselves knew better.

[PlainName]

everyone of them starts with: "I am not a conspiracy theorist but here's a really batty conspiracy theory"

How do you stop those without also stopping the debunkers or other legitimate discussions of same?

[PlainName]

The biggest problem with Covid is that it was brand new

That's missing the point: 'facts' change over time, and can have different interpretations at the same time. Covid being new is just an useful example of this that we all know of in recent history. Other, possibly less memorable, examples could have been used to make the same point.

[james_s]

That's missing the point: 'facts' change over time, and can have different interpretations at the same time. Covid being new is just an useful example of this that we all know of in recent history. Other, possibly less memorable, examples could have been used to make the same point.

That's how science works. "Facts" are never absolutely 100% certain, I can't even say with absolute 100% certainty that I even exist, all of the data I have access to suggests that I do but there remains a possibility however small that this is all some kind of dream or elaborate simulation. Facts are a best guess, using whatever information is available, with some degree of uncertainty and some facts are going to change as new information comes to light and we realize we were wrong about some things previously thought to be true.

[Simon]

It's one thing to have opinions about covid, it's another to claim it "de government controlling you"

[SilverSolder]

You can definitely also go after the proselytising kooks by issuing take-down notices to the ISPs, and so on.   Why make it so easy for the proselytisers?  -  Make them work for it - make it harder for them to recruit new members.  Get them used to dealing with being taken down every month or so - it's just part of a kook's life!   Make it socially unacceptable - force them to use the dark web (which is, conveniently, probably the most monitored by the security services!).

Look at how the music industry dealt with piracy...

Yes, that is an excellent example. They tried the hard line approach and it backfired, piracy exploded, customers got tired of being sued, virtually nobody sympathizes with the RIAA. The only thing that eventually reduced piracy is the availability of convenient online streaming services that give people what they want (being able to listen to a huge library of music on many different types of devices wherever they are) without jumping through hoops. The piracy is still out there though, anything popular will be widely available in torrents and is trivial to find. If streaming services got expensive enough or became less convenient the piracy will make a near instant comeback. The music industry utterly failed in their attempt to stamp it out, the pirates won and the industry capitulated after it became obvious that they were on the losing side of a war and allowed the streaming services to exist after years of fighting against them.

I don't think the music industry failed at all!  -  You can't just google and download a track like you used to in the "good old days",  nor can you just google and download software.   You have to work for it - you have to sneak off into the dark corners of the Internet.

That is what will happen to the kooks - eventually.   They will not be bestowed with the inferred legitimacy of appearing on the shelf next to the high quality material, if you see what I mean.

[james_s]

Well, yes, but there are always gonna be a few idiots out there. It's a religious belief, like any other. There have been preachers for as long as there have been societies, spreading their word for varying reasons. Some genuinely believe what they preach, others see it purely as a way of manipulating others, this is the same thing.

[SilverSolder]

The reason we don't already do this, is because the EEVblog forum is ahead of its time!

Actually, it's because it's impractical. Take the current coronavirus thing, which I think you'd agree is important enough for the science types to treat very seriously. Yet they couldn't agree on whether masks were better or not for proles to wear. Whether lockdowns help or hinder. Even whether someone died from covid19 or just coincidentally happened to reach terminal age at the same time.

And that's with straight-up facts. Get onto opinions and how are you going to frame a law that penalises uneducated, or uncritical, thought said out loud? Instead of a video saying "Here is antigravity at work" just make it "Here's a strange effect I can't account for, kind of like antigravity". Sort that one out then you might be in shape to attempt the nod & wink kind next.

What you'd end up with is cancel culture on the scale of a state. See how even daring to think un-great things about the king works in Thailand.

Here's the thing:  Some efforts deserve to be canceled!  - or, at least relegated to the bottom drawer, along with seedy magazines or worse.

We are not required to give kooks equal standing to "normal" people. 

Being a kook should be hard!

[SilverSolder]

Well, yes, but there are always gonna be a few idiots out there. It's a religious belief, like any other. There have been preachers for as long as there have been societies, spreading their word for varying reasons. Some genuinely believe what they preach, others see it purely as a way of manipulating others, this is the same thing.

I guess there is a factor of harmlessness in here somewhere too - i.e. a harmless kook without a big following is one thing,  but when the followers start to vandalise telecomms equipment and harass workers... they've crossed a line.

I realize there are few absolutes and I'm not used to arguing this side of the argument...        ...but there has to be some limit to what we tolerate. 

It is entirely possible to be so open minded that the contents fall out! 

[Simon]

quite, a crank is one thing, a crank with a following is another.

[james_s]

I don't think the music industry failed at all!  -  You can't just google and download a track like you used to in the "good old days",  nor can you just google and download software.   You have to work for it - you have to sneak off into the dark corners of the Internet.

That is what will happen to the kooks - eventually.   They will not be bestowed with the inferred legitimacy of appearing on the shelf next to the high quality material, if you see what I mean.

It's still just as easy now as it was then, it just got shifted elsewhere, there are several fairly well known websites which are essentially the google of torrents, it's even easier to find a lot of this stuff than it ever was before because it's all in one place. You may not see it and that is the point, it moved just a little deeper underground than the legitimate streaming services that now exist but it has not gone away at all and few people care, because virtually nobody is sympathetic to the music industry or looks favorably on the extortion they were doing, demanding people suspected of downloading pay up or be taken to court to potentially have to pay far more. The only reason the total amount of piracy has dropped and it has fallen out of the public view is that alternatives appeared that offered most of the convenience people wanted at a reasonable price. Make no mistake, if the music industry had won and got their way you would not be able to subscribe to a streaming service. You would still be buying CDs at full retail price, the CDs would all be infected with rootkits and other draconian anti-piracy technologies that make the life of legitimate users a pain. If they had the ability to, they would prevent you from ever selling or loaning CDs and charge you money for each and every time you play a song, and make you buy an additional copy for each device you want to listen to. The can't do this though for a range of reasons including laws against things like rootkits that surreptitiously infect users computers, and partly because piracy is impossible to stop.

[SilverSolder]

I don't think the music industry failed at all!  -  You can't just google and download a track like you used to in the "good old days",  nor can you just google and download software.   You have to work for it - you have to sneak off into the dark corners of the Internet.

That is what will happen to the kooks - eventually.   They will not be bestowed with the inferred legitimacy of appearing on the shelf next to the high quality material, if you see what I mean.

It's still just as easy now as it was then, it just got shifted elsewhere, there are several fairly well known websites which are essentially the google of torrents, it's even easier to find a lot of this stuff than it ever was before because it's all in one place. You may not see it and that is the point, it moved just a little deeper underground than the legitimate streaming services that now exist but it has not gone away at all and few people care, because virtually nobody is sympathetic to the music industry or looks favorably on the extortion they were doing, demanding people suspected of downloading pay up or be taken to court to potentially have to pay far more. The only reason the total amount of piracy has dropped and it has fallen out of the public view is that alternatives appeared that offered most of the convenience people wanted at a reasonable price. Make no mistake, if the music industry had won and got their way you would not be able to subscribe to a streaming service. You would still be buying CDs at full retail price, the CDs would all be infected with rootkits and other draconian anti-piracy technologies that make the life of legitimate users a pain. If they had the ability to, they would prevent you from ever selling or loaning CDs and charge you money for each and every time you play a song, and make you buy an additional copy for each device you want to listen to. The can't do this though for a range of reasons including laws against things like rootkits that surreptitiously infect users computers, and partly because piracy is impossible to stop.

Agreed.

So the summary of this sub-conversation is probably this:   a less than 100% victory over the 5G kooks (and similar) is probably "good enough for Australia".   

What does a less than 100% victory look like?   Having them "auto banned" by some suitable AI will create a lot of work for them on family friendly sites like Youtube, Facebook, etc., driving them elsewhere.  That is good enough for me.

Someone going to Piratebay or whatever definitely know they are not being good boys or girls... make the same kind of thing apply to kooks...   "you read that WHERE?  Seriously?"

[Specmaster]

The more I think about this problem, the more I keep coming back to the same thing, surely people like this Mark Steele who is clearly putting false information out into the public domain and also attending mass rallies and having a microphone in his hand and yelling at people telling them to go away and get organised, recruiting more followers and be prepared, telling them that 5G is a secret weapon, Covid is a conspiracy to get schools emptied etc so that they can install 5G equipment ready for activation. Telling people that the vaccines are to be loaded with microchips that will be triggered by the 5G signals when they switch it on, is really just plain simple old Terrorism surely and ought to be reported as such. That alone will increase the numbers at risk of catching Covid-19 because those people will refuse to be vaccinated for fear of the none existent killer microchips in it.

As already mentioned at the beginning of this thread, an Open Reach engineer has been attacked and stabbed multiple times because he was probably installing fibre cables. Add to this the multitude of 5G towers and related infrastructures that have targeted by fire etc and destroyed putting people at risk as a result. Will the authorities wait until people are actually killed by such action?

[Simon]

apparently freedom of speech (of lies) is worth more than a mans life and infrastructure.

[Specmaster]

Precisely and that cannot be right 

[Syntax Error]

Two zero sum equations to consider:

False-Prophets (x) Unquestioning-Deciples = Brainwashed-Cults

Social-Media-Influencers (x) Social-Media-Followers = Kool-Aid-Drinking-Monkeys

Everyone, lets #join-a-conga-line-of-instant-indignation-without-questioning-why

[PlainName]

an Open Reach engineer has been attacked and stabbed multiple times

The problem there is not that he was an OR engineer, or that the person who stabbed him was taken in by whatever conspiracy theory. He was stabbed, and the answer is to prosecute the (alleged) offender for grevious bodily harm (or attempted murder, but that's more difficult to prove). Being a conspiracy nut is not an excuse or mitigation, which it will be if you aren't careful. It shouldn't matter if the  (alleged!) perp is a Jehova's Witness, Nazis nut, LibDem wannabe, nothing. It matters that someone got stabbed, period. There are laws and punishments for that, so just use them.

[Specmaster]

an Open Reach engineer has been attacked and stabbed multiple times

The problem there is not that he was an OR engineer, or that the person who stabbed him was taken in by whatever conspiracy theory. He was stabbed, and the answer is to prosecute the (alleged) offender for grevious bodily harm (or attempted murder, but that's more difficult to prove). Being a conspiracy nut is not an excuse or mitigation, which it will be if you aren't careful. It shouldn't matter if the  (alleged!) perp is a Jehova's Witness, Nazis nut, LibDem wannabe, nothing. It matters that someone got stabbed, period. There are laws and punishments for that, so just use them.

The whole point of this thread is to try and find a way of denying the people who are the ones inciting the followers to do things etc BEFORE they go out and carry out such disgusting attacks, be it on personal or infrastructure. It is much the same as addressing the aftermath of a drunk driver after they crash into a queue of people at a bus stop, when a little of action before, thus preventing them from drink-driving is the preferred action.

[DrG]

Ruling any approach in or out at this point seems somewhat premature, to me.

However, while I would agree there is a general lack of the ability to perform critical thinking nowadays, which must surely primarily be a result of the changes to the education systems, and parenting methods in recent decades, I fail to see how improving that situation can have any impact save in the long term.
It just isn't something that can be taught overnight, nor even in a week, to pick an arbitrary timeframe.

Concur. I just don't know what else to do about changing the minds of the followers. One of the videos went on about giving them more control in their lives - enrichment of a sort. Sure, ok maybe, but I have just so much enrichment and whatever I can spare will go to someone more deserved IMO. So, I just don't know what else I can do as an individual but foster, support, practice and nurture principles of critical thinking. Yes, may take generations as far as I know and may not ever make a big difference.

[DrG]

As I have said before the only way to stop this is laws, let them howl about censorship and free speech, if it's factually wrong then it should not be up. Those that go to great length to produce videos should be sued. The problem is that our legal system seem to care about money than anything else. If people can sue for defamation why can't science sue for defamation?

I note that there are creators (or producers) and also the followers, so this is a bit off of the original topic of convincing followers to change there minds, but OK, I like that, but the reality is pretty complicated. You remember Sandy Hook? It was a mass murder in a US elementary school that happened 8 years ago (26 dead including 20 children).

I can't imagine a worse nightmare. A father drops his kid off at school and a few hours later has to identify his bullet-ridden body. It is crushing to think about.

But conspiracy theorists (and one very well known one) decided that it was all fake, the whole thing. That the children never died (sometimes it was claimed that some children never even existed). They have had many followers who piled on with horrific stories of how the US G made the whole thing up (to take away guns or something like that) and many of the followers directly harassed the survivors. Imagine that, after going through that trauma to have people calling you and so on, telling you that you and your dead son is all fake and how horrible you are. Tough to believe that wouldn't make your blood boil over.

There is a case in court. It is still going on as far as I can tell. There have been judgements against the big Conspiracy guy and he has even, in a fashion, said that it did happen and pleaded a kind of mental illness that caused him to doubt everything! Just last week he was reported to be outside of an election place, at a gathering, megaphone in hand....8 years later, still peddling.

You bet I would like to see these cottage industry conspiracy theorist held accountable, but the courts move slowly. If I were that father, I don't know if I would have the strength to keep going.

[boffin]

This is what you're up against.   She was fun to watch on Facebook (complete nutter) until FB killed her acct; but there are dozens more where she came from.

[tautech]

While Wikipedia cannot be considered as the authority on things technical their 5G page offers a reasonable overview much better than last time I went looking there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G

So which 5G attribute is causing these nutjobs anxiety and why ? 

[james_s]

apparently freedom of speech (of lies) is worth more than a mans life and infrastructure.

