verisimi

I find it easy to envision a world, maybe 50 years from now, in which the very concept of "truth in advertising" is viewed as a lost, idyllic fantasy.

I find it easy now!

Oh no, would Google and Meta be dead? How will we manage?!

No one asked you about this. Your government is free to spend its money as it likes, it can send it to the UN.

The speed of turn-around sounds impossible. That you are asking for bike lanes - which is already part of most local agendas - is more believable. I daresay if someone asked for the lanes to be removed, they would not get any traction.

We were already living in 1984 when Orwell/Blair wrote the book.

It's going to be interesting watching nation states fight over how best to do this

As others have said, there is a coordinated push to drive this legislation everywhere. There is no fight in nation states. Just capitulation.

Are you talking from experience? What legislation have you organised?

It always was.

Why can't they spend the tax money they collected on secret contracts or however they are fit? It's their money!

Change the governance. Both red, blue and the corporate sides are supportive of this.

Monetary wealth is a proxy for power.

Does wealth continue to be a coherent concept once very few have all of it? I don't think it's been tried.

I think this is already the case.

Nice story. I believe that dogs are capable of moral judgements too. The idea of 'evil' is a human idea though.

I agree. But I don't think pecking the eyes of a deer, thereby providing all the crows food, would be considered 'evil'/'bad' by other crows. I think crows would acclaim the action as 'good'/'right'.

Thanks for clarifying.

Re matters of degree, I would disagree. The opposite of selfishness would be selflessness. This sounds like a good thing, eg being altruistic is assumed to be 'good', but then, it could also be about imposing one's values on someone, and devaluing the self. It could be a means of control (was forced altruism in communist countries 'good', for example). It seems that 'selflessness' - selfishness's opposite - can also be characterised as 'evil'. If it's not clear whether selfishness or selflessness is evil, it's not clear that it's a matter of degrees.

Ayn Rand argues in the "The Virtue of Selfishness" that selfishness is a good thing, if you want to see a lovely alternative argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3URpIKFoyW0

'Evil' is a human characterisation, and is not applicable to animals imo; to apply it is to anthropomorphise the animal.

An applicable use of 'evil' for an animal, would be if you believe the animal 'knows better', eg a dog that knows right or wrong (in its way) but does something it thinks it shouldn't.

Great question does intelligence require selfishness / evil?

You think 'selfishness' and 'evil' are equivalent?

Its the Apple way too. Its the corporate way.

Organic food can use organic pesticides.

They (developers) did what they did for money. Just like everyone else. And they would do it all again.

At a corporate level, no one cares about lots of freedoms, except if it is a selling point.

If 'keeping freedoms' is a selling point then the ideal position is to gain the kudos of appearing to support this whilst also getting the benefits of the loss of freedoms. Why not get both?

"Presumed". Awesome, dude.

You are putting words in my mouth. And not answering anything.

I made a statement, have defended it, asked your position, and in order to sign off with a bad faith message you put words in my mouth (that I admitted my logic has no basis in fact).

I'm presuming that is the case, because you are questioning my straightforward and obvious suggestion that funding by corporations can provide whatever statistics you like. Feel free to explain your actual position if you want.

You don't. How do you know your trust in corporates isn't an understandably conditioned response, given 13+ years of education?

Given that you can just throw money at the solution you want to engineer, and create the illusion of science, perhaps believing nothing is a better position to be in. At least you're not buying into what is essentially just another avenue of corporate or governance marketing.

And sorry for bringing information to your attention. Just wait till you hear about how corporates fund law.

But.... you can get statistics on anything you like, if you are prepared to fund (or defund) them. If you pay to see the relation between crime and how many cats there are in a neighbourhood, you can get that! Ie statistics themselves are part of the game.

So you're saying that the government engineers the situation (more crime) in order to justify the solution (more surveillance) that they already intended. Once the surveillance is in place, they would then clear the blockage (start prosecuting crime again) which will be a big win for their solution (more surveillance).

So the whole thing is actually about greater control of the law-abiding (not decreasing crime), and how to engineer the circumstances to get the public to accept the unacceptable.

People love the EU and its oh-so-lovely legislation to keep them safe/lose privacy.

"EU laws", the EU in general is plainly the excuse that will carry the day - people seem to believe this 'good cop' rendition.

Where's the 'Open Source Car'?

Where's the open source phone?

The open source washing machine?

Let's finish that thought too.

You're asking for new legislation written by governments that a/ want that data to spy on you too and b/ are lobbied by corporations to write the legislation corps want.

It's a closed loop of crap, that goes in one direction only.

Anyone can write anything, it doesn't make it true.

Eg, I can say: "ai wrote this comment".

Or I can say: "ai did not write this comment".

Looking at the comments alone does not tell you whether they were or were not written by ai. Same for videos.

What is going on is that you are trusting the disclosure is significant and real. So, when you see the disclosure you are concluding something on the basis of TRUST. Same for the video itself.

Seeing something on a screen does not make it a true representation of reality. You do not know reality; you only know that you saw a video. This applies to disclosure, video, comments - anything on a screen.