"Look at that big conspiracy event where the date and location are known and it's all over the Internet!"
Why do some HNers think Davos is a secret gathering where evil is planned? If they really wanted to have a secret gathering, they can do it Jeffrey Epstein-style with private flights and zero fanfare (even US presidents manage to fly to Afghanistan without many people noticing), it shows your lack of imagination if you think the widely announced and publicized event is supposed to be a conspiracy gathering.
NZ is exceedingly plain so I don't get that comment. Most are of the form
1337 Great North Road
Pt. Chevalier
Auckland
1002
You could even omit Auckland as it's implied by the simple 1000-series postcode.
The property boom may have led to subdivisions making a 1337/2 necessary but the vast majority of buildings outside of metro areas are detached, single family properties.
Also try to go outside of regular hours, often meaning finding alternative transport. At least in Angkor Wat you don't have to take a bus and then outside of those core hours you have lots of alone time.
Granted this experience was pre-iPhone so the specific example may not hold!
If it is a public square, then it is so because the majority of people choose to use it because of the controls and filtering and exclusion of "undesirables". If it's a company with a reach in billions that's because it provides, in its current form including filtering, a service that is valued (in attention time, if not dollars) by its users.
If one compels a Twitter to host things it has decided people don't want to see, why aren't we compelling the Kochs and Murdoch's of the world to support equally "leftist" positions? It's frankly an incoherent position that Twitter should be compelled to behave a certain way and yet Rupert can continue spouting his propaganda for literal generations unimpeded.
> If it is a public square, then it is so because the majority of people choose to use it because of the controls and filtering and exclusion of "undesirables". If it's a company with a reach in billions that's because it provides, in its current form including filtering, a service that is valued (in attention time, if not dollars) by its users.
I don't think that's the case, honestly, it's a pretty explanation, but people aren't on these platforms for that, they're on these platforms because it's where come critical mass was hit, and from that tipping point these apparati were ossified. And as they became a nucleation point for all of this, their volume grew, and with that so did the content - which is crucial if content generation on the platform respects the 1% rule. And that new content is what creates the feedback loop, which is also ostensibly directly proportional with the size viola, positive feedback loop to some arbitrary user saturation point.
For example, some Youtubers have discussed it, but relocation would be a huge investment, and quite a bit of their data would be lost because they don't have archives that run back to the inception of the channel. In much the same way reputation, clout, followers and et cetera would actually go through translation losses as someone or some company transitioned from A to B, and servicing two platforms is more difficult than one (which will likely not be lucrative). It's a huge moat.
>If one compels a Twitter...
What is the actual end of this? You're not eliminating these people, nor their opinions. You're alienating them. The best case scenario is a dialectic which ultimately causes them to question their viewpoint, not to reinforce it by arbitrarily castigating them and exiling them from the public discourse. In the case where some platform does remove them, they'll find another with less criticism - an echochamber - which, to wit, only stands to exacerbate the problem.
It seems less about some class of deplorables and more about their observers. As to their rationale, the primary motive I suspect, is profit via demographic sprawl, not some humanitarian concern. And this can be imputed to the individual as much as the corporation or institution. By my reckoning this is a hazard in and of itself because it's purely superficial and thus both misguided and misapprehended - one half of that becoming concrete realizations of naive intervention and the other setting some anti-human benchmark that doesn't actually make sense. And of course the feedback people and institutions read is from some extremely small proportion of the population so it's already set up for a form of extremity by default.
And is anybody really defending ultrawealthy individuals in such a way? I don't know anybody that really condones the idea that wealth should be able to have a hard and cheap translation into hard power as it does in this instance. And there's also the fact that Twitter is a legal fiction, whose foundation is rooted in not just the concepts of property rights outlined and enforced by the US Government, but additionally is accessed and deployed through a heavily subsidized technology that was previously publicly owned and developed with taxpayer dollars. The Kochs are private persons, period.
My favourite brainwave on UBI was to brand it a negative income tax. Would stymie a lot of the more traditional fiscal conservative arguments (albeit not going to counter the drive for regressive rates).
If you're saying there's no evidence in terms of accounting audit for money going to addicts on Skid Row then, well, good luck with that bar of evidence.
I have seen him let the Whittaker family buy trolleys full of stuff from Walmart for their house. I have seen that prostitute (Angel maybe?) interviewed a second time after he paid for her rent and gave her money multiple times after the first video and it turned out she was just giving it to her pimp (and she doesn't refute any of this on camera).
So does he deserve total faith based trust, no, but it's easy to see enough of his videos where they are clearly benefiting from the funds and that's probably enough for many of us to say it's net positive.