By that reasoning you could ban and outlaw nearly anything, because a small number of people doing bad things in relation to it. Millions have died in wars over freedom and freedom of speech is something we hold very dearly here and do consider it far more valuable than a man's life. You may not understand the culture and that's fine, there are many cultures I don't understand either. In some countries you can be executed for criticizing an elected official or supernatural deity, and I can tell you that I would absolutely prefer to live in a world where a handful of nutters can spew complete nonsense without consequence than one where we are not allowed to voice an opinion or utter certain words. Where exactly to draw the line is up for debate, but just remember that you cannot suppress an idea or belief, it just isn't possible. You can try to reduce the spread, but if those people think they are being suppressed somehow they will work even harder to be heard. I do not think this can be won by force.

Thankfully it doesn't really seem to be much of an issue. I haven't heard of it happening in the US yet and I think in the places it is happening it will eventually die off once the mental health impacts of the pandemic pass and something else catches the attention of the crazies. People freaked out about 4G too, and 3G, and analog mobile phones, and power lines, and in the late 1800's people were similarly freaking out about electricity and electric light, that all passed.

[SilverSolder]

I know a man who has a living memory of his grandmother carefully putting plastic plugs into all the wall outlets at night, to reduce the chance of electricity leaking out and harming her family while they slept...

We've come a long way technologically, in not a lot of time, in the big scheme of things.  Perhaps natural that some of us go crazy on it?

[Simon]

an Open Reach engineer has been attacked and stabbed multiple times

The problem there is not that he was an OR engineer, or that the person who stabbed him was taken in by whatever conspiracy theory. He was stabbed, and the answer is to prosecute the (alleged) offender for grevious bodily harm (or attempted murder, but that's more difficult to prove). Being a conspiracy nut is not an excuse or mitigation, which it will be if you aren't careful. It shouldn't matter if the  (alleged!) perp is a Jehova's Witness, Nazis nut, LibDem wannabe, nothing. It matters that someone got stabbed, period. There are laws and punishments for that, so just use them.

The problem is that conspiracy theories themselves are creating the circumstances that put people in danger. These people are being terrified by cult leaders and now fearing for their lives will attack people and infrastructure. We don't need religious terrorism it would seem. It's now possible to have an opinion on something that scientific and kill for that opinion.

[Simon]

apparently freedom of speech (of lies) is worth more than a mans life and infrastructure.

By that reasoning you could ban and outlaw nearly anything, because a small number of people doing bad things in relation to it. Millions have died in wars over freedom and freedom of speech is something we hold very dearly here and do consider it far more valuable than a man's life. You may not understand the culture and that's fine, there are many cultures I don't understand either. In some countries you can be executed for criticizing an elected official or supernatural deity, and I can tell you that I would absolutely prefer to live in a world where a handful of nutters can spew complete nonsense without consequence than one where we are not allowed to voice an opinion or utter certain words. Where exactly to draw the line is up for debate, but just remember that you cannot suppress an idea or belief, it just isn't possible. You can try to reduce the spread, but if those people think they are being suppressed somehow they will work even harder to be heard. I do not think this can be won by force.

Thankfully it doesn't really seem to be much of an issue. I haven't heard of it happening in the US yet and I think in the places it is happening it will eventually die off once the mental health impacts of the pandemic pass and something else catches the attention of the crazies. People freaked out about 4G too, and 3G, and analog mobile phones, and power lines, and in the late 1800's people were similarly freaking out about electricity and electric light, that all passed.

We need better education but that is the long game, meanwhile we have plenty of people who are ignorant enough to follow anything if they can be terrified enough. I am not saying that we curtail freedom of speech, you should be free to say what you like AND be responsible for what you say particularly when you go to great lengths to broadcast utter lies. There is no government control conspiracy (control is the last thing the UK government is capable of), covid-19 is just an accident it was not manufactured, climate change is not being made by RF transmitters the list of stupid things people beleive goes on and on, oh the world is not flat and of course 5G won't hurt you.

People teaching people that the higher the frequency the more harmful a transmission is should be sued! there is no basis for this and no way of accidentally understanding it. This just has to stop. We now live in a world where certain things from and electoral count to well know science are a matter of publicly debated opinion, it's crazy.

Just look at the mess Donald trump is making of the election, many lawsuits based on no evidence thrown out, a couple maybe? after that he should be countersued for misuse of the system.

[boffin]

The 5G is to control people, right ?

...Despite the lack of evidence, in May a YouGov poll of 1,640 people suggested 28% of Americans believed Mr Gates wanted to use vaccines to  implant microchips in people - with the figure rising to 44% among  Republicans....

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/05/26/republicans-democrats-misinformation

[SilverSolder]

The 5G is to control people, right ?

...Despite the lack of evidence, in May a YouGov poll of 1,640 people suggested 28% of Americans believed Mr Gates wanted to use vaccines to  implant microchips in people - with the figure rising to 44% among  Republicans....

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/05/26/republicans-democrats-misinformation

25% is the background noise level of any poll, it seems.

A Canadian newspaper put up a fictitious candidate for election for local government, as an experiment back in the 70's.   They found that the non-existent candidate received about 25% of the votes...

[Specmaster]

The 5G is to control people, right ?

...Despite the lack of evidence, in May a YouGov poll of 1,640 people suggested 28% of Americans believed Mr Gates wanted to use vaccines to  implant microchips in people - with the figure rising to 44% among  Republicans....

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/05/26/republicans-democrats-misinformation

No, according to the main spreaders of misinformation, it is a weapon to kill people with, hence why we are looking to see what we can do shut these nutters down.

[Specmaster]

While Wikipedia cannot be considered as the authority on things technical their 5G page offers a reasonable overview much better than last time I went looking there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G

So which 5G attribute is causing these nutjobs anxiety and why ? 

If you play through the videos, some people are already experiencing nose bleeds, headaches etc but main pushers of the 5G fear are also saying that it is weapon that can be used to kill people, eespecially when the vaccine is given out as that is supposed to (alledgly) have microchips in it and they (governments etc) can select people to best subjects for whatever.

[james_s]

If you play through the videos, some people are already experiencing nose bleeds, headaches etc but main pushers of the 5G fear are also saying that it is weapon that can be used to kill people, eespecially when the vaccine is given out as that is supposed to (alledgly) have microchips in it and they (governments etc) can select people to best subjects for whatever.

The placebo effect is a real thing. Somewhere I read of a mobile tower that was erected and a few people started complaining of headaches and other symptoms, the thing is it had not had the equipment installed and activated yet so it was just a metal tower. If you tell someone that a certain object is known to cause headaches, a percentage of them will get a headache when in proximity of said object, the power of suggestion is strong.

[Simon]

If you play through the videos, some people are already experiencing nose bleeds, headaches etc but main pushers of the 5G fear are also saying that it is weapon that can be used to kill people, eespecially when the vaccine is given out as that is supposed to (alledgly) have microchips in it and they (governments etc) can select people to best subjects for whatever.

The placebo effect is a real thing. Somewhere I read of a mobile tower that was erected and a few people started complaining of headaches and other symptoms, the thing is it had not had the equipment installed and activated yet so it was just a metal tower. If you tell someone that a certain object is known to cause headaches, a percentage of them will get a headache when in proximity of said object, the power of suggestion is strong.

This was done as a sort of documentary too. I mean they did pick a particular luny house of students but yea, mast went up and they all felt unwell and it was never even on.

[Simon]

[james_s]

This was done as a sort of documentary too. I mean they did pick a particular luny house of students but yea, mast went up and they all felt unwell and it was never even on.

That's probably the same one I read about, I didn't recall that it was a documentary but there certainly is no shortage of similar occurrences. A few years ago there were a lot of people claiming that WiFi was causing headaches but that seems to have gone away, despite much greater proliferation of WiFi.

[bd139]

Well i got a really stupid reply from that shit box hosted hosting the web site mentioned earlier. Basically they’re a “free speech ISP” and won’t even review it 

Let’s see how their upstream behave who have a scary strict AUP.

[bd139]

The 5G is to control people, right ?

...Despite the lack of evidence, in May a YouGov poll of 1,640 people suggested 28% of Americans believed Mr Gates wanted to use vaccines to  implant microchips in people - with the figure rising to 44% among  Republicans....

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/05/26/republicans-democrats-misinformation

Bear in mind yougov’s panel consists of people stupid enough to have a $50 cheque dangled perpetually out of reach to motivate them to do surveys.

[CJay]

The 5G is to control people, right ?

...Despite the lack of evidence, in May a YouGov poll of 1,640 people suggested 28% of Americans believed Mr Gates wanted to use vaccines to  implant microchips in people - with the figure rising to 44% among  Republicans....

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/05/26/republicans-democrats-misinformation

25% is the background noise level of any poll, it seems.

A Canadian newspaper put up a fictitious candidate for election for local government, as an experiment back in the 70's.   They found that the non-existent candidate received about 25% of the votes...

There'd be a number of votes in error, a few who thought they'd seen or knew the candidate and a number who voted out of mischief but there'd also be a number who voted to express dissatisfaction with the other candidates/parties.

More a commentary on the failings of the existing systems/institutions than 'noise'

[CJay]

Well i got a really stupid reply from that shit box hosted hosting the web site mentioned earlier. Basically they’re a “free speech ISP” and won’t even review it 

Let’s see how their upstream behave who have a scary strict AUP.

Free speech comes with a hefty price for society and we're beginning to see it collected, it's going to get a lot worse before we clean out the cesspit.

[BU508A]

Well i got a really stupid reply from that shit box hosted hosting the web site mentioned earlier. Basically they’re a “free speech ISP” and won’t even review it 

Let’s see how their upstream behave who have a scary strict AUP.

Looks to me like a lame excuse for not taking action because it will
- cost money
- cost time
- probably causing trouble

[tszaboo]

Well i got a really stupid reply from that shit box hosted hosting the web site mentioned earlier. Basically they’re a “free speech ISP” and won’t even review it 

Let’s see how their upstream behave who have a scary strict AUP.

Free speech comes with a hefty price for society and we're beginning to see it collected, it's going to get a lot worse before we clean out the cesspit.

The Freedom of Speech laws were written in a time, when there was a huge costs involved in publishing newspapers, and  reaching massive amount of people. Now anyone with a 50 EUR mobile phone can be present online, and they can spread lies, misinformation and cause panic. And they can reach billions of people.
Any nefarious country can use it to spread misinformation, appear as your own. Where does it say that the freedom of speech applies to foreigners? Since when do you apply your law to people that 1. are not the citizens of your country, 2. never ever stepped into your country 3. are doing things that are unlawful in their country (I'm not talking about 5G guy, 5G seems to be mainly a UK problem).
Since the governments are doing nothing to solve these problems, corporations started handling it. Twitter now marks Trump's messages that they are fake news. Probably he will get banned from social media, the day his presidency is over.
So yes, there is freedom of speech, and it is being overwritten by corporate bylaws. We are in a reality, where Facebook and Google decides what's true and what's not.

[Specmaster]

Well i got a really stupid reply from that shit box hosted hosting the web site mentioned earlier. Basically they’re a “free speech ISP” and won’t even review it 

Let’s see how their upstream behave who have a scary strict AUP.

Looks to me like a lame excuse for not taking action because it will
- cost money
- cost time
- probably causing trouble

Well can live in hope that one day karma will strike them by way not being able to make a very important phone call because some clown burnt down their 5G tower.

[bd139]

Well i got a really stupid reply from that shit box hosted hosting the web site mentioned earlier. Basically they’re a “free speech ISP” and won’t even review it 

Let’s see how their upstream behave who have a scary strict AUP.

Free speech comes with a hefty price for society and we're beginning to see it collected, it's going to get a lot worse before we clean out the cesspit.

The Freedom of Speech laws were written in a time, when there was a huge costs involved in publishing newspapers, and  reaching massive amount of people. Now anyone with a 50 EUR mobile phone can be present online, and they can spread lies, misinformation and cause panic. And they can reach billions of people.
Any nefarious country can use it to spread misinformation, appear as your own. Where does it say that the freedom of speech applies to foreigners? Since when do you apply your law to people that 1. are not the citizens of your country, 2. never ever stepped into your country 3. are doing things that are unlawful in their country (I'm not talking about 5G guy, 5G seems to be mainly a UK problem).
Since the governments are doing nothing to solve these problems, corporations started handling it. Twitter now marks Trump's messages that they are fake news. Probably he will get banned from social media, the day his presidency is over.
So yes, there is freedom of speech, and it is being overwritten by corporate bylaws. We are in a reality, where Facebook and Google decides what's true and what's not.

That's exactly the problem.

Attention is a valuable commodity and absolute shitlord bastards can buy it easily.

[bd139]

Well can live in hope that one day karma will strike them by way not being able to make a very important phone call because some clown burnt down their 5G tower.

It's even worse than that because the ESN is actually run by EE over 4G networks. So they are literally burning our emergency services communication networks at the same time. So basically they're burning critical infrastructure for our own safety.

[bd139]

Ok after having a long discussion this morning with a former colleague, we're looking at setting up a web tool which tracks how long it takes YT and Facebook to remove content after reported. Effectively we shame the providers into handling this quickly and efficiently.

It'll have news down one side where damage is done and metrics with content subscribers, views, subject matter etc on the other side and time it took to take it down. Hopefully statistics will show some correlation between the two.

This is slightly abhorrent from my perspective as a form of censorship so I'm on the fence on whether I want to do it or not.

More info TBD.

Edit: there will be very strict limitations on where this is used i.e only for removing stuff which is objectively harmful to people through action caused like this nonsense. Lizard Jesus from space can stay.

[SilverSolder]

Ok after having a long discussion this morning with a former colleague, we're looking at setting up a web tool which tracks how long it takes YT and Facebook to remove content after reported. Effectively we shame the providers into handling this quickly and efficiently.

It'll have news down one side where damage is done and metrics with content subscribers, views, subject matter etc on the other side and time it took to take it down. Hopefully statistics will show some correlation between the two.

This is slightly abhorrent from my perspective as a form of censorship so I'm on the fence on whether I want to do it or not.

More info TBD.

