DroneRights [it/its] @ DroneRights @lemm.ee

Posts

5

Comments

347

Joined

2 yr. ago

But nothing any human being put effort into deserves to be lost forever.

Except for Mein Kampf, Birth of a Nation, and What is a Woman

What you will notice is the law changing.

It's not just the data collection, it's also the data presentation. Meta controls how information is presented on their platforms. Remember how I was talking about making seemingly random changes to influence society? Social platforms are how Meta makes those changes. They can control what gets upvotes on Facebook and Threads. If Threads is federated with Moist Catsweat, then they influence what content is visible from the Hot and Active pages of Moist Catsweat. That means they don't just control the political opinions of everyone you talk to, they can influence you. Show you memes and news articles that make you more likely to vote for Trump or Brexit or whatever it is in your country.

https://youtu.be/qyN5tNYhfSg?si=pb8hpz9f8iQZykl6

Meta keeps a profile on you even if you're not a user. They mine data from your friends, family, and colleagues to learn who you are. If anyone you know has you in their phone contacts, and if they've given apps like Messenger or Whatsapp access to their contacts, then you already have a secret Meta account.

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/20/17254312/facebook-shadow-profiles-data-collection-non-users-mark-zuckerberg

Why does Meta want to gather data on non users? Because this information is valuable for data on social engineering. Social engineering includes advertising, influencing people to make purchases in both direct and in subtle ways. But it also includes political campaigning, and the efforts of industry giants to influence people in certain directions.

Maybe car companies want you driving bigger and more expensive cars. Maybe fossil fuel companies want you to form positive associations with the idea of gas stoves. Maybe Israel wants you exposed to pro-IDF memes on your social media. Maybe the US government wants you to respect the law and ignore covid.

This data is a tool that tells organisations how to make subtle changes that influence populations. If you have access to enough information, you can run scientific experiments to see what random changes influence people's behaviour. Then you figure out how to make those changes less random, and more controlled. Meta has already gotten in trouble for running exactly these experiments.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-scandal-fallout.html

In a companion piece, The Times reported that people at Cambridge Analytica and its British affiliate, the SCL Group, were in contact with executives from Lukoil, the Kremlin-linked oil giant, as Cambridge built its Facebook-derived profiles. Lukoil was interested in the ways data was used to target American voters, according to two former company insiders. SCL and Lukoil denied that the talks were political in nature and said the oil giant never became a client.

Democrats looking into Russian interference in the 2016 election — already interested in Cambridge’s role in providing analytics to the Trump campaign — said they would seek an investigation into the leak. They were echoed by lawmakers in Britain investigating Cambridge Analytica’s role in disinformation and the country’s referendum to leave the European Union.

Meta has been using the internet to influence the government and control the laws you live under, no matter what part of the world you're from.

Meta has been ruining the internet long enough. It's time the internet told them to shut up and go away

Crits double the dice. So it's not d4, it's 2d4

You tried to substantiate your claim that the question whether or not something is a disability depends on (social) context with mentioning that the "flaw" that Michael Phelps has supposedly aided him in being a better swimmer.

No I didn't. You've got it all backwards. I didn't say being double jointed is a flaw, I said being single jointed is a flaw. You didn't understand the hypothetical. You're so used to hearing people say deviations are disabilities, your brain filtered it out when I proposed that being normal is a disability. That's why I think you're worse than me at understanding hypotheticals. But the conclusion that being normal is a disability is precisely what your definition leads to. Which is why I think you don't agree with your own definition.

No, I mean the question where I asked if you changed your mind because you directly contradicted yourself

Also the reason you're dumber than me is that you think I think being double jointed is a disability and you think I think I'm not disabled. You don't understand what I'm talking about at all.

You didn't answer my question first. I'm still waiting.

You're not even pretending to have a conversation anymore, are you?

Also, being double jointed is not considered a disability.

Nobody thinks being double jointed is a disability. You misunderstood the point I was making. So I'll make it in clearer terms:

I can understand complex hypotheticals and you can't. Does that make you disabled, because you can't participate in this conversation as my equal? Or does the fact you're not much worse at it than the average person make you normal, and therefore not disabled? Are we measuring disability against the average person, or against the most capable person in the room? Or the most capable person in the world, for that matter? Are you intellectually disabled by the fact that someone better at reasoning than you exists?

I wanted to ask this question using Michael Phelps as an example instead of myself, but you didn't understand, so it's clear I need to make the situation more relatable for your benefit. That's why I ask a more personal version of the question. Are you disabled because of my existence?

I think you're replying to the wrong person

Vue sucks. A pretty graphic of a CGI robot convincing untrained programmers to merge their web files and produce unreadable garbage as the output file.

Booooooo

Testicles doesn't have a U in it, so the second one.

I disagree. Michael Phelps is double jointed. He's the best swimmer in the world because he has a mutation that makes his feet more effective flippers. You said a flaw is still a disability even when everyone has it. Nearly everyone is single jointed, and that makes us worse at swimming than Phelps. Your argument would imply that single jointed people are all disabled.

You can't define disability in absolute terms, or you'll run into problems like that. You have to define disability in socially constructed terms.

Brain sex exists, but it's not gender. And just like body sex, it's multidimensional and comes in intersex flavour. And it's neuroplastic, to a certain extent.

One of the sexually multimorphic aspects of the brain is the emotional response to sex hormones. It's why many trans girls can't cry or can't experience love until they're on estrogen. It's why phantom limb sensations exist. As far as I know, chemical reactions can't be changed, but body maps can. The brain is also responsible for regulating hormone balance, and skilled meditationists can access parts of their brain normally closed to the consciousness and adjust their hormones. I'm speaking from experience when I say that, and my endocrinologist can confirm my story. So you might also consider the brain's instructions to the body on what sex to be, a part of the brain's sex. Like I said, it's multidimensional. A brain can have multiple sexes, just like a body.

I think if you do not want or need a cure, it's not a disability. Doesn't make sense to call it a disability then.

I was having a conversation about this thing you said. Did you change your mind and decide you don't agree with it anymore?

A disability for intrinsic reasons would be something like paraplegia or deafness. There is no social relativity to whether people with these conditions can do less things. But whether something is intrinsically wrong with that person is up to their own judgement. They are free to set their own standard in that case, and determine whether they really should be able to walk or hear, just as I'm free to determine whether I really should be able to make eye contact or process speech. (It is my opinion that the loudness of public spaces is unnatural and unjust, and that people need to fucking speak clearly instead of being lazy and making me do the work of listening closely)

But I think you've ignored my point. Which is that I don't want to be cured of my mind's nature, but I do want to be free of a society that disables autistic people. My question to you is, do I want to be cured? Is social acceptance and accommodation a cure?

Nobody's born with gender, it develops as you age. All newborns are agender.