Children and seniors are victimized by AI content on a huge scale. Regular adults like most of us here don't ever get such videos in their feeds.
I saw kids spend many hours a day watching automatically generated videos. Not always AI-generated, sometimes it's AI-assisted and procedurally generated.
It is quite unbelievable how vulnerable weaker minds, for the lack of a better term, are to AI content.
I saw a group of 3-8 yo kids spend hours watching obviously procedurally generated content that is completely random and contentless: it was more about an intense rhythm, imagery of violence (animated stick figure motorcycle accidents with blood and slow-down effects at random points), a lot of movement, chaos, very short inserts of people laughing hysterically on some middle-eastern tv show and similar. Brainrot doesn't feel like hyperbole for this content.
Another time, I saw an 80 yo lady watch a doctor sit in front of the camera and speak about a health topic for 45 minutes straight. Only it's not an actual person, but a convincing AI avatar: his gestures and face match what he is saying, the voice is convincing too, but for the 45mn he doesn't make any movement that is not a gesture lastin 1-3 seconds. And his tone of voice has no variation that is longer than a few seconds either. If you fast forward, he always looks the same. It's all extremely monotonic. The lady couldn't believe that it's not a real person.
Currently, AI videos are a gold mine for black hats.
My elderly uncle is completely addicted to these. We can barely complete a conversation without him getting bored and pulling out his phone to watch these nonsense videos. I don't even understand what the point is. The ones he watches are these clearly procedurally generated stories. It'd be one thing if the content was actually interesting, but ugh.
Crazy. On mobile it’s relatively easy to grab the playhead and scrub back and forth quickly over the full length of the video — this shows how the face movements are totally repetitive and constrained to a very limited space and variety.
This isn't even well done. I also opened it in a private browsing window, and the ad I was served was the most obviously AI-generated slop hawking some kind of health drink...that was clearly just a badly generated bottle of apple cider vinegar (text on the bottle was all mangled but it's exactly the kind my grocery store sells), and the "doctor" speaking barely synced up with his voice. Do people falling for these just have no sense of the uncanny valley?
The man ran into the woman. [Young adult Far East man runs into young adult Far East woman.] The woman said sorry, I am such a clutz. The man said, that’s okay. The man fell in love with the woman. The man dated the woman for many weeks. The man met the woman’s father [Tekken grandpa]. The man did not recognize the father. The man and the woman got married. Turns out that the father was actually the owner of the company where the man worked and the daughter was the heiress. The man and the woman went out for dinner.
these videos are as close as we can get to plant electrodes directly in your brain's reward center, and repeatedly pressing the "reward" button. obviously not everyone is the same, but if it hits it hits hard.
As a first approximation, why not? Behavior is generally all we have in front of us, plus any other assorted social signals. Internal mental states are invisible, as is the personal history of the individual. We might note a man beating a kitten on the sidewalk, and believe this behavior sufficient grounds to reduce this person to the category "dick", even if we remained unaware of his high intelligence, his doctoral paper on gender-inequality, and the fact his mother hates him.
> But when we assess a machine, we do know everything about it based on its actions.
This is obviously false. Every developer has had hour-long debugging sessions to track down a mysterious behavior. Sometimes entire teams are stumped by a technical glitch. Until the bug is found, nobody knows everything about the machine.
The process designed to optimize for attracting our attention has done what it was designed to do: optimized for attracting our attention, at the cost of all other incentives.
The image of a throbbing, mutating, dark spiral is conjured in my mind. The more it is watched, the more it begins to grow into a twisted visage of the viewer as it attempts to recreate all of their desires and fears within itself. It is meaningless yet becomes all meaning.
There needs to be regulation so algorithms are turned off by DEFAULT for every user - with the option to turn on for those that want a dose of brainrot
HN's algorithm is in fact kosher, because it's not personalized. On HN, arguing with people on topic X will not make you get shown even more articles on topic X to keep you engaged. Reddit-like platforms are similarly okay (you personalize your experience by subscribing) and short video platforms like Tiktok are the great evil.
Reddit “best” sorting is pretty much like instagram and TikTok now, have to make sure it on hot/top, otherwise it’ll show you “related” things from subreddits you never subscribed to.