Edit: there will be very strict limitations on where this is used i.e only for removing stuff which is objectively harmful to people through action caused like this nonsense. Lizard Jesus from space can stay.

Great initiative.  This would be really helpful to journalists and (those few) politicians that are trying to right the ship.

The trick is to avoid becoming "evil" and cancel people that are colorful rather than dangerous.  It takes a wise person to see the difference sometimes.

[SilverSolder]

Well i got a really stupid reply from that shit box hosted hosting the web site mentioned earlier. Basically they’re a “free speech ISP” and won’t even review it 

Let’s see how their upstream behave who have a scary strict AUP.

Free speech comes with a hefty price for society and we're beginning to see it collected, it's going to get a lot worse before we clean out the cesspit.

The Freedom of Speech laws were written in a time, when there was a huge costs involved in publishing newspapers, and  reaching massive amount of people. Now anyone with a 50 EUR mobile phone can be present online, and they can spread lies, misinformation and cause panic. And they can reach billions of people.
Any nefarious country can use it to spread misinformation, appear as your own. Where does it say that the freedom of speech applies to foreigners? Since when do you apply your law to people that 1. are not the citizens of your country, 2. never ever stepped into your country 3. are doing things that are unlawful in their country (I'm not talking about 5G guy, 5G seems to be mainly a UK problem).
Since the governments are doing nothing to solve these problems, corporations started handling it. Twitter now marks Trump's messages that they are fake news. Probably he will get banned from social media, the day his presidency is over.
So yes, there is freedom of speech, and it is being overwritten by corporate bylaws. We are in a reality, where Facebook and Google decides what's true and what's not.

This is so true, and a most unfortunate development.   Corporations are not really set up to run a fair and balanced judicial system - nor should they be.   These matters should be a matter of public policy and law, enforced by accountable agencies, and adjudicated in court if there is a dispute.  It seems to me that the EU is the furthest ahead with this - and, at the risk of provoking some people here, China.

[bd139]

Great initiative.  This would be really helpful to journalists and (those few) politicians that are trying to right the ship.

The trick is to avoid becoming "evil" and cancel people that are colorful rather than dangerous.  It takes a wise person to see the difference sometimes.

Yeah the more we read into it and discuss we see how difficult it is to approach it now. Apparently by forming this association it may come under libel laws in the UK which means we'll probably get sued almost immediately by someone higher profile if we piss them off or associate them with insanity. Just the costs associated with defending yourself put the idea to bed. I imagine journos are having the same problem hence why this stuff isn't debunked as quickly as it should be. Argh!!!

Personal justice for those with enough money is a big problem.

[Specmaster]

Ok after having a long discussion this morning with a former colleague, we're looking at setting up a web tool which tracks how long it takes YT and Facebook to remove content after reported. Effectively we shame the providers into handling this quickly and efficiently.

It'll have news down one side where damage is done and metrics with content subscribers, views, subject matter etc on the other side and time it took to take it down. Hopefully statistics will show some correlation between the two.

This is slightly abhorrent from my perspective as a form of censorship so I'm on the fence on whether I want to do it or not.

More info TBD.

Edit: there will be very strict limitations on where this is used i.e only for removing stuff which is objectively harmful to people through action caused like this nonsense. Lizard Jesus from space can stay.

Sounds like a great plan, but it needs to be used only against people of the same mould as Mark Steele 

[DrG]

Just look at the mess Donald trump is making of the election, many lawsuits based on no evidence thrown out, a couple maybe? after that he should be countersued for misuse of the system.

Thanks for the best laugh of the day so far - seriously. I'm not a lawyer either, but  when I read that, I thought of the image of him being declared a "vexatious litigant" is amusing. Of course that is not likely. There is the remedy of "abuse of power", but that is also unlikely with just a couple of months to go. Same with some kind of "malicious prosecution".

What does seem to be happening now, however, and I am not sure how it relates to the OT is that lawyers are dropping out. Apparently, the negative PR incurred by being part of what many call, frivolous, is a liability - especially if a judge uses some particularly harsh words in a ruling..

What happens or doesn't happen on and after Jan 20 at 12:05 is a different story.

[bd139]

Well it shows that even bastard lawyers have some standards 

[PlainName]

The Freedom of Speech laws

It would be interesting if you could turn up those laws. I think, if you managed to find them, they don't say what you think they might.

We are in a reality, where Facebook and Google decides what's true and what's not.

Kind of. 'Freedom of speech' is aimed at not getting you locked up for saying stuff (with some exceptions). There is nothing that says anyone else has to repeat it, and that includes the likes of Google and Facebook. If they take a dislike to what you're saying, that's their choice. The exception would be for 'common carrier' services, such as your phone provider, who don't decide anything about what they carry.

Stand at Hyde Park Corner spouting weirdo stuff and you're fine (with some exceptions). You ain't going to be nicked, charged and imprisoned. That's freedom of speech. Expecting the BBC to report what you're saying isn't.

Amnesty's take

[SilverSolder]

[...] the likes of Google and Facebook. If they take a dislike to what you're saying, that's their choice. [...]

There could be some problems with this model - e.g. suddenly you find words removed from a telephone conversation because the phone company doesn't like what you are saying! 

[PlainName]

No, that's what common carrier status protects against - once they start editing or processing the data then they are publishers and are responsible for everything they carry publish. In theory - somehow the likes of Twitter/Facebook/et al have managed to gain more-or-less no responsibility whilst also being able to edit. And the net neutrality thing in the US is making a mockery of it too.

[BU508A]

Since these [Mark | Anthony] Steele followers do believe in any kind of rubbish coming from him,
why don't tell them the truth about the GPS chips in their tires? 




Translation:
Did you know that every tire is factory-fitted with a GPS chip so that it can be located in 5G networks? If you don't want this, you'll have to cut off the little antenna sticking out of the rim.

[bd139]

Hahahahaha 

[SilverSolder]

You know, this might actually be a viable approach!   Spam the BS spreaders with even worse BS, that is only slightly more insane...   It would force the followers to start paying attention to what is truly insane from just insane, which would be a good start for them!   

[james_s]

IMO the only way to win is to use psychology. Any attempt to silence the purveyors of BS will be seen as an attempt to silence them by the powerful people who are afraid of the truth getting out. It may even be a viable approach to engineer some other kind of conspiracy theory to draw their attention away, most of the people who believe this stuff believe all sorts of conspiracy theories, it's like their ability to discern reality from fiction is wired backwards. It's almost always the same kind of people who believe in conspiracy theories, and the only thing that ever makes them shut up is when they think they've discovered an even more juicy conspiracy.

[DrG]

Incontrovertible proof of 5G effects....on hair dye.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZuUHVrtTlc


(no comment on any pre-existing conditions)

Edit: the link is dead. I'm not going to replace it because I think that everyone who wants to see it has already seen it (many of this event were all over the mainstream media). For posterity it was a video of the POTUS' lawyer at a news conference.

[SilverSolder]

IMO the only way to win is to use psychology. Any attempt to silence the purveyors of BS will be seen as an attempt to silence them by the powerful people who are afraid of the truth getting out. It may even be a viable approach to engineer some other kind of conspiracy theory to draw their attention away, most of the people who believe this stuff believe all sorts of conspiracy theories, it's like their ability to discern reality from fiction is wired backwards. It's almost always the same kind of people who believe in conspiracy theories, and the only thing that ever makes them shut up is when they think they've discovered an even more juicy conspiracy.

Maybe all the conspiracy theories we are seeing are already engineered and carefully promulgated...   it's just that we haven't been let in on it, for obvious reasons!

See how easy it is? 

[CJay]

IMO the only way to win is to use psychology. Any attempt to silence the purveyors of BS will be seen as an attempt to silence them by the powerful people who are afraid of the truth getting out. It may even be a viable approach to engineer some other kind of conspiracy theory to draw their attention away, most of the people who believe this stuff believe all sorts of conspiracy theories, it's like their ability to discern reality from fiction is wired backwards. It's almost always the same kind of people who believe in conspiracy theories, and the only thing that ever makes them shut up is when they think they've discovered an even more juicy conspiracy.

Maybe all the conspiracy theories we are seeing are already engineered and carefully promulgated...   it's just that we haven't been let in on it, for obvious reasons!

See how easy it is? 

Not sure they're engineered, but there's good evidence that some conspiracy theories are being manipulated and used to promote division, there's a whole cottage industry tracking these down and working out who's pushing them.

[Non-Abelian]

Well, a lot of fault also lies with people who view this stuff, do not have the expertise to even do simple algebra, but for whatever reason, feel qualified to make a judgment and go on to become rabid cheerleaders for things they have no ability to comprehend.  This sort of stuff will not change unless the educational system decides critical and analytical thinking is acually important.  My ex gf, (with an MS, yet) for example could not understand how I could both predict that trump would win the 2016 election yet not want him to be. That sort of inability to differentiate between an analysis based on evidence and a wish for whatever one wants reality to be is a real problem and is why there are so many nut jobs that will adhere to crazy conspiracy theories in the face of direct evidence to the contrary. Even worse is when there could be some scientific dispute that is rather subtle that can be used to exploit a lack of critical thinking.

[james_s]

My ex gf, (with an MS, yet) for example could not understand how I could both predict that trump would win the 2016 election yet not want him to be. That sort of inability to differentiate between an analysis based on evidence and a wish for whatever one wants reality to be

I have a really hard time even understanding how that can be a difficulty to some people. I'd really like to win the lottery but I predict that I won't. Winning is statistically unlikely, especially since I don't think I've ever bought a lotto ticket, but that in no way implies that I wouldn't like to win. It seems completely obvious that one's wishes and reality are two independent things.

[StillTrying]

5G Stop with Quantum Technology and titanium balls.

https://app.9010.com/9010-zero-point-energy-5g

[Simon]

good god, certification and all.

[AVGresponding]

Have you seen the name of the Vice President of BESA on the certificate?

Nominative determinism if I ever saw it.

[Specmaster]

5G Stop with Quantum Technology and titanium balls.

https://app.9010.com/9010-zero-point-energy-5g

Sounds and looks like another crackpot scam to me.

[Simon]

you sure? 

[Specmaster]

you sure? 

Yep, a very elaborate one at that.

[Simon]

ah, bit of quick photoshop-ping on the "certificate", work of five minutes.

[bd139]

“ 2.465 QEPPs energy output - this gives you power for your job, endurance in sports and relaxation after work.”

 

[Simon]

yea, the works, probably even protects you from solar radiation.

[bd139]

So what you’re saying is it’s a hat made of balls 

[Simon]

bollocks indeed!

[CJay]

So what you’re saying is it’s a hat made of balls 

Not half ones either, complete balls

[bd139]

So fundamentally we’ve got a nut that’s bananas wielding a tube of complete balls!

[Simon]

something like that.

[AVGresponding]

A bit disappointing that with all the pseudo-science keywords they were spewing out, not once did they mention nano-technology or carbon nano-tubes.

I for one would require my titanium ball container to have carbon nano-tubes on its surface, to further improve the quantum energy flow.
Naturally these should be small so as not to waste space, and have a helical shape tuned to the relevant QEPP frequency.

Yes, I definitely require short and curly nano-tubes on my titanium ball bag.

[Bud]

ah, bit of quick photoshop-ping on the "certificate", work of five minutes.

No need to, their mailing address does not exist, web site does not exist either.

[Haenk]

Those quantum ball guys opened a web treasure trove I didn't knew about until yet, some google-fu led to:

https://www.psiram.com/

I assume this is good for hours of reading. (even though most articles are in German...)

[PlainName]

ah, bit of quick photoshop-ping on the "certificate", work of five minutes.

No need to, their mailing address does not exist, web site does not exist either.

On the contrary, it does exist but the content doesn't:

ABOUT US

IFV - BESA

This Photoshop's version  of Lorem Ipsum. Proin gravida nibh vel velit auctor aliquet. Aenean sollicitudin, lorem quis blicitudin, lorem quis bibendum auctor, nisi elit conseqelit consequat ipsum, nec sagittis sem nibh id elit. Duis sedlicitudin, lorem quis bibendum auctor, nisi elit consequat ipsum, necelit consequat ipsum, is bibendum auctor, nisi elit consequat ipsum, nec sagittis sem nibh id elit. Duis sedlicitudin, lorem quis bibendum auctor ...

[magic]

What can we do about these idiots in the long run? Someone needs to break the cycle one way or another. This isn't some call to arms but a serious discussion about how to either remove them or discredit them quickly and efficiently.

This isn't some call to arms but a serious discussion about how to either remove them or discredit them quickly and efficiently.

This isn't some call to arms

So that's how you guys ended up reporting videos and writing letters to ISPs?
 

[Simon]

Unfortunately the long term solution is education, looking at some of my university provided course material that would not pass an english exam with a decent mark i have to wonder.

[CJay]

Unfortunately the long term solution is education, looking at some of my university provided course material that would not pass an english exam with a decent mark i have to wonder.

I've met and trained graduates that made me question the value of a university education...

[Simon]

Unfortunately the long term solution is education, looking at some of my university provided course material that would not pass an english exam with a decent mark i have to wonder.

I've met and trained graduates that made me question the value of a university education...

The problem is that people confuse intelligence with qualifications. Even the most rigorous qualification can only say so much about your abilities. The world is full of self taught people doing as well as graduates. I cringe when I see adverts for things that will "make you smarter".

[BravoV]

Unfortunately the long term solution is education, looking at some of my university provided course material that would not pass an english exam with a decent mark i have to wonder.

I've met and trained graduates that made me question the value of a university education...

For sure, to be a gov. official, especially at developed world, you need at least uni graduate, right ? Cmmiw, but, fact is thing like this still happening -> HERE. 

[Simon]

depends on what you get your degree in and if you have the IQ. i say the system is rigged and it would be politically incorrect to test people for IQ.

[BravoV]

Agree, totally.

