vrganj

What sick means is defined by outcomes, as cited in the quote you pointed out yourself.

> mental health impacts, especially in young people; violence against women, girls, and gender minorities; and delegitimising help-seeking in boys and men

These are real life, observable, negative public health outcomes.

They don't need anyone to define them, they just are. The ideologically inconvenient thing is that some people's identity is tied up with the causes of above negative outcomes, causing them to violently reject critical examination.

It is clear from your response you have not understood my point.

The political is medical and the medical is political. Solutions to a political problems are often medical, solutions to medical problems are frequently political.

You are drawing a line where there is none. Why? I believe artificial gatekeeping is what keeps societies sick and medicine underdeveloped. We need to take a look at all the factors affecting health, not just the ones that aren't ideologically inconvenient.

Health is political.

Who gets access to what healthcare is political. Abortions are political. Vaccines are political. Payment models for healthcare are political.

The other way around, too, of course. Pollution limits are a political choice that is also a health choice. Traffic law. Gun policy. Tax policy. You name it. It all affects public health.

And yes, the above is also both political and a health consideration. They make the case right in the block you quote.

You're trying to draw a false dichotomy, when the two are inherently interrelated concepts.

Yes, I see what you're getting at, and those aren't really what I take issue with.

I think generally, the issue is around consent and who initiates the information transfer. If I'm actively looking for something, a listing of options is useful. If I look at a shop window, I am actively looking to see what the shop is selling.

It's the non-consensual invasion of my mental space I take issue with. It's like somebody violently shaking you going "BUY BUY BUY".

Indeed. Every human being has an ideology. Everyone selects what they communicate.

But once we automate that, it drastically lowers the amount of viewpoints represented.

Soft Power, both in the obvious and the less obvious sense.

A model is never neutral. A model is always also a way of disseminating an ideology, and it doesn't need to be lying for that to work.

Consider the question "what caused the French revolution?"

There's many ways to answer this while being technically correct. What gets prioritized, what gets omitted, that's where the ideology lives.

I think if you extend it to be that broad, then sure, those specific examples are fine and exempt from my above statement.

But offline advertising generally isn't exempt. Screw billboards cluttering up cities. Screw flyers cluttering up my mailbox. Screw print ads cluttering up magazines.

It's all an assault on the senses in service of extraction. It's a non-consensual invasion of the mind.

If a mom and pop shop opens around the corner, people generally notice organically.

If it's good, their friends may even tell them about it.

Why does it need a whole manipulative extraction industry around it?

By talking to their neighbors? By walking past it?

What are you talking about??

Any advertising is a net-bad for the world.

It definitionally manipulates people into buying stuff they didn't want before, leaving them poorer and our world devoid of more resources.

This is not a passive process. The choices are all of ours. We are not spectators in history, we're its actors.

Thanks for the recommendation, Anthropic!

There is no inevitable. It's all political and ideological choices.

Defense of who from whom?

May I refer you to the rule you have quoted in your own profile?

Trump being banned wasn't during any election.

This was. As was the messing with Lula. That was when the mask really came off. Thankfully, the people prevailed.

That was back when Democrats were in power and the mask hadn't come off yet.

After what Facebook tried pulling in Brazil, it is incredibly naive to think this was just another oopsie-daisy that once again, one that just so happens to impact the left, again.

I use all sorts of things I hate all the time.

This is not the gotcha you think it is.

This feeling made me leave the tech industry.

It felt like I was helping the bad guys, and my conscience couldn't deal with that.

They're trying to enclose all of human knowledge so they can sell it back to us, all while displacing human labor and centralizing control of the economy.

They're telling us human endeavors are no longer needed if they succeeded, they also warn us that they might accidentally cause the end of the world in the process.

Why shouldn't we root for their failure?

You kind of proved his point about brigading with this giant link dump.

Could be state industry projects, maybe?

Or to further build out total domestic surveillance, like they've been telegraphing.