This is a case of psychological exploitation - in a free market of algorithms the current dominant flavor on platforms would win for the majority of people. As unpopular as it may be in this forum the real solution here is government regulation as we need to work as a society to protect our brains from these exploits.
this stuff always reminds me of There is no antimemetis division [0]
From Case Hate Red:
> With some minutes to kill, he checks the headlines on his phone. Yet again, something dreadful and new which he doesn't understand is going viral. Today's fad is, you paint a black vertical rectangle on the wall, or on a mirror, or over the top of a picture. And then you chant something. Wheeler can't quite pick out the words of the chant. They're in a language he's not familiar with. He's no singer, but he's performed pieces with lyrics in Latin, German, Greek, French… whereas this language has a bizarre manufactured sense to it, as if it were simply English with the vowels and consonants all switched around.
That indeed, and The Entertainment or the samizdat from Infinite Jest. A film so entertaining to its viewers that they become lifeless, losing all interest in anything other than endless viewings of the film.
Back when people would read blog posts about the erosion of ownership in the face of intellectual property law, I used to blog about something similar...
Of course the MPAA is against copying, I would say -- the ideal situation for the MPAA would be if when you left the theater, they could just wipe your brain of the memory of the film you just watched. You just remember that you had a fun time with your friends and it was a good movie, but you don't remember any of what happened there. "but those are MY memories" -- no no no we didn't touch YOUR memories, we left your memories just fine -- we only removed a copy of OUR copyrighted content from the world, consistent with our terms of service for the theater. But if you want to experience it again, by all means, come back to watch it again.
"That sounds like it would stifle all cinematic innovation" -- no you don't understand! Our artists are suffering because they don't get the full amount of money they are due because of all of these unlicensed copies moving about the world in peoples' heads. When people are discussing how amazing that movie was, our artists deserve to have them in a controlled cafe attached to the theater where they can control that experience and fully profit off of it. Don't you get it? Bigger financial incentives, bigger payoffs for successful artists -- therefore more artists, and more cinematic innovation! When you play back these unlicensed copies in your "memory" and pirate our works, you're really just contributing to monoculture by not rewarding the people who made your favorite things.
My dad (senior) was tricked by some GTA footage because the game graphics looked realistic enough. Perhaps it was modded because it looked nicer than I remember it, but nonetheless I'm concerned for the inevitable confusion from AI, in the hopeful assumption that it isn't already affecting his judgement.
It's a tool. Tools can be used for good or ill. This tool is the hotness right now so it's quite overused in a lot of poorly fitting situations. This particular usage serves no socially beneficial purpose and needs to be regulated into non-existence (we at least shouldn't pay people to do it). The tool is still useful for a bunch of things but some people get irrationally defensive if you critique their favorite tool. It's a good tool and it's a flawed tool - like every other tool.
In your opinion, what is the positive aspect of this kind of AI video/voice generation tool that these videos are using?
In my opinion, AI video/voice generation is being used to scam and manipulate people en masse, without a compelling, good use case besides generating more (slop) content.
When someone uses AI to make a video, they either have nefarious purposes (such as scamming) in mind or they don't. That's not a matter of your opinion. It's not hard to picture someone making a video with innocuous intent to inform or entertain and using AI in the process does not suddenly make their intention a malicious one.
I agree, but only because YouTube is a wild west of trash, not because children somehow don't deserve to be entertained. I think that distinction should be made. Instead of focusing on barring children from the bad stuff, it might be worth trying to attract them to the good stuff. (I hear PBS Kids is a good app to leave your child alone with. No personal experience of my own though.)
I've found a curious variety of AI videos: releases of motorbikes that don't exist, brought by Youtube algorithm. I guess the point is just clicks or ads money. Some comments, by bots or gullible users.
No longer seen recently, not sure it's because YT's crackdown or me repeteadly clicking "not recommend me this channel" (there're a handful)
From what I've seen YT takes "Don't show me this channel again" very seriously but the effect appears to be limited just to you. It would be very silly for YT to fail to enforce that preference as a user who is willing to go through an annoyingly multi-step flow to express their displeasure is on who would never monetarily engage in the content anyways - but neither it (nor the reporting system) seem to have a significant impact on the visibility of that content to others since both are often used for brigading or personal preference.
It's not just mind either. I know at least one person whose around 60, still very smart actually, but has diminished vision and hearing. So less able to pick up the obvious signs.
> Regular adults like most of us here don't ever get such videos in their feeds
I know my story is just an anecdote but it really makes me question if this is even true. I search for things that I want to learn about on YouTube, often about wildlife or the environment, and get served a TON of AI slop. My feed is now full of it. It's extremely frustrating and has actually led to me using YouTube in this way a lot less over the last few months. I have been hoping that I'd be able to filter by this one day.