Problem is, as OP started, this becoming real problem that can harm innocent people or even kill. 

Yes, Covid19 took one of my far relative  , and its not a hoax. 

Sorry, drifted off topic to virus, no more.

[SilverSolder]

Unfortunately the long term solution is education, looking at some of my university provided course material that would not pass an english exam with a decent mark i have to wonder.

I've met and trained graduates that made me question the value of a university education...

For sure, to be a gov. official, especially at developed world, you need at least uni graduate, right ? Cmmiw, but, fact is thing like this still happening -> HERE. 

Going against established science and national medical guidelines should be a reason for losing your job in the health service.

It is a sign of the times that no matter how cuckoo, people aren't being fired...

[james_s]

Unfortunately the long term solution is education, looking at some of my university provided course material that would not pass an english exam with a decent mark i have to wonder.

I've met and trained graduates that made me question the value of a university education...

For sure, to be a gov. official, especially at developed world, you need at least uni graduate, right ? Cmmiw, but, fact is thing like this still happening -> HERE. 

As far as I know, there are no particular educational requirements for elected positions in the US government, it's entirely up to the citizens to decide who to elect.

[DrG]

As far as I know, there are no particular educational requirements for elected positions in the US government, it's entirely up to the citizens to decide who to elect.

In fact, sometimes, you don't even need to be alive to get elected https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/26281/4-dead-politicians-who-still-got-elected

[boffin]

It is a sign of the times that no matter how cuckoo, people aren't being fired...

They are (finally) when they do stupid things. 
Mark Donnelly: Popular local guy that sang the national anthem at [Vancouver Canucks] hockey games
Francesco Aquilini: (multi-gazzilionaire) Owner of local hockey team [Vancouver Canucks]

[bd139]

Anti mask rally. What a bunch of fucktards.

[CJay]

Anti mask rally. What a bunch of fucktards.

Weird that, the coincidence between anti maskers, anti vaxxers, anti 5G/4G/3G/WiFi, extremist political views, anti-islam etc. etc.

It's almost as if there's an advantage to be gained by sowing division and distrust in science and government.

[bd139]

The really annoying bit is that modern medicine seems to increase their survival probability.

[CJay]

The really annoying bit is that modern medicine seems to increase their survival probability.

Damn those scientists with their vaccines and medicines...

[bd139]

A cruel irony isn’t it.

[BravoV]

Anti mask rally. What a bunch of fucktards.

Really wish that there is/are volunteers that known to be fully asymptomatic with Covid19, and while he/she/they are medically tested positive with their body full of the virus load, then join and infiltrate the rally, and stand in front and close to those f**tards while chanting NO MASK ! out loud again and again, while spraying the load, and let the virus and the body immune system decide.

Sounds nasty and evil, but maybe this is needed.

[bd139]

I’m not against accelerating natural selection

[tautech]

I’m not against accelerating natural selection

Reminds me of handing a chimp a machine gun. 

[CJay]

I’m not against accelerating natural selection

Reminds me of handing a chimp a machine gun. 

NRA == National Rhesus Association?

[BU508A]

I’m not against accelerating natural selection

Reminds me of handing a chimp a machine gun. 

NRA == National Rhesus Association?

Ape with an AK47

[MrMobodies]

From that recent thread  "WiFi Router Guard (Blocks About 90% of WiFi Router EMF!) Blocks 5G"

It looks like they gone from tin foil hats to kitchen utensils for the metal mesh.

Joke: Anyone fancy wearing a sieve over their head?

[bd139]

As a pastafarian that is my traditional head dress

[BU508A]

Philip Sager from Austria. This is a picture of his driving license.



Link to the article (in german)

[Bud]

Mark Donnelly: Popular local guy that sang the national anthem at [Vancouver Canucks] hockey games
Francesco Aquilini: (multi-gazzilionaire) Owner of local hockey team [Vancouver Canucks]

Does that make him not eligible for having a personal opinion about something ?

[CJay]

Mark Donnelly: Popular local guy that sang the national anthem at [Vancouver Canucks] hockey games
Francesco Aquilini: (multi-gazzilionaire) Owner of local hockey team [Vancouver Canucks]

Does that make him not eligible for having a personal opinion about something ?

Absolutely he's entitled to an opinion, but that doesn't entitle him to a position of influence to express it from.

[TimFox]

In case someone thinks that 5G conspiracy theories are harmless:
A large car bomb was exploded in downtown Nashville, TN on Christmas morning, causing extensive damage but fortunately only three injuries.
The authorities have found pieces of the perpetrator, who was blown up in the explosion, and matched his DNA.
This is preliminary:  lacking any other known motive, it is suspected that he was motivated by 5G conspiracy websites, since the explosion was outside of an AT&T switching facility, which was seriously damaged.

[Specmaster]

In case someone thinks that 5G conspiracy theories are harmless:
A large car bomb was exploded in downtown Nashville, TN on Christmas morning, causing extensive damage but fortunately only three injuries.
The authorities have found pieces of the perpetrator, who was blown up in the explosion, and matched his DNA.
This is preliminary:  lacking any other known motive, it is suspected that he was motivated by 5G conspiracy websites, since the explosion was outside of an AT&T switching facility, which was seriously damaged.

I must admit that also was my first thoughts about the bombing as well.  We here in the UK have had 5G repeater towers destroyed by fire etc. I think it's only a matter of time before lives are lost as a direct consequence of such nutters and I think its high time the authorities took a more active role in shutting down these websites and other platforms they use to deny them the access to spread their sick beliefs onto others who may be easily swayed towards such beliefs and more.

[SilverSolder]

I agree that conspiracy theorists are harmful.  E.g. recently China has thrown a Covid conspiracy theorist in prison for 4 years for this reason.  The reaction to this by the right wing in the West was predictable: it is an affront to freedom!

[Haenk]

Well, my mother in law told me a couple of weeks ago about her hair stylist suggesting the vaccination will also implement a chip created by Bill Gates to control the whole world.
You can't make this up, can you?
Luckily I could talk her out of it (she trusts me in these "technical" things), but those diffuse fears are obviously more widespread than one would expect. At least the church still uses the concept of "devil" and "hell", which is similar fearmongering, and it worked perfectly fine for centuries...

[magic]

Ape with an AK47

I saw the still picture version a while ago and I thought it was photoshopped. Apparently not. What the actual fuck.

Imagine thinking this video is real and looking down on 5G nuts

Welcome to the Internet

[magic]

Well, my mother in law told me a couple of weeks ago about her hair stylist suggesting the vaccination will also implement a chip created by Bill Gates to control the whole world.

Because they would do it if they could and not everybody has the technical knowledge to be sure that they can't
It's a major problem which isn't going to be easily resolved anytime soon.

[SilverSolder]

Well, my mother in law told me a couple of weeks ago about her hair stylist suggesting the vaccination will also implement a chip created by Bill Gates to control the whole world.
You can't make this up, can you?
Luckily I could talk her out of it (she trusts me in these "technical" things), but those diffuse fears are obviously more widespread than one would expect. At least the church still uses the concept of "devil" and "hell", which is similar fearmongering, and it worked perfectly fine for centuries...

Clarke's third law springs to mind: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Of course, your level of technological understanding / savvy sets the threshold for what "sufficiently advanced" means...   I suspect we all have a threshold, no matter how good we are!

[bd139]

I don’t have one. There is no magic. There are just magicians.

[james_s]

I don’t have one. There is no magic. There are just magicians.

That's because you're a technical person and likely have at least a passing familiarity with any technology known to man, at least sufficiently to identify it as technology. I suspect that you are also a very rational thinker and do not believe in any sort of supernatural phenomenon, if you were to encounter something you didn't understand, you would have faith that there is a rational explanation despite not knowing what it is. That belief in a rational explanation is not so different from the belief others may have in a supernatural explanation, it's a belief. I recognize that even though I myself do not believe in the supernatural, I still can't prove it doesn't exist and it's certainly possible that I'm wrong though I have seen no compelling evidence to suggest this. I can totally see how the statement of sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic would be true for most people, especially those who do not hold a belief that there is no such thing as supernatural.

[james_s]

Well, my mother in law told me a couple of weeks ago about her hair stylist suggesting the vaccination will also implement a chip created by Bill Gates to control the whole world.
You can't make this up, can you?
Luckily I could talk her out of it (she trusts me in these "technical" things), but those diffuse fears are obviously more widespread than one would expect. At least the church still uses the concept of "devil" and "hell", which is similar fearmongering, and it worked perfectly fine for centuries...

LOL I heard someone talking about that and I was at a loss for words to even respond, the whole thing makes no sense at all.

Seems like the source originated in a plan to tag vaccine bottles with RFID chips for distribution and inventory tracking. I don't know whether that was implemented or not but it seems like a reasonable thing to do.

That sort of fearmongering while potentially harmful is also probably a necessary part of society. At some point I came to realize that there is a not insignificant number of people for whom the only thing that compels them to behave like decent people and keeps them from acting like complete sociopaths is the fear of divine punishment. A man trying to lead a group of people has little clout but if he can convince the group that he is the face of a higher power he (or she) can command a great deal more influence. The fearmongering has long been an instrumental tool in raising children as well, even a toddler knows that mom and dad can't see what they're doing 100% of the time, but Santa (or whatever legend) knows if they've been good or bad. It helps to keep them in line.

[bd139]

I don’t have one. There is no magic. There are just magicians.

That's because you're a technical person and likely have at least a passing familiarity with any technology known to man, at least sufficiently to identify it as technology. I suspect that you are also a very rational thinker and do not believe in any sort of supernatural phenomenon, if you were to encounter something you didn't understand, you would have faith that there is a rational explanation despite not knowing what it is. That belief in a rational explanation is not so different from the belief others may have in a supernatural explanation, it's a belief. I recognize that even though I myself do not believe in the supernatural, I still can't prove it doesn't exist and it's certainly possible that I'm wrong though I have seen no compelling evidence to suggest this. I can totally see how the statement of sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic would be true for most people, especially those who do not hold a belief that there is no such thing as supernatural.

I think the point is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and if there isn’t one the Occam’s razor applies.

Faith is a terrible problem. We shouldn’t have invented that silly concept or built our society on it.

Well, my mother in law told me a couple of weeks ago about her hair stylist suggesting the vaccination will also implement a chip created by Bill Gates to control the whole world.
You can't make this up, can you?
Luckily I could talk her out of it (she trusts me in these "technical" things), but those diffuse fears are obviously more widespread than one would expect. At least the church still uses the concept of "devil" and "hell", which is similar fearmongering, and it worked perfectly fine for centuries...

LOL I heard someone talking about that and I was at a loss for words to even respond, the whole thing makes no sense at all.

Seems like the source originated in a plan to tag vaccine bottles with RFID chips for distribution and inventory tracking. I don't know whether that was implemented or not but it seems like a reasonable thing to do.

That sort of fearmongering while potentially harmful is also probably a necessary part of society. At some point I came to realize that there is a not insignificant number of people for whom the only thing that compels them to behave like decent people and keeps them from acting like complete sociopaths is the fear of divine punishment. A man trying to lead a group of people has little clout but if he can convince the group that he is the face of a higher power he (or she) can command a great deal more influence. The fearmongering has long been an instrumental tool in raising children as well, even a toddler knows that mom and dad can't see what they're doing 100% of the time, but Santa (or whatever legend) knows if they've been good or bad. It helps to keep them in line.

That works until it doesn’t. At which point it leaves some people questioning the root of authority. Is it the faithful fear programmed in or the principle of reciprocity? One leaves a dangerous ledge if the concept evaporates and the other does not.

Honesty is the best policy for dealing with anyone or any age. We mostly don’t do that because it’s harder. Santa is a shit show.

[james_s]

Faith is a terrible problem. We shouldn’t have invented that silly concept or built our society on it.

I don't think it was "invented" as much as it is an innate part of human psychology, which evolved because it offered certain evolutionary advantages. We (humans) are not nearly as far removed from our less advanced and more instinct driven tribal/pack animal ancestors as we like to pretend. Every known culture since the dawn of civilization has had some form of religion, and some things based on faith. You have beliefs based on faith too, they just aren't beliefs in the supernatural. I guarantee there are many things you believe and take as absolute fact despite never having personally investigated and proven them to be the case and I do as well. I've never been to Antarctica but I believe it exists. I've never seen Jupiter or Uranus but I have faith that those who have studied them are not lying to me. I don't really understand how gravity works but I have faith that if I hold a hammer above my foot and let go, it will fall straight down and hurt, I do not feel compelled to test this hypothesis. You (and I) find these beliefs to be entirely rational as they align perfectly with our worldview, but for many people that exact thing can be said about the supernatural.

[CJay]

Faith is a terrible problem. We shouldn’t have invented that silly concept or built our society on it.

I don't think it was "invented" as much as it is an innate part of human psychology, which evolved because it offered certain evolutionary advantages. We (humans) are not nearly as far removed from our less advanced and more instinct driven tribal/pack animal ancestors as we like to pretend. Every known culture since the dawn of civilization has had some form of religion, and some things based on faith. You have beliefs based on faith too, they just aren't beliefs in the supernatural. I guarantee there are many things you believe and take as absolute fact despite never having personally investigated and proven them to be the case and I do as well. I've never been to Antarctica but I believe it exists. I've never seen Jupiter or Uranus but I have faith that those who have studied them are not lying to me. I don't really understand how gravity works but I have faith that if I hold a hammer above my foot and let go, it will fall straight down and hurt, I do not feel compelled to test this hypothesis. You (and I) find these beliefs to be entirely rational as they align perfectly with our worldview, but for many people that exact thing can be said about the supernatural.

You're confusing trust and faith.

You trust that Antarctica exists because people tell you it does, but if you so choose you can prove it for yourself, .

Ditto Jupiter, Uranus and gravity, they're all real world, observable and provable, if you have the mental acuity and time you can observe them and derive formulae that predict their orbits, the rate of acceleration etc. to prove it.

