Would you think that their resignations have left only the worst of them… and now, they’re more aligned than before. Without as much internal turmoil, wouldn’t they be more effective than before?
It almost seems like leaving the job for moral reasons can have the adverse effect of making the job more effective than before. Sure, they might have smaller teams… but those smaller teams aren’t spending any time arguing with each other. They’re just following orders, which is bad.
Are we a part of the social media site? I’d argue, given all the effects those damned sites have on its users, its governments, and the economy… the damned sites are actually a part of us. Our behavior changes after the introduction of those things, because we are now (1) whatever we were before + (2) whatever those sites have done to our species. That makes us (3) the result.
I don’t know enough about how all this works. Would it be possible for them to time in coordinated map changes, and outpace any kind of coordinated democratic response right before an election?
Yes, probably so. I haven’t seen the designs of lockdown mode, but I get the case for my hypothesis being far fetched. Wasn’t trying to start any conspiracies. Please, ignore my shenanigans.
It’s really great, isn’t it? But I’d leave you with one theoretical angle to consider…
What if the FBI actually did get into the phone? If so, then why would this information have been made public?
The only reason why, that I can think of right now, is that the FBI wants more people using Lockout. If so, the only reason I can possibly imagine for that is—there are actually some good commonly available techniques to keep them out of your devices, of which Lockout is insufficient. They’d want more people assuming that it is sufficient, and this news could accomplish that.
Purely theoretical… but the bigger point here, whether that framing is strategically true or miraculously over-thinking things, is that something does work. No matter what, you know something works.
Yeah, I think your posturing isn’t too far fetched either.
Isn’t it interesting that, even here as you pointed out, people often have the de facto response of attacking ideology they disagree with? Sure, it’s just a downvote… but as you said, you’re being respectful and merely expressing your own thought process. I don’t think you’re missing anything. I think, instead, you’re noticing part of the very problem which lets people like Trump ascend into power at all.
One of the very first targets of Putin, while realizing his power, was a kids show that portrayed Putin himself as a not-so-smart villain. The comical character they made for Putin apparently caused Putin quite some distress.
Sorry, I didn’t read the “New” in the title; shame on me. Nonetheless, unless this was murder, they were poorly educated and working with propagandized information. I don’t pity them for picking the side they did. I do pity them for the circumstances that led to them believing it was the right choice when they had.
If Mossad was willing to pay for compromising material, which Epstein knew the KGB secretly already had, why would Epstein care at all? Take the money, give the material, and he’ll be all the richer and more well connected for it.
This isn’t survival of the fittest. Not one baby in human history was responsible for their own fitness or survival. This is survival of the poorly educated, poorly resourced, poorly connected communities. They’re trying to make ends meet with a baby, and unfortunately they couldn’t do that in a safe manner. It’s a tragedy, a hallmark of human life.
You mean the dept. of homeland sedition?
Yeah, and now that you mention it directly it’s got me thinking… technology in its own right seems to maintain this capacity to destabilize power dynamics, given it can change fundamental ways we depend on the world. With social media, you could say discourse in many ways has become dependent on a platform built by the private interests of its creators. In a perverse way, maybe as a consequence of it being able to change our way of life, technology poses this constant risk — doesn’t it? And with our societal culture of glorifying technological innovation (e.g., social media at its start) without proper risk assessment — aren’t we inviting this kind of power disruption?
I suppose, in a way, a “functional” government should be able to intervene to prevent changes in power structure where it shouldn’t occur. Or, perhaps some kind of social paradigm that has the passive capacity to cannibalize any such movements in its power structures? What do you think is the cause effect relationship there, and a proper response to maintaining long term stability?