It's pretty common. I would assume any faceless channel is all AI now. Like I saw these fitness videos and I thought the voice was a little too good for AI, especially a year ago. But apparently the TTS models are really good. https://youtube.com/@yellowdude_co
tbh those brain rot videos pre-date AI generation, i know because my little BIL used to watch those kind of random non-stop action and movement vids in like 2020
What's even worse is that these videos are being used for shady purposes as well. I start to fear a lot for our future elections. I have heard parents/grand-parents mention videos they have seen from politicians that are simply fake. They totally believed claims they said these politicians made, but when you look it up you discover these things were never said and that they fell for AI deep-fake style videos. So far most of these videos have been made to promote scams. I'm sure many of us have seen these videos. Like the classic Elon Musk promoting some crypto scam videos.
This makes me worried for future elections as old people often are making up a large percentage of the voter base, and they are also easily fooled by these kinds of videos. When you combine this with the algorithmic feeds, it is a recipe for disaster. They are going to see videos making politicians they already don't like as being horrible monsters because of fake AI videos, and then see videos making their preferred person look better with other AI videos.
And as AI and deep-fake technology continues to get better and better, this is only going to trick more and more people. Iran has already been caught many times using AI videos to fake war footage to try and make America look worse in the recent war.
Scammers are also using live deep-fake video to scam people in real-time via voice and video calls. Romance scams are going to get more and more effective.
My girlfriend mindlessly watches those sometimes. I think they are from China maybe.
I heard one in the background last night and it went something like this:
"A girl becomes pregnant in college and it turns out to be triplets. But she doesn't know who the father is. She raises the children and they grow up very successful. One becomes a surgeon. The children's father is actually a famous <something> and one day he is giving a speech. While he giving the speech one of the children dashes out of the audience and hugs his leg!"
Total logistical nonsense. Doesn't even have a story line that fits. I asked her why she watches that but it's mostly just background noise why she is doing something. It's awful.
I might be preaching to the choir however it being background noise doesn't mean your brain isn't processing that stimuli. In a way, you are what you consume.
She is reasonably intelligent. Not necessarily intellectually inclined but not stupid by any means.
And I'm with you, I can't wrap my head around it either.
To be fair I didn't really get her choice of movies before AI (superhero flicks, hallmark type movies, 200 watches of "Twilight" etc). I think to her it's just sort of "turn off your brain comfortable background noise" from inquiries.
I'm different and when I watch things I pay attention and think about it and notice plot holes etc etc. I watch to be entertained or informed and if it doesn't do either of those I tune out. So I can't sit through most movies even before AI. But some people I think just "vibe watch" for lack of a better term.
I also have never understood people who come home and watch "whatever is on TV" or watch news all day or that kind of thing either so I'm not sure the problem is AI in this case. It just produces more volume of junk than the junky junk that existed previously. Some of the AI stuff is egregiously horrible though.
I believe some people have Fox News on constantly? In Russia it is the state TV’s 24/7 propaganda that some people have on the background, or so I heard. That is how propaganda works, it becomes the background of information colouring everything even if you don’t believe it.
I don’t mean that what she and many others watch is propaganda, but I do think it affects one over the time same as hearing every day that Ukrainians are all Nazi’s etc. That might be why young people are smashing their faces with hammers and using shitload of steroids etc. Perhaps we shpuld be as careful of what media we consume as we are of what we eat and drink.
I guess it depends on the age of the kid , if a kid is 11-12-13 yo , you can hardly do anything about it. I remember of how I was at that age , now I am 38.
Many parents find parenthood difficult and are happy that something distracts their kid. Further, kids that tend to get more addicted to stuff like this tend to live in stressful circumstances.
It's easy to say be a better parent, or produce a better environment for your kid, but it's not as easy to help people with that. If we can make social media healthier for everyone, that's a big deal.
I've thought about this, too. The difference is that for most of us, TV shows ended at the top/bottom of the hour. I grew up watching morning cartoons in the 1980s starting at 6am, but the times that the shows ended reminded me that it was time to get dressed, eat, etc.
Now, all the video services have feedback loops where they can determine what keeps people glued and provide more of that. Some "programs" like cocomelon have dialled that up to 11.
The only defence is the terrible parental controls and/or taking devices away. That almost always results in "fights".