[bd139]

Exactly and elegantly put.

[magic]

LOL I heard someone talking about that and I was at a loss for words to even respond, the whole thing makes no sense at all.

Seems like the source originated in a plan to tag vaccine bottles with RFID chips for distribution and inventory tracking. I don't know whether that was implemented or not but it seems like a reasonable thing to do.

It makes perfect sense if you consider the greater picture. You could spend hours crawling social networks and discussion groups, tracking the origins and evolution of Internet memes and piecing together how the gossip perverted whatever original grains of truth, but in doing so you would missing the forest for the trees.

This theory is not an isolated incident, it fits into a greater landscape of similar theories originating from similar parts of the world. Take a step back and ask what they have in common instead of obsessing about each one in isolation. A common fault of "rationalists" is that they are directly motivated by knee-jerk reaction to some immediate consequences of conspiracy theories, which drives them to adopt an aggressive stance and invest their time in obvious, tried-and-failed, low-sophistication efforts at fighting them on case by case basis.

Rationalism, as it happens, is a religion too. It is indeed the source of faith for rationalists. "If only everybody was like us, the world would be a better place" is the famous last words of about any major religion. Undermine this faith in a rationalist by stubbornly irrational behavior and he panics, even if the consequences of your actions are relatively benign in the grand scheme of things. Paradoxically, a common feature of conventional religion is that it gives its adherents a way out of this futile anti-bullshit whack-a-mole treadmill: You can't control the world, because the Supernatural does. You don't need to convince anyone, you can give up your life for the truth and that's okay too. You don't need to get your life perfect, you will be forgiven and/or granted another one. You don't need to worry, and worrying about things out of your control wears you down like nothing else.

For all the talk about potentially verifiable by anyone evidence of Moon landings, influence or lack thereof of RF on human body, China flu and whatnot, where is the evidence that practicing rationalism is of any long-term benefit to the rationalists, when the irrational are taking over the world and driving it into chaos? For all we know, it's been just a social experiment, one which really seriously lasted only for no more than a few centuries, and that's being generous IMO. If you believe in Darwinism, Darwinism is what you get. Being right about some random facts of Nature isn't the same as being fit in an environment full of lunatics, who often care about completely different things than silly facts of Nature, like competition for finite resources down on this planet.

You are right only as long as you are winning, and when you lose, you can be quite rationally considered wrong by definition. Maybe the postmodernists aren't even completely off the rails, lol.

[SilverSolder]

LOL I heard someone talking about that and I was at a loss for words to even respond, the whole thing makes no sense at all.

Seems like the source originated in a plan to tag vaccine bottles with RFID chips for distribution and inventory tracking. I don't know whether that was implemented or not but it seems like a reasonable thing to do.

It makes perfect sense if you consider the greater picture. You could spend hours crawling social networks and discussion groups, tracking the origins and evolution of Internet memes and piecing together how the gossip perverted whatever original grains of truth, but in doing so you would missing the forest for the trees.

This theory is not an isolated incident, it fits into a greater landscape of similar theories originating from similar parts of the world. Take a step back and ask what they have in common instead of obsessing about each one in isolation. A common fault of "rationalists" is that they are directly motivated by knee-jerk reaction to some immediate consequences of conspiracy theories, which drives them to adopt an aggressive stance and invest their time in obvious, tried-and-failed, low-sophistication efforts at fighting them on case by case basis.

Rationalism, as it happens, is a religion too. It is indeed the source of faith for rationalists. "If only everybody was like us, the world would be a better place" is the famous last words of about any major religion. Undermine this faith in a rationalist by stubbornly irrational behavior and he panics, even if the consequences of your actions are relatively benign in the grand scheme of things. Paradoxically, a common feature of conventional religion is that it gives its adherents a way out of this futile anti-bullshit whack-a-mole treadmill: You can't control the world, because the Supernatural does. You don't need to convince anyone, you can give up your life for the truth and that's okay too. You don't need to get your life perfect, you will be forgiven and/or granted another one. You don't need to worry, and worrying about things out of your control wears you down like nothing else.

For all the talk about potentially verifiable by anyone evidence of Moon landings, influence or lack thereof of RF on human body, China flu and whatnot, where is the evidence that practicing rationalism is of any long-term benefit to the rationalists, when the irrational are taking over the world and driving it into chaos? For all we know, it's been just a social experiment, one which really seriously lasted only for no more than a few centuries, and that's being generous IMO. If you believe in Darwinism, Darwinism is what you get. Being right about some random facts of Nature isn't the same as being fit in an environment full of lunatics, who often care about completely different things than silly facts of Nature, like competition for finite resources down on this planet.

You are right only as long as you are winning, and when you lose, you can be quite rationally considered wrong by definition. Maybe the postmodernists aren't even completely off the rails, lol.

If the lunatics become a real problem and force the rationals to become motivated to actively find a way to defeat them...   that is where the ultimate Darwinism occurs.

[james_s]

You're confusing trust and faith.

You trust that Antarctica exists because people tell you it does, but if you so choose you can prove it for yourself, .

Ditto Jupiter, Uranus and gravity, they're all real world, observable and provable, if you have the mental acuity and time you can observe them and derive formulae that predict their orbits, the rate of acceleration etc. to prove it.

Is there really any difference? Certainly the line is blurry. We could go the opposite direction and take a look at the flat earth people, they believe the earth is flat, they have faith that it is flat, they could get onto a jetliner or send a camera up on a balloon and see the curvature of the earth with their own eyes, they could be shown conclusive evidence that it is not flat, but it will make no difference, it's a belief they hold at the emotional level. You'll find this sort of thing everywhere, I've known people who were convinced that CFL and LED bulbs are some kind of liberal conspiracy and don't actually save energy, they believe they're junk and don't do what they're said to do. I can measure the power consumption and prove that they do save energy but that won't sway a believer. Look at any conspiracy theorist, they believe something so strongly that they will connect the dots in the most bizarre and convoluted ways in order to fit the evidence to what they believe is the truth. Some things are impossible to prove one way or the other but for someone who truly believes, even something that a rational person can prove is also impossible to prove.

Humans are on average not very rational, they hold emotional beliefs very strongly.

[james_s]

If the lunatics become a real problem and force the rationals to become motivated to actively find a way to defeat them...   that is where the ultimate Darwinism occurs.

Unfortunately for us, the rationalists are a small minority and probably always will be. Those with a strong tribal identity are better suited to assemble into powerful groups of like minded people, following a leader. Those of us who tend to be loners and march to a different drum are at a substantial disadvantage. A handful of really smart rational people is no match for an emotionally driven mob of idiots with a common belief and unified goal. Most of the conditions that led to humans evolving the way they are have not really changed.

[BravoV]

You're confusing trust and faith.

You trust that Antarctica exists because people tell you it does, but if you so choose you can prove it for yourself, .

Ditto Jupiter, Uranus and gravity, they're all real world, observable and provable, if you have the mental acuity and time you can observe them and derive formulae that predict their orbits, the rate of acceleration etc. to prove it.

Is there really any difference? Certainly the line is blurry. We could go the opposite direction and take a look at the flat earth people, they believe the earth is flat, they have faith that it is flat, they could get onto a jetliner or send a camera up on a balloon and see the curvature of the earth with their own eyes, they could be shown conclusive evidence that it is not flat, but it will make no difference, it's a belief they hold at the emotional level. You'll find this sort of thing everywhere, I've known people who were convinced that CFL and LED bulbs are some kind of liberal conspiracy and don't actually save energy, they believe they're junk and don't do what they're said to do. I can measure the power consumption and prove that they do save energy but that won't sway a believer. Look at any conspiracy theorist, they believe something so strongly that they will connect the dots in the most bizarre and convoluted ways in order to fit the evidence to what they believe is the truth. Some things are impossible to prove one way or the other but for someone who truly believes, even something that a rational person can prove is also impossible to prove.

Humans are on average not very rational, they hold emotional beliefs very strongly.

Some cases ... these lunatics are just dying for attention, especially in internet age.

At some cases, just pay attention at real world if you had a chance, where you physically meet and watch people like this kind, when making the "speech" in the crowd/audiences, just look and pay attention on how they loved the attention and focus they harvested.

-> https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/28/us/nashville-bomb-christmas-monday/index.html

Quote : 'Yes, I'm going to be more famous. I'm going to be so famous Nashville will never forget me.'

Common sense, if certain people would kill themself or made themself killed nowadays, just for attention/view counts (its a fact), then what makes them not even to consider harm/kill other people ?

[wilfred]

If the lunatics become a real problem and force the rationals to become motivated to actively find a way to defeat them...   that is where the ultimate Darwinism occurs.

Well, we evolved to include people who hold beliefs in things not well understood or based on proven science so then you have to ask how does Darwin explain that. If it was not useful surely it would have faded away.

And they really aren't lunatics and can't be defeated. To set out on some Quixotic quest to try is doomed to failure. You should read "Denialism" by Michael Specter. It uncovers some of the reasons people have a deep rooted mistrust in governments, Big Pharma  (eg Vioxx) and scientists. You'll soon realise you're not dealing with stupid people generally. Even those who appear on TV and social media probably make money from the issues and that to them is reason enough to continue. They all have their reasons.

[CJay]

Is there really any difference? Certainly the line is blurry. We could go the opposite direction and take a look at the flat earth people, they believe the earth is flat, they have faith that it is flat, they could get onto a jetliner or send a camera up on a balloon and see the curvature of the earth with their own eyes, they could be shown conclusive evidence that it is not flat, but it will make no difference, it's a belief they hold at the emotional level.

Faith can exist in a vacuum of evidence, that faith becomes the evidence they need to place their trust, a circular, irrational premise but one that exists because humans are irrational.

You can trust in faith but not have faith in trust.


 

 

[PlainName]

take a look at the flat earth people, they believe the earth is flat, they have faith that it is flat, they could get onto a jetliner or send a camera up on a balloon and see the curvature of the earth with their own eyes, they could be shown conclusive evidence that it is not flat, but it will make no difference, it's a belief they hold at the emotional level.

We only see it like that because we know how it works (that is, why we see the curvature of the earth and how that means the thing isn't flat [which builds upon our disbelief that it could be flat, so just reinforces our view]). But consider bd139 and magic - I don't know if he is entertained by magic, but he knows that the magician is somehow cheating and the impossible thing he is doing isn't actually impossible and probably isn't even being done. He sees it with his own eyes but knows it's impossible or, at least, possible in some way he hasn't yet worked out.

How is that different from the flatearther knowing the world is flat but seeing some trick that pretends it isn't? He doesn't know how that trick is being done but he knows that what it's showing isn't possible all the same.

And you can't even rely on an expert to start you off on the right track - just look at the conflicting expert views regarding the pandemic. In the end it basically comes down to a personality contest, and scammers by definition are going to do well there.

[madires]

I think this forum needs new sections:
- Philosopher's Corner
- Modern Psychology
- Social Impact of Technology

[bd139]

Not a bad idea 

[bd139]

take a look at the flat earth people, they believe the earth is flat, they have faith that it is flat, they could get onto a jetliner or send a camera up on a balloon and see the curvature of the earth with their own eyes, they could be shown conclusive evidence that it is not flat, but it will make no difference, it's a belief they hold at the emotional level.

We only see it like that because we know how it works (that is, why we see the curvature of the earth and how that means the thing isn't flat [which builds upon our disbelief that it could be flat, so just reinforces our view]). But consider bd139 and magic - I don't know if he is entertained by magic, but he knows that the magician is somehow cheating and the impossible thing he is doing isn't actually impossible and probably isn't even being done. He sees it with his own eyes but knows it's impossible or, at least, possible in some way he hasn't yet worked out.

How is that different from the flatearther knowing the world is flat but seeing some trick that pretends it isn't? He doesn't know how that trick is being done but he knows that what it's showing isn't possible all the same.

And you can't even rely on an expert to start you off on the right track - just look at the conflicting expert views regarding the pandemic. In the end it basically comes down to a personality contest, and scammers by definition are going to do well there.

On magic, I appreciate magic but most of the fun for me is working out how it’s done, then replicating it badly.

[CJay]

On magic, I appreciate magic but most of the fun for me is working out how it’s done, then replicating it badly.

Conjuring is easy, you do it just like that.

[SilverSolder]

If the lunatics become a real problem and force the rationals to become motivated to actively find a way to defeat them...   that is where the ultimate Darwinism occurs.

Well, we evolved to include people who hold beliefs in things not well understood or based on proven science so then you have to ask how does Darwin explain that. If it was not useful surely it would have faded away.

And they really aren't lunatics and can't be defeated. To set out on some Quixotic quest to try is doomed to failure. You should read "Denialism" by Michael Specter. It uncovers some of the reasons people have a deep rooted mistrust in governments, Big Pharma  (eg Vioxx) and scientists. You'll soon realise you're not dealing with stupid people generally. Even those who appear on TV and social media probably make money from the issues and that to them is reason enough to continue. They all have their reasons.

Let's not conflate conspiracy theorizing with healthy skepticism of government, big pharma, military industrial complex, etc.?

Sometimes, they really are out to get you! 

[BU508A]

I think this forum needs new sections:
- Philosopher's Corner
- Modern Psychology
- Social Impact of Technology

The weirdos can be found in the TEA section 

[SilverSolder]

take a look at the flat earth people, they believe the earth is flat, they have faith that it is flat, they could get onto a jetliner or send a camera up on a balloon and see the curvature of the earth with their own eyes, they could be shown conclusive evidence that it is not flat, but it will make no difference, it's a belief they hold at the emotional level.

We only see it like that because we know how it works (that is, why we see the curvature of the earth and how that means the thing isn't flat [which builds upon our disbelief that it could be flat, so just reinforces our view]). But consider bd139 and magic - I don't know if he is entertained by magic, but he knows that the magician is somehow cheating and the impossible thing he is doing isn't actually impossible and probably isn't even being done. He sees it with his own eyes but knows it's impossible or, at least, possible in some way he hasn't yet worked out.

