George Vaccaro on Nostr: I find it interesting that people are chattering quite a bit regarding Lynn and ...
I find it interesting that people are chattering quite a bit regarding Lynn and Jack's talk at the Oslo Freedom Forum about free will and control of the algorithm while there are multiple moments in the broader forum where presenters are actively framing their arguments in a way that commits similar offenses of control, bias and steering of opinions.
For example, there is a segment featuring Georges Azzi pushing an "LGBTQIA+" agenda. It's should be no surprise to anyone that many purveyors of this agenda have notoriously attempted to use tactics such as controlling the speech of others, including compelled speech, and compelled exposure to controversial ideas even on children. For example the idea that men can be women and women can be men is being forced on children in public schools in the US.
Two other pieces leading into Lynn and Jack's talk frame the Ukrainian-Russian conflict as one of Russian aggression and usurpation, ignoring the larger backdrop of US and NATO provocation and expansion right up to Russia's Western borders and their refusal to allow Ukraine to engage in diplomacy, which has caused the loss of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives. This conflict, the provocations leading up to it, and the obviously controlled media narratives about it, when objectively analyzed, paint a picture of Western aggesssion, propaganda and censorship which are in stark contrast to the ideas that follow in Lynn and Jack's talk.
To provide a tangible example of my suppositions in the previous paragraph, please watch the following video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSZyKYitC3M
I ask you to consider if the entire situation surrounding the conflict passes the "change the names" test. Imagine Putin had ever suggested that "There will be no longer a Keystone pipeline. We will bring and end to it." what the reaction would have been. Or if the US had "defensive" missile systems steadily approaching its borders if diplomacy would have been attempted repeatedly only the be thwarted by powerful outside influences and how that would have been characterized.
The broader point I'm trying to make is that if the goal is free will and free speech then discussions of such would be more effective if not interspersed or bookended with obvious subjective bias or propaganda that commits similar bias or steering, in this case human driven. The framing should be as objective and truthful as possible. Unfortunately that was clearly not the case here.
Great words and ideas but presented within an ironic backdrop.
For example, there is a segment featuring Georges Azzi pushing an "LGBTQIA+" agenda. It's should be no surprise to anyone that many purveyors of this agenda have notoriously attempted to use tactics such as controlling the speech of others, including compelled speech, and compelled exposure to controversial ideas even on children. For example the idea that men can be women and women can be men is being forced on children in public schools in the US.
Two other pieces leading into Lynn and Jack's talk frame the Ukrainian-Russian conflict as one of Russian aggression and usurpation, ignoring the larger backdrop of US and NATO provocation and expansion right up to Russia's Western borders and their refusal to allow Ukraine to engage in diplomacy, which has caused the loss of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives. This conflict, the provocations leading up to it, and the obviously controlled media narratives about it, when objectively analyzed, paint a picture of Western aggesssion, propaganda and censorship which are in stark contrast to the ideas that follow in Lynn and Jack's talk.
To provide a tangible example of my suppositions in the previous paragraph, please watch the following video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSZyKYitC3M
I ask you to consider if the entire situation surrounding the conflict passes the "change the names" test. Imagine Putin had ever suggested that "There will be no longer a Keystone pipeline. We will bring and end to it." what the reaction would have been. Or if the US had "defensive" missile systems steadily approaching its borders if diplomacy would have been attempted repeatedly only the be thwarted by powerful outside influences and how that would have been characterized.
The broader point I'm trying to make is that if the goal is free will and free speech then discussions of such would be more effective if not interspersed or bookended with obvious subjective bias or propaganda that commits similar bias or steering, in this case human driven. The framing should be as objective and truthful as possible. Unfortunately that was clearly not the case here.
Great words and ideas but presented within an ironic backdrop.