Social media is not inherently predatory. Even between different providers Instagram/Facebook/TikTok/Youtube you find extremely different approaches in respect to that. Instagram is the worst, in my experience. You can bake in algorithm behaviors that uplift, educate, help you not become addicted. Chinese TikTok for kids was once rumored to be like that.
And, yes, you can regulate cocaine too. There's nothing stopping us from taking the business away from drug-dealers and having actual health professionals distribute it in sensible ways.
I disagree. I don't want kids to abbuse drugs, smoke, drink, or doomscroll. But, what do you accomplish from saying "don't do it"? You don't want to take away anyone's agency, right? Further, this is not only about kids, people of all ages are susceptible to these patterns of behavior.
My message is basically, make it non-taboo, educate, give people tools to manage their behavior, prosecute predatory behaviors. To regulate social media, we can heavily regulate ads in social media; make ad algos, feed algos, recommendation engines transparent by law, in a way inspectable by individuals as well as journalists; put legal constraints on what these algos can do; use cryptography to get rid of fake accs and bots, without compromising anyone's privacy.
"Don't take away agency!" proceeds to recommend the government take away agency
the best thing that can be done right now, rather than waiting for a broken government to fix our problems, is to admit to ourselves and parents that kids should not receive phones or iPads
it's not a good thing! taboos serve a purpose and it absolutely should be a cultural taboo.
They’re 4 and 3, currently it’s probably 30 minutes every other week for the older one. She doesn’t really ask for it yet, just a treat when we feel like it. We’ll also use them on the odd occasion we’re doing long travel.
If you’re including regular TV, sounds like you are, they watch significantly more of that. At least some daily. I don’t think it’s nearly as damaging or addictive compared to phone/pad. It barely holds their attention a lot of the time and they would rather play.
Back in my kid days we had friends who had game consoles and PCs. I know it’s quaint now but we watched each other play and played on the same computer or TV. There wasn’t a way to avoid tainting our minds no matter how much they tried to protect us from duh screens. Okay I guess if they raised us like some rural homeschooling Christians, but for some reason people will complain about that kind of parenting too.
I kinda tend to agree with you. Today I watched Adam Neely’s latest video on Berkekey teaching AI songwriting (no I didn’t made that up unfortunately) and he mentions how there is a class element to AI. It’s not dissimilar to how none of the silicon valley oligarchs give their children smart phones or let them use social media.
Wealthier and more educated parents have more time and money to devoute to their kids education, hobbies, vacations etc. If you are single care mom working 10-12h shifts each day like mine (like mine), how the hell is it even possible to watch constantly what your kids do alone sfter school, or find the energy to do so when you are home? Does being poor and divorced make you a bad parent? Also you have no idea what content kids are being offered unless you are there next to them - I’m almost forty (no kids) and I have no idea what apps kids use or what is “cool” to them. No wonder boomers let their kids hang around in Habbo Hotel unsupervised. It’s just some kids video game right?
So as much I would just like to blame bad parenting I think we need laws and regulations on this stuff. We completely dropped the ball as a society on social media, we can’t let the same happen with AI.
Or you know, preference. Nice steady predictable AI slop delivered at mono qualities can be very comfy. It's like sleep tube, people reading wiki or random articles, comment threads but with varying energy to time pass. It's good enough, better than most human creator content.
I've a Xiaomi phone on which twice appeared obviously debug/hello-world notifications (something like "testtest111") from apps I've never seen or installed. Then another time all Xiaomi phones of close relatives started getting these cheap, spammy ads for Android games in the notifications, this time from some obscure system app: had to look up on reddit that there are settings that disable this specific behavior.
The degree to which I don't own my own device is insane.
I gifted my mom a Xiaomi phone a few years ago. Even after removing all the unnecessary apps and permissions, disabling all the privacy invasive settings and replacing the launcher with the stock Android, I was shocked when I checked the PiHole dashboard. The phone was constantly trying to communicate with dozens of different domains and endpoints, even when idle. None of these attempts had any sort of backoff, so they kept retrying every 30 seconds, draining the battery. Ultimately it generated several times more blocked requests than every other device on my network combined.
This was the first and only Xiaomi device I ever bought, no matter how attractive they might seem.
Tangential, but I'm surprised that people here talk about looks as if it's something objective. I don't like how this car looks, but obviously there are other people with other tastes. I might be reading too much into people screaming "ugly" I guess.
Though, we do have to be very careful with interpreting online commentary as representative the collective, when trying to understanding whether something is considered good/bad.