How is that different from the flatearther knowing the world is flat but seeing some trick that pretends it isn't? He doesn't know how that trick is being done but he knows that what it's showing isn't possible all the same.

And you can't even rely on an expert to start you off on the right track - just look at the conflicting expert views regarding the pandemic. In the end it basically comes down to a personality contest, and scammers by definition are going to do well there.

Hence the need for science / "rational man" to have good representatives that can explain science in an emotionally compatible way! 

[AVGresponding]

I don’t have one. There is no magic. There are just magicians.

....I suspect that you are also a very rational thinker....

Don't count on it, he's an iPhone user...   

Faith is a terrible problem. We shouldn’t have invented that silly concept or built our society on it.

I don't think it was "invented" as much as it is an innate part of human psychology, which evolved because it offered certain evolutionary advantages. We (humans) are not nearly as far removed from our less advanced and more instinct driven tribal/pack animal ancestors as we like to pretend. Every known culture since the dawn of civilization has had some form of religion, and some things based on faith. You have beliefs based on faith too, they just aren't beliefs in the supernatural. I guarantee there are many things you believe and take as absolute fact despite never having personally investigated and proven them to be the case and I do as well. I've never been to Antarctica but I believe it exists. I've never seen Jupiter or Uranus but I have faith that those who have studied them are not lying to me. I don't really understand how gravity works but I have faith that if I hold a hammer above my foot and let go, it will fall straight down and hurt, I do not feel compelled to test this hypothesis. You (and I) find these beliefs to be entirely rational as they align perfectly with our worldview, but for many people that exact thing can be said about the supernatural.

Yes, and the tldr; of modern psychological anthropology is pretty much that we believe in the supernatural to prevent us from going insane when (a) we lose loved ones to death, and (b) we encounter phenomena we can't explain.

If you're interested you can find links to relevant papers on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_anthropology

I think this forum needs new sections:
- Philosopher's Corner
- Modern Psychology
- Social Impact of Technology

The weirdos can be found in the TEA section 

Hey, I resemble that remark!   

[bd139]

I don’t have one. There is no magic. There are just magicians.

....I suspect that you are also a very rational thinker....

Don't count on it, he's an iPhone user...   

 

Faith is a terrible problem. We shouldn’t have invented that silly concept or built our society on it.

I don't think it was "invented" as much as it is an innate part of human psychology, which evolved because it offered certain evolutionary advantages. We (humans) are not nearly as far removed from our less advanced and more instinct driven tribal/pack animal ancestors as we like to pretend. Every known culture since the dawn of civilization has had some form of religion, and some things based on faith. You have beliefs based on faith too, they just aren't beliefs in the supernatural. I guarantee there are many things you believe and take as absolute fact despite never having personally investigated and proven them to be the case and I do as well. I've never been to Antarctica but I believe it exists. I've never seen Jupiter or Uranus but I have faith that those who have studied them are not lying to me. I don't really understand how gravity works but I have faith that if I hold a hammer above my foot and let go, it will fall straight down and hurt, I do not feel compelled to test this hypothesis. You (and I) find these beliefs to be entirely rational as they align perfectly with our worldview, but for many people that exact thing can be said about the supernatural.

Yes, and the tldr; of modern psychological anthropology is pretty much that we believe in the supernatural to prevent us from going insane when (a) we lose loved ones to death, and (b) we encounter phenomena we can't explain.

If you're interested you can find links to relevant papers on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_anthropology

The death thing is an interesting one. Every perspective is selfish really. Someone else drops dead and you try and fit your mind into the scenario. A lot of people mourn not for others but for themselves (which is marginally correct although the thought framework around it is a bit borked). It doesn't fit the mind still so manifests itself as fear, so you look for other explanations to quell that fear. Eventually you come up with some argument which displaces the fears with an artificial reality. Someone else buys that idea because it's cheaper than thinking about it themselves. Eventually this turns into a massive organised way of thinking, causes a whole bunch of trouble and ends up causing more death than thinking about it. I digress as we don't want to go down that route too far, but ultimately it teaches people to not think, to accept others' arbitrary ideas without proof and everyone just gets stupider.

The outcome when facing an unknown should always be asking questions and doing research, not demanding answers from someone else. There is a large market for off the shelf stupid answers from the above process.

[AVGresponding]

Thinking takes effort, and people are mostly lazy, and prefer to let other people do their thinking for them.

[james_s]

I don’t have one. There is no magic. There are just magicians.

....I suspect that you are also a very rational thinker....

Don't count on it, he's an iPhone user...   

I'm also an iphone user, what does that tell you?

It's not as if I have 10 different platforms to choose from. There are *two* viable mobile OS choices and they both suck. It's less a choice of which one I like more but which one I hate less. Ultimately there are two primary reasons I went with an iphone. One is my friends in Canada have them and with iMessage I can text them for free, conventional SMS messages cost money, an absurd amount of money for what they are.

The other is that every decent Android phone I've seen is gigantic. My iPhone SE is the perfect size, it's smaller than any modern Android phone I'm aware of, the newer generation SE that has replaced it is larger than I'd like so I intend to hold onto mine as long as I can.

I'd love to have a 4" phone with an OLED display that runs straight Linux rather than these walled garden ecosystems but such a beast does not exist, so I'll stick to the devil I know and live with the aspects I don't like, because I have no choice that is sufficiently better.

[AVGresponding]

I don’t have one. There is no magic. There are just magicians.

....I suspect that you are also a very rational thinker....

Don't count on it, he's an iPhone user...   

I'm also an iphone user, what does that tell you?

It's not as if I have 10 different platforms to choose from. There are *two* viable mobile OS choices and they both suck. It's less a choice of which one I like more but which one I hate less. Ultimately there are two primary reasons I went with an iphone. One is my friends in Canada have them and with iMessage I can text them for free, conventional SMS messages cost money, an absurd amount of money for what they are.

The other is that every decent Android phone I've seen is gigantic. My iPhone SE is the perfect size, it's smaller than any modern Android phone I'm aware of, the newer generation SE that has replaced it is larger than I'd like so I intend to hold onto mine as long as I can.

I'd love to have a 4" phone with an OLED display that runs straight Linux rather than these walled garden ecosystems but such a beast does not exist, so I'll stick to the devil I know and live with the aspects I don't like, because I have no choice that is sufficiently better.

It's a bit of a standing joke between bd139 and I.

He likes the relatively secure OS and some other conveniences that an iPhone provides, I have a chronic distaste for Apple products, and even more so regarding their marketing, and proscriptive business practices.

[SilverSolder]

It's a shame Microsoft/Nokia gave up...   and Blackberry.

[CJay]

It's a shame Microsoft/Nokia gave up...   and Blackberry.

I don't think they gave up as such, they lost their way, badly.

I used one of Nokia's last smartphones pre the MS buyout, it was a beautiful device and the OS looked wonderful.

When it worked.

Maybe I got a bad one but it was terrible, apps stopped working and then refused to work again until the device was reset, the major feature I needed at the time from a smartphone was sat nav and messaging, neither worked reliably.

Sadly I had to send it back and I got a HTC Android device instead.

[bd139]

They alienated their entire developer community twice.  That’s what killed it.

[magic]

I'm also an iphone user, what does that tell you?

Surely outs you as a smpartphone addict

There are *two* viable mobile OS choices and they both suck.

Can't disagree with that

[james_s]

I'm also an iphone user, what does that tell you?

Surely outs you as a smpartphone addict

I guess I'm a smartphone addict in the same way that I'm a computer addict, a car addict and a chair addict. They are all tools that I possess and use on a daily basis or nearly daily basis.

Personally I would consider "addict" to describe someone who has a large than average number of a given device and upgrades much more frequently than necessary. I've owned a grand total of two smartphones in my life. Used the first one for almost 5 years until updates had made it almost unusably slow. I've had the second one for around 4 years now and it's still going strong, I'll replace it when it fails.

[magic]

Well, I am a computer addict but I don't have a smartphone

And I wouldn't say that all computers suck (mine don't ), but all smartphones do indeed.

[SilverSolder]

There are *two* viable mobile OS choices and they both suck.

I understand Huawei is working on a "third alternative"?  Could be interesting with some real competition.

[DrG]

Thinking takes effort, and people are mostly lazy, and prefer to let other people do their thinking for them.

....and some people confuse letting other people doing their thinking with freedom.

[madires]

There are *two* viable mobile OS choices and they both suck.

I understand Huawei is working on a "third alternative"?  Could be interesting with some real competition.

There are many more (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_operating_system), but they have just a teeny tiny market share.

[bd139]

There are *two* viable mobile OS choices and they both suck.

I understand Huawei is working on a "third alternative"?  Could be interesting with some real competition.

I bet the entire user interface will be Times New Roman like a Rigol error message 

[SilverSolder]

There are *two* viable mobile OS choices and they both suck.

I understand Huawei is working on a "third alternative"?  Could be interesting with some real competition.

I bet the entire user interface will be Times New Roman like a Rigol error message 

 

Who knows, maybe Huawei will launch a product that isn't advertising sponsored and doesn't track users?  It would be an interesting move!

[bd139]

You do realise Huawei is a Chinese company don't you? 

[SilverSolder]

You do realise Huawei is a Chinese company don't you? 

I'm a picky consumer and believe in free markets - if the best product for me is made in China, I buy it there...  if made in USA, I buy it there...  if made in EU, I buy it there!   

[james_s]

Well, I am a computer addict but I don't have a smartphone

And I wouldn't say that all computers suck (mine don't ), but all smartphones do indeed.

You have many choices with computers, you can buy a Macbook, or you can buy any one of scores of different Windows PCs in a multitude of different form factors, or you can build your own PC, or you can go with one of the SBCs like the Raspberry Pi, or you can install one of a dizzying array of Linux distros on any of these. You can even use a vintage machine if you desire, and if the latest version of some software doesn't work to your liking you can install an older version instead. If some aspect of your older machine is not to your liking you can upgrade it while keeping the rest. There are so many choices that you can find something suitable for almost any need.

With smartphones none of that is true. You can buy an iPhone out of a very limited selection that are mostly huge and have that awful notch in the display and be locked into Apple's walled garden, you will be forced to use the latest version of everything and if an update breaks an app too bad, you can't go back. If some aspect of the hardware is insufficient, tough shit, you can't upgrade it. You will do everything their way and you will like it, or you will leave. Or you can buy one of a range of phones running Android, most of them also huge, also locked into a walled garden although typically easier to break out if you're the technical type, and you have a bit more freedom in general but in my experience they also feel significantly less polished and more glitchy. If you don't like the experience, tough, your other option is Apple. Those are really the only two choices and I don't really like either one. Upgradeable hardware beyond a SD card socket for storage is not really feasible in the phone form factor but I would love to have something based on a full Linux distro that is "rooted" right out of the box and completely open for me to tinker as I please but that isn't currently a viable choice.

[PlainName]

I would love to have something based on a full Linux distro that is "rooted" right out of the box and completely open for me to tinker as I please

Planet Computer's Gemini and Cosmo Communicator?

The main problem, as Microsoft found when they ported Windows to PDAs, is that desktop OSs don't actually work very well in a phone form factor. A linux command line is pants when you're using an onscreen touch keyboard, and a decent line of text is going to need either 18-year-old eyesight or thick glasses. Android and IOS score massively because they are designed for the phones, and that's also why they are pants on the desktop. I think if you ever got your hands on a Linux phone you'd give it up as a bad job and switch to a phone OS of some flavour in the end.

[james_s]

When I say "linux distro" I don't mean a linux desktop OS. I mean specifically a phone OS, but one that is based on linux and follows the completely open model used by other linux distros. The command line is a non starter but should be available by ssh into the device. An app store is also a necessity but it should not be the only source of apps. In practice there is probably not enough space in the market for more than two viable mobile platforms but I can dream. I just hate the locked down walled garden/SAAS model, I want control over my device. I want the freedom to choose a graphical environment and tweak it to my liking. If they pull an Apple and replace a beautiful polished and consistent UI like iOS 6 had with an ugly inconsistent mess like iOS7 and later I want to be able to go back to the icons I like. If there's a stupid feature I NEVER use like the social media integration that was there through many versions I want to be able to rip it out. If an app update introduces a serious bug that makes the app unusable for a month until the vendor fixes it like happened a couple years ago with the Amcrest security camera app I want to be able to roll back to the previous version. I'd also like an app store that had a paid upgrade model, I absolutely loathe the subscription model that Apple has been pushing and their refusal to allow paid upgrades instead. I don't rent software, period, that is not negotiable. Frequent updates are not a feature, they are a nuisance.

[PlainName]

Maybe something here might suit: https://itsfoss.com/open-source-alternatives-android/

[bd139]

About 10 minutes of any OSS mobile OS always makes me crawl back to Apple willingly.

Quite frankly I want something that actually works. Getting too old to spend 2 weeks pissing around with something to get it half as usable as something off the shelf under some vague ideology of freedom. Freedom turns out to be slavery to maintenance. Fuck that.

[CJay]

About 10 minutes of any OSS mobile OS always makes me crawl back to Apple willingly.

Quite frankly I want something that actually works. Getting too old to spend 2 weeks pissing around with something to get it half as usable as something off the shelf under some vague ideology of freedom. Freedom turns out to be slavery to maintenance. Fuck that.

Meh, I get on with both, Android and iOS, now got one of each.

I prefer Android but iOS mostly works, it's a PITA when you have an ever shifting ISEC policy though, you can go to bed one night and wake up to find your device won't connect to a corp resource.

iOS seems to have more problems with security than Android but as we're a majority iOS shop here it may just they have more prominence.

