gumaflux

:D made my day

Counter arguments

Social media isn’t monolithically harmful The article suggests a small group ruins the internet, but this ignores research showing social platforms also democratize discourse, enabling civic engagement and marginalized voices.

Not all online “distortion” amounts to damage While the piece emphasizes filter bubbles and radical users, algorithmic content curation exists in print and broadcast media too—these are framing tools, not always societal toxins.

Logical leaps undermine its claims The Guardian implies isolated incidents escalate to systemic ruin—this mirrors slippery-slope reasoning. Without data demonstrating measurable harm (e.g., polarization metrics), it remains speculative.

Forces of good are often overlooked Platforms frequently host prosocial behavior, from mental health communities to humanitarian fundraising—yet the article omits these evidence-backed positives.

Assumes a universal “ruin” standard By framing a few actors as “ruining the internet,” the article treats degradation as a one-size-fits-all harm. But norms vary culturally—with differences in how “ruin” is perceived.

Some gaps

1. Integrate empirical data: Use actual trends in polarization, mental health outcomes, or misinformation impact, instead of anecdotal evidence.

2. Compare with legacy media: Acknowledge traditional media distortions to avoid caricaturing social platforms uniquely.

3. Balance the picture: Highlight both negative and positive digital outcomes for nuance.

4. Contextualize “harm”: Define ruin in culturally plural terms, avoiding universal moral assumptions.

There isn't any real strategic value for either to have an exclusive relationship.

This market is in explosive innovation and locking down strategic and tactical options wouldn't be good guiding principle for either.

OpenAI now bought leverage for compute by granting Oracle an entry ticket.

Good point. But leisure is not a fixed box (for me at least).

I have been freelancing for 20+ years.

Fully agreed with OC, my clients are not paying for me to sit by the desk they're paying for solutions to problems. The more complex the problem, usually the less tapping on keyboard.

I know, some gigs are in fact just showing your face on Skype or in presence, I have come to avoid these regardless of leisure impact.

Which product is that?

Excellent point. Most people don't want to swim in a sewerage. Except of course if someone tells them that vague concepts such as sovereignty is more important than swimming in a lake.

Simple setting to change the search engine.

Perhaps if Labour actually won own majority, sounds more like a very poorly run campaign by May. Complete lack of leadership. Just the single fact of shying away from debates.

Great opportunity to put country before party now.

The observation in Berlin is incorrect. What area is being gentrified by AirBnB or similar services? . Bhandal

I disagree. It just takes rigid discipline and perseverance. The value proposition, business model, and team emerging from that will be fierce. I sense that these stories are much less reported and talked about, since they have less click appeal...

Until external forces turn these monoliths into heavy liabilities and block adaptability.

Another important factor is today's engineers are tomorrows architects.

Isn't US "C"onservatism more or less just a prolonged arm for "Corporatism", not so much theological values there is it?

Agreed. Starting point PerfMon and PerfCounters, as an addition to great suggested profilers I would also have a look at PerfView / ETW.

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2012/10/09/improving...

Can this be related to the DNC hack and suspected election tampering by Russia?

Do you mind elaborating a little on that? Sounds like a rather sweeping statement, like just because...

Or Palantir

Economies that attracts and integrates (domestic or foreign, the difference will blur) individuals which work or study hard will prevail. Countries that falls under the hands of extremism will collapse or be forced back into open societies. Artificial protection of economies are a fraudulent propositions from demagogues and doomed to further digging the economy down into extremism. The government should support citizens through change friction, but by enabling rather than addictive entitlements. But which politician can sell foot work, instead of sugar? Find a common external enemy, blame them rather than the rigged markets and systems.

True. Some believe in an open global community and some freedoms that come with that, in many different nuances. So a global communication network that supports that is great. With an open society comes freedom of speech and other related freedoms. Most certainly freedom of opinions, even when the actual opinions and fervent activities from some groups contrasts fully with foundation of the open society.

Mostly, interestingly enough, the premise of these contrasting groups and opinions are actually based on the idea that some third party external group is imposing on their freedoms and well-beings. Romans laid continents under their taxing rule by fear mongering, nothing new and you hardly need a free and open digital global communication network for that.

My personal belief here is that these developments will self adjust. Unfortunately through great friction and pain. Any open society that eventually submerges into the rule of a "Trump/Bannon" group, will eventually self destruct slowly. If the core premise of a society is fear mongering of a third party external group (Jews, Muslims, Republicans, West-, East-, Capitalist-, Communist.. ) the core problem is that you're trying to fix your head ache by shooting yourself in the foot. And then the next foot from that..

Power is profoundly addictive and corrupting. If you've been a failure up to now, and suddenly you're in power for blaming some low influence group, that blame will only grow stronger and stronger with the failures of making a positive impact for the desperate people that put you in power.

Someone loose their job because there's a change in global economic structures. Another group of people lose their business of selling ice for house hold refrigeration.

The problem is not globalisation or change, its the idea and related political deception that somehow if there are protectionist barriers the emergence of new suppliers, products, new skills, new ideas will go away.

This is but one of several of similar distorted perceptions of reality that underpins the faulted democratic systems. If Society and government should facilitate something it's increased adaptability and acceptance for change, rather than selling the fraud that they can take it away.