Firstly because only a small proportion of people voice their opinion publicly at all - so only a small proportion of opinions get heard.
Secondly because opinions that are voiced are much more likely to be definitive in nature (it's great / it's terrible) as people tend to be less willing to comment "it's ok" - so vociferous voices tend to dominant online discourse.
Finally, because online communities often represent a niche/specific demographic and so if you only see the views from a particularly online community it's a fair bet they are not very representative.
That's my point. A single opinion is nothing on its own. Further, taste is such a thing where two people can have extremely different tastes, but both be right.
I guess my initial reaction was about presuming that some commenters here are presuming that their taste is the taste everyone has, but a more generous interpretation would have been that they are simply unhesitant to share their subjective point of view. So, I revise my take to the more generous one.
> Poland and Greece are now just slightly below them in GDP per capita - and Lithuania is above them (unthinkable circa the mid 1990s)
Re Poland and Lithuania: USSR collapsed in early 90s, and many would have been forgiven for thinking that these countries would continue to live in poverty, which they obviously didn't. Notably, USSR was a donut empire where the peripheral regions were richer and more educated than the heartland. That's also why the collapse of USSR started there. Sarah Paine talks about that.
One a friend and I hooked ourselves up to continuous pulse oximetry and had a contest to get the lowest recorded oxygen level. We tried everything we could think of, from just holding our breath to end-expiratory breath holding to hyperventilating to clear O2 (I used to do some recreational free-diving) beforehand to exercising (jumping jacks)...
Neither of us could get it below 98%, and this was at a mile of elevation (UNMH in Albuquerque).
It is pretty easy if you use the Wim Hof method. Breathe deep and fast for a few minutes, to the point where you get dizzy or feel weird sensations. Then exhale and stop breathing while being fully relaxed. I've done this while hooked to a pulse oximeter and it takes quite a while before O2 actually starts dropping (especially because the effect can be delayed in your limbs), but once it starts you'll pretty quickly run into the regime where a normal oxi will start an alarm because O2 is too low. You can even go below 85% without losing consciousness, because your limbs will desaturate faster than your brain. It's also not uncomfortable, because rising CO2 is what causes breathing reflex, but you dropped its levels far below the threshold by hyperventilating first.
Interesting. As I noted above (though typo O2 -> CO2), I used the same technique you describe, which I learned in free diving, and was not able to get below 98%, at altitude.
I'm quite sure no freediving instructor would ever teach you this particular method, because it is a surefire way to die underwater on your first attempt. Free diving breathing techniques usually revolve around lowering your heart rate, not lowering CO2. Wim Hof trainers will also tell you to never to use this method when near water.
As for the specifics that may have prevented you from doing what you wanted: If you breathe too shallow or too slow, you won't clear enough CO2. In freediving this is normal (even wanted), but for Wim Hof practice it means you didn't do it right. You really have to breathe so deep and fast that you enter an uncomfortable zone. It's not unlike physical exercise, except it's mostly mental.
> I'm quite sure no freediving instructor would ever teach you this particular method, because it is a surefire way to die underwater on your first attempt
Definitely no instructor involved, just a dumb 20 year-old living in Puerto Rico. It admittedly was dangerous, but I am living evidence that it was far from a "surefire" way to die. It was one of a hundred ways in which I put my life at risk during my 20s. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> As for the specifics that may have prevented you from doing what you wanted: If you breathe too shallow or too slow, you won't clear enough CO2.
I'm confident I was doing it sufficiently well to accomplish a longer period of breath holding than I otherwise would have been able to sustain, as evidenced by having done so (in addition to the usual symptoms of lightheadedness, confusion, loss of vision, near-syncope -- yes I agree quite uncomfortable). I know people on HN love to idolize Wim Hof, but in this context minute ventilation is not that difficult of a concept; I'm usually able to estimate the response in a paralyzed patient's PCO2 fairly well when making changes to their tidal volume and rate.