[james_s]

I'd like iOS a lot better if it was jailbroken out of the box, and if they'd stop releasing a whole new version of it every year, I don't remember the last time they added a feature that I cared about, it's just a hassle having to update it so frequently and lose access to apps that used to work because they were abandoned and don't work on the new OS. On multiple occasions the result of an OS update is that some stuff that worked fine no longer works and my phone is slower than it was before.

[bd139]

I buy a flagship every 2 years and sell the old one. It's only if you tail end the lifespan of any phone you end up with all the problems.

[SilverSolder]

I buy a flagship every 2 years and sell the old one. It's only if you tail end the lifespan of any phone you end up with all the problems.

Still using a comparatively ancient Samsung S5 here with no problems.  Five day battery life from enormous aftermarket battery, which is replaceable (I replace annually since they cost little).  Runs fast, haven't come across any app it won't run.  Has SD card slot and headphone jack.  Not sure I'd be able to find a new phone that works as well as this! 

[james_s]

I buy a flagship every 2 years and sell the old one. It's only if you tail end the lifespan of any phone you end up with all the problems.

I expect at least 4 years out of a phone, 10 years is not completely unreasonable anymore. The tech has plateaued, there hasn't been a new feature I care about in years and the only reason older phones keep getting slow is because they keep adding useless bloat. It's a constant arms race between hardware getting more powerful and software sucking up more CPU cycles. The upgrade cycle is almost completely artificially constructed to keep selling phones.

All the flagship phones are gigantic, the original iPhone was the perfect size, the SE is ok too, the latest SE I could probably live with in a pinch but it's larger than I want. Sometimes I miss the tiny gumstick feature phone I had in the mid 2000's, it was absolutely tiny. Not practical for texting and browsing though.

[bd139]

I mostly buy for the camera improvements these days. It's cheaper than having DSLRs as a hobby and hurts the shoulder less.

[Rx7man]

Anyone care to join me on this facebook ad? tons of nutters there, they can't differentiate between "nukular" radiation and electromagnetic radiation.
https://www.facebook.com/theradblockmeters/posts/223570452683894

[PlainName]

I am mostly happy with my A1 phone, but a critical issue is updates. Typically they are provided for 2 years, and then you're on your own with published exploits that you can't secure against.

[SilverSolder]

I mostly buy for the camera improvements these days. It's cheaper than having DSLRs as a hobby and hurts the shoulder less.

Hardly a replacement for a DSLR though - Unless you really didn't need a DSLR in the first place! 

(My DSLR is also collecting dust - you can do a lot with a phone camera - but DSLR still rules for low light sensitivity, long lenses, long exposures, etc.)

[CJay]

I mostly buy for the camera improvements these days. It's cheaper than having DSLRs as a hobby and hurts the shoulder less.

Hardly a replacement for a DSLR though - Unless you really didn't need a DSLR in the first place! 

(My DSLR is also collecting dust - you can do a lot with a phone camera - but DSLR still rules for low light sensitivity, long lenses, long exposures, etc.)

Was massively impressed with the quality from my first HTC smartphone and have been impressed by diminishing amounts at each incremental improvement but if I look carefully at the images my ancient D50 still holds its ground, even compared to the results from my partner's S10 or the iPhones I set up for users at work

[bd139]

Regarding low light sensitivity I disagree with DSLR requirement. The iPhone 12 I just bought really is top notch excellent and has OIS. You don't need a tripod to do really long exposures. The attached (scaled and processed - so will look more like ass here) was taken in the extreme condition of almost complete darkness with no flash held in hand as an example. You can also shoot RAW on the Pro devices as well if you want. And the third party camera apps have parity with some of the more advanced pro DSLR features.

Killer for DSLRs is lenses and if you need to print large format. Everything else, fuck it, not worth it now. Expensive, fragile large, heavy. A lot of the photography I do is out in nature which is a chore to lug another 2kg of crap around on a 20 mile hike into the middle of nowhere. Plus by the time you've got the thing out, the moment is gone.

[SilverSolder]

I mostly buy for the camera improvements these days. It's cheaper than having DSLRs as a hobby and hurts the shoulder less.

Hardly a replacement for a DSLR though - Unless you really didn't need a DSLR in the first place! 

(My DSLR is also collecting dust - you can do a lot with a phone camera - but DSLR still rules for low light sensitivity, long lenses, long exposures, etc.)

Was massively impressed with the quality from my first HTC smartphone and have been impressed by diminishing amounts at each incremental improvement but if I look carefully at the images my ancient D50 still holds its ground, even compared to the results from my partner's S10 or the iPhones I set up for users at work

If you like wide angle lens pictures, a smartphone does a decent job.  As soon as you use the zoom function, quality plummets quickly.  Closer lenses are the main advantage of DSLR.

[SilverSolder]

Regarding low light sensitivity I disagree with DSLR requirement. [...]

The ISO sensitivity of the iPhone 12 is about 5,000 - which is extremely good.

But the massively larger sensor in a modern full frame DSLR blows it away by an order of magnitude, e.g. Nikon D850 max ISO is 51,200 for comparison.

[...]
Killer for DSLRs is lenses and if you need to print large format. Everything else, fuck it, not worth it now. Expensive, fragile large, heavy. A lot of the photography I do is out in nature which is a chore to lug another 2kg of crap around on a 20 mile hike into the middle of nowhere. Plus by the time you've got the thing out, the moment is gone.

Agreed.  The best camera in the world is...   the one you have with you! 

I rarely take the DSLR out for a spin these days, the phone camera is "good enough" even in my lowly Galaxy S5.

The only issue is that as you zoom in with the phone camera, it is obviously digital zoom and quality plummets rapidly as you zoom.  The good news is that most photos in social settings benefit from the good wide angle performance of phone cameras, so it is rarely an issue.

 

[BravoV]

The only issue is that as you zoom in with the phone camera, it is obviously digital zoom and quality plummets rapidly as you zoom. 

Reason that for traveling, I carry my P&S with long optical zoom, quite compact sized, Panasonic made with 30X optical zoom at 720mm (35mm film cam. equiv.)

[bd139]

Regarding low light sensitivity I disagree with DSLR requirement. [...]

The ISO sensitivity of the iPhone 12 is about 5,000 - which is extremely good.

But the massively larger sensor in a modern full frame DSLR blows it away by an order of magnitude, e.g. Nikon D850 max ISO is 51,200 for comparison.

[...]
Killer for DSLRs is lenses and if you need to print large format. Everything else, fuck it, not worth it now. Expensive, fragile large, heavy. A lot of the photography I do is out in nature which is a chore to lug another 2kg of crap around on a 20 mile hike into the middle of nowhere. Plus by the time you've got the thing out, the moment is gone.

Agreed.  The best camera in the world is...   the one you have with you! 

I rarely take the DSLR out for a spin these days, the phone camera is "good enough" even in my lowly Galaxy S5.

The only issue is that as you zoom in with the phone camera, it is obviously digital zoom and quality plummets rapidly as you zoom.  The good news is that most photos in social settings benefit from the good wide angle performance of phone cameras, so it is rarely an issue.

Exactly the point with the camera you have with you. Worth checking the optics on smartphones now. They have optical zoom. Periscope lenses are coming too. It's quite frankly amazing what you get for your cash.

Another opportunist shot on an older XR while I was out running (impossible with a DSLR unless you want to get bruises  )

[SilverSolder]

That is a nice shot! - and as you said, you won't get bruised...

A DSLR is still a big step up in performance, though -  you do get something for the $$$ there as well!

[bd139]

I like that - very nice shot and that and certainly demonstrates the capabilities of a DSLR. I never seem to land anywhere there's decent winter colour contrasts like that annoyingly. Perhaps I need to move somewhere colder 

Prior to the phones, I had a modest Nikon D3100 but I sold it when my wife (now ex) got seriously ill to cover expenses.   That was fairly decent for an entry level camera. Shot attached. This was taken ankle deep in goose shit at Kew Gardens.

[SilverSolder]

That is a beautiful shot.  Obviously you get no bokeh at all with a phone camera, unless you try REALLY hard! 

The cold is a b!tch but does have some compensating qualities - rarely, though!

[james_s]

There's no question that a DSLR is superior to a smartphone camera, if you have it with you. That is the fundamental problem, I rarely have a camera with me, I virtually always have my phone though.

[CJay]

There's no question that a DSLR is superior to a smartphone camera, if you have it with you. That is the fundamental problem, I rarely have a camera with me, I virtually always have my phone though.

As someone else said, the best camera is the one you have with you and yes, the smartphone cameras are damned impressive these days, but there are days where I would plan to have a DSLR with me.

 

[boffin]

More importantly, does your DSLR use 5G ?

[bd139]

My phone camera does 

No extra eyes developed or black helicopters buzzing me yet.

[SilverSolder]

Speaking of conspiracy theories, James Murdoch came out yesterday and admitted that spreading conspiracy theories via news channels and social media is damaging society, saying:

"Those outlets that propagate lies to their audience have unleashed insidious and uncontrollable forces that will be with us for years."

and

"Spreading disinformation — whether about the election, public health or climate change — has real world consequences"


Can it really be true - they are starting to get a clue?

[PlainName]

Can it really be true - they are starting to get a clue?

James Murdoch has split from the rest of his family, which is how come he is speaking out. They already had a clue and didn't give a toss, so why would they change now?

The only real question is whether they truly didn't care or whether they deliberately manipulated things to get a specific result. Either way, they weren't, and aren't, naive about this.

[TimFox]

As an educated American, I used to think that the conspiracy theories spread by Fox News (absolutely no relation to me), etc., and believed by the deplorables were amusing, but my attitude changed recently.

[Terry Bites]

Leave them be. Nature will take care of them.
Take a 5G antenna and grind it in a blender add 10million litres of deionised water.
Now shake vigorously at 50.005Hz for 0.004 seconds. Repeat 7 times and dilute with 1 million litres of holy water.
Place in plant mister and puff spray over sweetener tablets.
Take one a day. It'll be ok. If you have already used 3G or eaten meat I cant help you and your life is ruined.

[james_s]

The internet has done as promised and given a voice to marginalized people and groups. Now a few people are finally starting to realize that some of those people are probably better left marginalized. Which ones depends on who you ask though. One groups heroes are another groups war criminals, it's all a matter of perspective.

[SilverSolder]

The internet has done as promised and given a voice to marginalized people and groups. Now a few people are finally starting to realize that some of those people are probably better left marginalized. Which ones depends on who you ask though. One groups heroes are another groups war criminals, it's all a matter of perspective.

I guess a "conspiracy theory" could be thought of as something similar to a computer virus, i.e. software that makes the host computer malfunction in some way.

So are we talking about "marginalising" or "disinfecting" people and groups?

All of the above assumes that we are only discussing unfounded outright crackpot conspiracy theories here.

[james_s]

People who believe in and push such theories are marginalized. In the past it was fairly isolated, some nutty eccentric guy ranting and raving or holed up in a cabin out in the woods somewhere, they could largely be ignored and written off as crazies. Now those nutty guys have a worldwide voice, and an easy way to congregate with other like minded people and reach others who can be swayed in that direction.

[bd139]

Indeed. All it takes is an authoritative sounding snake to get buy in from morons. Actually has anything really changed?

[CJay]

Indeed. All it takes is an authoritative sounding snake to get buy in from morons. Actually has anything really changed?

Yeah, the authoritative sounding snakes now have instantaneous worldwide reach and the ability to look like an awful lot of authoritative snakes by 'buying' shill accounts and bot farms to spread their word.

[magic]

The internet has done as promised and given a voice to marginalized people and groups.

There is more to the Internet than radicalized neoliberals and/or opportunistic entrepreneurs like Jack Donkey, Mark Faceberg and Steve Cancer. I wasn't the only one saying that hooking up every illiterate to the Matrix cannot be a good idea, but there was money to be made and there were political visions to be "proven" (ending up being disproven, huh? - the West essentially became a reductio ad absurdum of egalitarianism this decade). The word "marginalized" didn't even appear on the Internet all that often before 2010. It wasn't a goal before it became a goal to some people. Blame them and the ideology, it's not like they haven't been warned.

Now a few people are finally starting to realize that some of those people are probably better left marginalized. Which ones depends on who you ask though. One groups heroes are another groups war criminals, it's all a matter of perspective.

There are many groups that should be left alone but aren't, because the insane are the most useful of useful idiots.

Indeed. All it takes is an authoritative sounding snake to get buy in from morons. Actually has anything really changed?

Nothing ever changes and the snakiest of snakes got otherwise intelligent people to buy into plebocracy. It goes without saying that the dumb and the uninformed cannot govern, so who actually governs you in absence of a plausible form of government?

[bd139]

so who actually governs you in absence of a plausible form of government?

Application of logic mostly

[SilverSolder]

[...]the insane are the most useful of useful idiots. [...]

 

[BravoV]

Can it really be true - they are starting to get a clue?

James Murdoch has split from the rest of his family, which is how come he is speaking out. They already had a clue and didn't give a toss, so why would they change now?

The only real question is whether they truly didn't care or whether they deliberately manipulated things to get a specific result. Either way, they weren't, and aren't, naive about this.

Naive or not, truth or lies doesn't matter, one thing for sure he is a businessman, makes money in the only thing matter, and we all know far right rhetoric does sell like a dope and it is legal.

[SiliconWizard]

[...]the insane are the most useful of useful idiots. [...]

 

There's nothing funny about what he said actually.
I do agree with magic here - those people are a lot more "useful" both to the economic and political ecosystems than they appear. Economically, they generate a lot of buzz and traffic. Politically, they are very convenient. That some of them start spreading bullshit about some topic, and any further, articulate and relevant debate automatically becomes de facto impossible. A few of them around the world, and everyone's voice gets shut down no matter what they have to say.

[SilverSolder]

[...]the insane are the most useful of useful idiots. [...]

 

There's nothing funny about what he said actually.
I do agree with magic here - those people are a lot more "useful" both to the economic and political ecosystems than they appear. Economically, they generate a lot of buzz and traffic. Politically, they are very convenient. That some of them start spreading bullshit about some topic, and any further, articulate and relevant debate automatically becomes de facto impossible. A few of them around the world, and everyone's voice gets shut down no matter what they have to say.

Yes.   The useful idiots are being used against...  normal people who just want things to work.

[DrG]

The internet has done as promised and given a voice to marginalized people and groups. /--/

It certainly has, but it is acting as an all-band amplifier. We are struggling to bring it under community and legal control (installation of band gap filters). It is a challenge, it will likely need a more applicable model than has been used with "typical" and "conventional" broadcast media, but it is certainly continuing to develop.

When I read this recent article https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/16/misinformation-trump-twitter/ with a sub-headline, Zignal Labs charts 73 percent decline on Twitter and beyond following historic action against the president, my curiosity was piqued (73%? - who has these metrics? Where is the validity for these metrics?). So I looked into https://zignallabs.com/ - Influence metrics appears to be a lucrative service with increasing commercial availabilty (take note kids looking for jobs). This goes well beyond the "reputation reclamation" services. What started as "data mining" is beginning to produce much fruit.

[Specmaster]

These nutters spreading false claims on the web are costing peoples lives as this articles shows. Its high time these nut jobs of all kinds were denied any platforms to spread their nasty theorys on. The authorities need to act now and make examples out of some of them to send a clear message to other peddlers out there of this dangerous crap.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/covid-denier-gary-matthews-dies-b908310.html

[BravoV]

These nutters spreading false claims on the web are costing peoples lives as this articles shows. Its high time these nut jobs of all kinds were denied any platforms to spread their nasty theorys on. The authorities need to act now and make examples out of some of them to send a clear message to other peddlers out there of this dangerous crap.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/covid-denier-gary-matthews-dies-b908310.html

My opinion only, probably all of these so called "nutters" are the crop of the bad seeds planted for decades, from no trust on own government and pissed off seeing lies/propagandas on own medias/news/infos.

The SNR of the truth and trust, are probably much harder than capturing gravity waves signal from early "seconds" of Big Bang.

[bd139]

These nutters spreading false claims on the web are costing peoples lives as this articles shows. Its high time these nut jobs of all kinds were denied any platforms to spread their nasty theorys on. The authorities need to act now and make examples out of some of them to send a clear message to other peddlers out there of this dangerous crap.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/covid-denier-gary-matthews-dies-b908310.html

Also gullibility, faith and lack of critical reasoning skills are not good survival traits.

I’m very disappointed at the grand fuck all the state has been doing. Even some of our politicians have been peddling the aforementioned shite.

[CJay]

These nutters spreading false claims on the web are costing peoples lives as this articles shows. Its high time these nut jobs of all kinds were denied any platforms to spread their nasty theorys on. The authorities need to act now and make examples out of some of them to send a clear message to other peddlers out there of this dangerous crap.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/covid-denier-gary-matthews-dies-b908310.html

Also gullibility, faith and lack of critical reasoning skills are not good survival traits.

I’m very disappointed at the grand fuck all the state has been doing. Even some of our politicians have been peddling the aforementioned shite.

Disappointed is an understatement, I'm not an advocate for capital punishment at all but I'm not far off making an exception for some of those fuckers pushing that bullshit.

Nor am I looking for sympathy, so please don't.

I've lost family, friends and colleagues to this fucking virus, some of the people I know who've had it and recovered now have what look to be life long health problems because of it, when I see the scum  pushing the 'get back to work' narrative, the mask deniers, worse still the COVID deniers my blood boils, I wish they'd go work a shift on an intensive care ward and see what their bullshit could do to people.

[boffin]

Like so many other things, the deniers are inventing a cause/effect to explain something (completely random) that may have happened to them.  (also explains the imaginary sky-fairy stuff)

I know someone who's son has some mental health issues, which she is now blaming on vaccinations when he was a kid 25 yrs ago. People want an excuse to blame things on; whether its true or not.

This 'it must be someone else's fault' syndrome also explains a big chunk of the US electorate, who vote GOP to justify blaming their failures on someone else (blacks/gays/chinese/mexicans/unicorns/etc); if it's acceptable at the highest level, it must be acceptable to them.

 

[SilverSolder]

Apophenia - the tendency to perceive a connection or meaningful pattern between unrelated or random things (such as objects or ideas)

Pareidolia - the tendency to perceive a specific, often meaningful image in a random or ambiguous visual pattern

[Bud]

I know someone who's son has some mental health issues, which she is now blaming on vaccinations when he was a kid 25 yrs ago. People want an excuse to blame things on; whether its true or not.

And you know 100% this was not true. You know unconditionally and most certainly that was not true. You can prove that was not true. Because, you know, you know.

[PlainName]

I know someone who's son has some mental health issues, which she is now blaming on vaccinations when he was a kid 25 yrs ago. People want an excuse to blame things on; whether its true or not.

And you know 100% this was not true. You know unconditionally and most certainly that was not true. You can prove that was not true. Because, you know, you know.

What are you trying to get across there, Bud? I can't quite decipher your meaning.

[gnuarm]

Apophenia - the tendency to perceive a connection or meaningful pattern between unrelated or random things (such as objects or ideas)

Pareidolia - the tendency to perceive a specific, often meaningful image in a random or ambiguous visual pattern

Is there a word for people who feel compelled to have words for everything?

Relating to pareidolia, I understand the reason why we often see faces in the dark or in random patterns is because we have a special part of our brain which is responsible for recognizing faces.  When we see a face that isn't there it's just because that part of our brain is working hard to do its job and was a bit overachieving. 

What I really hate is knowing faces are there and NOT being able to see them. 

[CJay]

I know someone who's son has some mental health issues, which she is now blaming on vaccinations when he was a kid 25 yrs ago. People want an excuse to blame things on; whether its true or not.

And you know 100% this was not true. You know unconditionally and most certainly that was not true. You can prove that was not true. Because, you know, you know.

What are you trying to get across there, Bud? I can't quite decipher your meaning.

I think what he's trying to do is prove, beyond doubt, on a forum made up of intelligent, scientifically literate people that he's an anti-vaxxer idiot but he's not quite got the courage to say it outright

[bd139]

Think he’s implying he doesn’t know the difference between correlation and causality. Chalk one up for a big problem with human perception that leads to most evil stupidities we encounter. So yep.

[gnuarm]

I thought he was being ironic.  Or sarcastic.  Or maybe just very dry.  But not serious by any means.  I mean,  really?  Do you believe anyone thinks the way he wrote?

[bd139]

Yes. I know people who do and proudly express such things.

[CJay]

I thought he was being ironic.  Or sarcastic.  Or maybe just very dry.  But not serious by any means.  I mean,  really?  Do you believe anyone thinks the way he wrote?

Yes. There are very definitely people who think that way.

[SilverSolder]

Apophenia - the tendency to perceive a connection or meaningful pattern between unrelated or random things (such as objects or ideas)

Pareidolia - the tendency to perceive a specific, often meaningful image in a random or ambiguous visual pattern

Is there a word for people who feel compelled to have words for everything?

Human?   

Relating to pareidolia, I understand the reason why we often see faces in the dark or in random patterns is because we have a special part of our brain which is responsible for recognizing faces.  When we see a face that isn't there it's just because that part of our brain is working hard to do its job and was a bit overachieving. 

What I really hate is knowing faces are there and NOT being able to see them. 
(Attachment Link)

It is a survival skill to quickly arrive at a conclusion about the environment.  Sometimes, this skill works against us!  - doesn't mean it isn't a valuable skill, we just have to be aware of it and its shortcomings.

[james_s]

It is a survival skill to quickly arrive at a conclusion about the environment.  Sometimes, this skill works against us!  - doesn't mean it isn't a valuable skill, we just have to be aware of it and its shortcomings.

Yeah if you turn around and see a snake or a tiger or something a short circuit in the thought process that recognizes a possible threat and causes you to take action, either fight or flight is advantageous vs standing there analyzing the situation and trying to decide whether the animal is truly a threat or not. Same with getting an electrical shock or touching something hot, you don't want to take the time to think about whether it's actually causing injury and what to do next, there is a hardwired reaction that causes you to jerk away.

[james_s]

And you know 100% this was not true. You know unconditionally and most certainly that was not true. You can prove that was not true. Because, you know, you know.

Of course not. I can't say with that degree of certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that Paris is a real city in France and not just some work of fiction (never been there, never saw it with my own eyes, I'm just told that it's there), or that my overall luck today was not predetermined by the particular shirt I chose to wear, but I am confident enough in these things to treat them as absolute fact despite not REALLY knowing with 100% unconditional uncertainty. Nothing is ever 100%, everything is theory based on the available information, but there comes a point when that theory has survived enough testing to be called fact.

[Terry Bites]

 You can just ignore them and the people who believe what they say.
I still have to remind myself (daily) not to argue with morons and the mentally ill.

My neighbour wants her house free of all EM so I asked her if I could take her laptop and phone and remove the WiFi.
Of course not! The idea of living in darkness at absolute zero didn't suit the needs of her homeopathic business. What can you do?

[Syntax Error]

My neighbour wants her house free of all EM so I asked her if I could take her laptop and phone and remove the WiFi.
Of course not! The idea of living in darkness at absolute zero didn't suit the needs of her homeopathic business. What can you do?

That would be hilarious if I knew she was not serious. I once knew someone who did crystal bowel cleansing. Don't even ask how that works. She moved from Cornwall (uk) to the Gold Coast (aus), as her new age 'skills' were in demand in Australia. Maybe you could make your neighbour some of your own dodgy tecnology to cleanse her EM field. Solder some old TV ceramic delay lines and crystals together on a metal saucepan lid and hey presto, instant money

[BU508A]

This would be a very cynical approach.




I like it.


 

[madires]

My neighbour wants her house free of all EM so I asked her if I could take her laptop and phone and remove the WiFi.
Of course not! The idea of living in darkness at absolute zero didn't suit the needs of her homeopathic business. What can you do?

Have you tried to suggest 5G cleansing globuli?

[SilverSolder]

My neighbour wants her house free of all EM so I asked her if I could take her laptop and phone and remove the WiFi.
Of course not! The idea of living in darkness at absolute zero didn't suit the needs of her homeopathic business. What can you do?

That would be hilarious if I knew she was not serious. I once knew someone who did crystal bowel cleansing. Don't even ask how that works. She moved from Cornwall (uk) to the Gold Coast (aus), as her new age 'skills' were in demand in Australia. Maybe you could make your neighbour some of your own dodgy tecnology to cleanse her EM field. Solder some old TV ceramic delay lines and crystals together on a metal saucepan lid and hey presto, instant money

The funny thing is, it might act as a placebo and actually help them! 

[james_s]

That would be hilarious if I knew she was not serious. I once knew someone who did crystal bowel cleansing. Don't even ask how that works. She moved from Cornwall (uk) to the Gold Coast (aus), as her new age 'skills' were in demand in Australia. Maybe you could make your neighbour some of your own dodgy tecnology to cleanse her EM field. Solder some old TV ceramic delay lines and crystals together on a metal saucepan lid and hey presto, instant money

I've been tempted a few times to build some "crystal healing wands" with RGB LEDs in a nice polished copper tube, it could be a fun craft/electronics project. I have just a bit too much of a conscience to take advantage of ignorance like that but I know that plenty of others will anyway.

[SilverSolder]

On the contrary, I think those kinds of products would be very helpful!  -  anyone complaining about 5G towers would have a -5G device installed in their home, and live happily ever after! 

[Specmaster]

I mostly buy for the camera improvements these days. It's cheaper than having DSLRs as a hobby and hurts the shoulder less.

While all that is true, I have yet to see any decent photos taken of objects moving at speed which are some distance away from you, and yet look closer and pin sharp, with a phone. These are still the domain of DSLR's and is where they will reign supreme for a long time to come. Unless you're using professional grade lenses such as the grey Canon L series of telephoto lens, DSLR cameras and their lenses are in fact getting much lighter. Camera bodies are almost without exception these days becoming plastic and the bodies of telephoto lenses are also mostly plastic as are the lenses themselves, very few these days are made from glass.

[bd139]

Quick upload. Old XR, no optical zoom, 1080p 30fps

I have a 12 which can do 4k 60fps now and has 2x optical zoom. Need to go and try it out.

Not bad result for a phone.

[SilverSolder]

I have a nice DSLR but obviously use my phone camera as well - they are each good at different things.

When a phone can do this, I will sell the DSLR...  it almost resolves to the sub atomic level:

[DiTBho]

When I say "linux distro" I don't mean a linux desktop OS. I mean specifically a phone OS, but one that is based on linux and follows the completely open model used by other linux distros. The command line is a non starter but should be available by ssh into the device. An app store is also a necessity but it should not be the only source of apps. In practice there is probably not enough space in the market for more than two viable mobile platforms but I can dream. I just hate the locked down walled garden/SAAS model, I want control over my device. I want the freedom to choose a graphical environment and tweak it to my liking. If they pull an Apple and replace a beautiful polished and consistent UI like iOS 6 had with an ugly inconsistent mess like iOS7 and later I want to be able to go back to the icons I like. If there's a stupid feature I NEVER use like the social media integration that was there through many versions I want to be able to rip it out. If an app update introduces a serious bug that makes the app unusable for a month until the vendor fixes it like happened a couple years ago with the Amcrest security camera app I want to be able to roll back to the previous version. I'd also like an app store that had a paid upgrade model, I absolutely loathe the subscription model that Apple has been pushing and their refusal to allow paid upgrades instead. I don't rent software, period, that is not negotiable. Frequent updates are not a feature, they are a nuisance.

Interesting points.
The Cosmo Communicator is listed for 800 UKP.
Not bad, less than iPhone.

[DiTBho]

(looking at Cosmo Communicator)