I didn't search for too long, but here's at least one relevant document, in which otherwise untrained subjects were able to achieve a substantial reduction in CO2 (17.4 vs 29.0) with a mere 15 seconds of hyperventilation, leading to an extra 23 seconds of breath holding prior to involuntary breathing moments. The peripheral O2 sat nadir in the hyperventilation group appears to have been identical to the non-hyperventilation group after the first trial (Fig 8b, looks like ~94%) and was only statistically significantly lower on trials 2-5: <https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10363065/>
90 seconds of breath hold is still way too little to see oxygen drops in a finger pulse oxi. Also explains why you didn't die free-diving. Even with no training you can go much longer than that before risking a blackout (at least under normal circumstances). In fact training free-diving is all about CO2 tolerance and relaxation, so you won't even be able to store more O2. When I was reaching the 80s, I was doing 3+ minute breath holds. The first ~2 minutes my oxi stayed at full O2 sat with basically no change. In principle you should be able to induce a blackout yourself using this method without feeling an urgent need to breathe - if you do the prep stage hard enough. Just make sure you only do this when lying down in a safe position.
Can’t claim to know for sure, but I’d assume some kind of measurement limitations: the resolution and upper/lower limits of pulse ox are probably calibrated to some medical need, not to detect changes beyond what’s medically necessary
This was using equipment in the emergency department of our state's only L1 trauma center and comprehensive stroke center; I presume it was decent as far as medical monitoring equipment goes.
If you've ever done the wim hof breathing method, it is a very intense experience.
Basically hyperventilation + long breath holds. Probably similar to what free divers do without the mammalian dive reflex due to the cold water. Or like a dangerous game kids used to do when I was in school where you hyperventilate and then have someone press on your chest until you pass out.
But anyway, I'm not sure if the science would back it up, but Wim Hof describes it as over oxygenating the blood and then stopping and letting CO2 ramp up or something. Whether it is significantly dropping the CO2 or increasing oxygen during the hyperventilation phase, isn't it kind of the same thing? Adjusting the ratio.
Anecdotally, when I was doing it regularly I seemed to not get sick at all.
Blood oxygen saturation is always near 100% in a healthy person. 95% is the low end of normal. Dropping to 90% is considered hypoxemia, and 80% is a medical emergency. So there really shouldn’t be any room to increase it significantly.
In many people a momentary drop to the 80s or even below is not an emergency or anything close to it. Not saying that it is good.
Someone that is awake, sitting up, and struggling to breathe should be considered an emergency regardless of oxygen levels (and in this situation 80% would be very concerning).
EDIT: your comment is otherwise entirely correct, particularly at sea level.
No it would stay at pretty much 100% (as is normal). But co2 goes down, which lessens the ability of oxygen to come out of the blood. That's why you get dizzy when hyperventilating
Nope. The blood is already fully saturated with oxygen (in a healthy-ish person) at rest. Even intensely breathing pure o2 can't give you a saturation higher than 100%.
Not a fan of subscription hell myself, I plan to use one-time payment for all my products. Implementation wise one time payment is much simpler than setting up smaller payments that cap at a fixed amount.
Invading a country is an act of aggression. Choosing to not align self and/or protect self from a menacing neighbor is an act of self-defence.
To say that the Ukraine-Russia war is not a war against Ukraine and its people is incredibly insulting. The belt of countries Russia has been serially invading since the collapse of USSR, not to mention the acts of USSR, are crimes against proper nations and peoples who have the right to self-determination and safety.
You think that your neighbors, "the West", US are your problem? Maybe your real problem is the den of thieves you call your gorvernment? What will happen to your communities after this war? They gambled your society on a 3-day war, and you're the loser, no matter how the war ends.
Russia invaded a country right on its borders, and which wss for years posing greater and grester very real threat to its security (remember the arms shipments of one Boris Johnson? I do), very much unlike your "national security concerns" which for some reason cause you to attack cpuntries on the other side of the globe, posing no real threat to your country.
"Incredibly insulting" - sorry, but this is an incredibly ignorant thing to say. Millions of people in Ukraine identify themselves even now with the Russian people, but cannot say anything against glorifying ww2 collaborationists and classifying Russians as undermensches, all with tacit encouragement by the west.
As to "the belt of countries Russia invaded".. which ones? Georgia which itself admitted that it itself started the war? Or Abhazia? Do you even understand the absurdity of this, compared for example to what the US does? The scale, do you understand the scale? (I of course don't mean the scale of publications in the western media, maybe this confuses you..)
And my biggest problem is not the Russian government, it is people in the west who gave license to humiliate, hunt, persecute on their social media (remember the permission for "hate speech" against Russians on facebooks etc?) and eventually kill Russian people. If they dare not to bow and renounce their culture, faith, identity as you are required to do in Ukraine and not only there.
As for "loser"..? You think the jews in ww2 cared to be condidered as "losers"? Well, this is more or less how the Russians feel, whether you think it is "Russian propaganda" or not
reply