“HEXAGONAL”. https://youtu.be/FHuvnhcNXDU?si=s8LoyYtlu7DbRqJj
“We’re going to have the gavel put own on them”. https://youtu.be/FHuvnhcNXDU?si=vXQyaRGby6aF5Sd-
No, definitely doubt.
Fallacy: Middle Ground
Also Known as: Golden Mean Fallacy, Fallacy of Moderation
Description of Middle Ground
This fallacy is committed when it is assumed that the middle position between two extremes must be correct simply because it is the middle position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Position A and B are two extreme positions.
C is a position that rests in the middle between A and B.
Therefore C is the correct position.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because it does not follow that a position is correct just because it lies in the middle of two extremes. This is shown by the following example. Suppose that a person is selling his computer. He wants to sell it for the current market value, which is $800 and someone offers him $1 for it. It would hardly follow that $400.50 is the proper price.
This fallacy draws its power from the fact that a moderate or middle position is often the correct one. For example, a moderate amount of exercise is better than too much exercise or too little exercise. However, this is not simply because it lies in the middle ground between two extremes. It is because too much exercise is harmful and too little exercise is all but useless. The basic idea behind many cases in which moderation is correct is that the extremes are typically "too much" and "not enough" and the middle position is "enough." In such cases the middle position is correct almost by definition.
It should be kept in mind that while uncritically assuming that the middle position must be correct because it is the middle position is poor reasoning it does not follow that accepting a middle position is always fallacious. As was just mentioned, many times a moderate position is correct. However, the claim that the moderate or middle position is correct must be supported by legitimate reasoning.
Examples of Middle Ground
Some people claim that God is all powerful, all knowing, and all good. Other people claim that God does not exist at all. Now, it seems reasonable to accept a position somewhere in the middle. So, it is likely that God exists, but that he is only very powerful, very knowing, and very good. That seems right to me.
Congressman Jones has proposed cutting welfare payments by 50% while Congresswoman Shender has proposed increasing welfare payments by 10% to keep up with inflation and cost of living increases. I think that the best proposal is the one made by Congressman Trumple. He says that a 30% decrease in welfare payments is a good middle ground, so I think that is what we should support.
A month ago, a tree in Bill's yard was damaged in a storm. His neighbor, Joe, asked him to have the tree cut down so it would not fall on Joes new shed. Bill refused to do this. Two days ago another storm blew the tree onto Joe's new shed. Joe demanded that Joe pay the cost of repairs, which was $250. Bill said that he wasn't going to pay a cent. Obviously, the best solution is to reach a compromise between the two extremes, so Bill should pay Joe $125 dollars.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220718203642/http://nizkor.com/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html
OR, what he is doing is so crazy, people have to make up “super genius” pretexts to explain the inexplicably stupid mistakes he is making. Just a guess!
The American Founding Fathers knew that the ability to publish freely and anonymously was key to having robust dialogue.
If it is the case that there is a price for speeking your mind, no one will risk spoiling their reputation, free speech is supressed, and groupthink grows like cancer.
The people who think groupthink and consensus are good things are invariably the milquetoast class who have nothing to say about anything; they are bland, uncreative basement dwelling Duvet Ducking, insipid losers who are no fun.
These people use terms like "Ragebait" because they can’t stand the fact that psychologically normal people are outraged by evil. They would rather not hear about the bad things going on in the world, and this marries perfectly with the Nostr mentality of running away and hiding from the world, rather than trying to fix it by direct action.
People who tell uncomfortable truths like Alex Jones have hundreds of billions of views precisely because he is telling the truth and perfectly expressing and reflecting people's outrage. This is a good thing, and the world would be a much worse thing had Alex Jones not been publishing and broadcasting.
The most valuable part in Social Media is not "credibility" in the sense that people like you; it is that you tell the truth consistently and accurately. To believe that "positive" (read non aggressive, "smooth things" that don't upset anyone), anodyne platitudes and empty slogans and generic inoffensive undefined "content" is extreme infantilism. And it’s BORING.
On Nostr, your reputation is tied to long term keys. This is a terrible thing. It is no different to the totalitarians wanting everyone on the internet to be required to have a government ID, so that speech can be policed.
The exact same arguments against anonymity being made by Noster fanatics about "Ragebait" are what the EU and anti free speech fascists make; that requiring ID will "tone things down". Great company youre in there, Nostr fan.
Here is one example of the bad company Nostr people are keeping:
"UK government ministers and MPs have floated the idea of requiring social media users to verify their identity in an effort to curb online abuse and promote more polite interactions. For instance, Siobhan Baillie, a Conservative MP, introduced a Private Members’ Bill in 2021, which proposed that social media platforms should offer a user identity verification process. This would allow users to choose whether to verify their identities and give them the option to interact only with verified accounts. The goal was to address the issue of anonymous trolling and abuse that has become prevalent online.
The proposal was part of a broader discussion about online safety, particularly in relation to the UK’s Online Safety Bill. The debate highlighted concerns over anonymous online behavior, which often leads to increased levels of harassment, disinformation, and other harmful activities. While the idea of mandatory ID verification was not fully endorsed by the government, it has sparked significant discussion about how to balance online anonymity with accountability"
The more you look into it, Nostr in its current form, within a section of its current crop of users is a festering nest of censorship loving people who want “Identity to post” through the back door, so they can have a Telletubbies Twitter where no one can say bad things or NO ZAPS FOR TOMMY.
These people are probably for World Government, ID Cards, and all the other totalitarian garbage imaginable.
Yes yes, "Not all Nostr users..." BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Have a nice day, NostrTubbies!
On the hypocrisy of Yacarino: https://x.com/Beautyon_/status/1829820753987903809
Elon is correct in the ent in his Tweet.
Brazilians are under no obligation to obey foreign laws, just as Americans are not obligated to obey foreign laws. Andrew Torba is way ahead of Elon in this.
Elon is also at liberty to publish secret documents about Brazilian government corruption; that is his right.
Is Elon about to become the next Julian Assange? I doubt it.
Having said all of this, Elon doesn't seem to be able to make the connection between government censorship and Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is "Censorship Resistant Money". If you look at Bitcoin through this lens, it is obvious that adding Bitcoin to X would have been a genius move.
Not only would Bitcoin solve the problem of Starlink having its accounts frozen but would have many beneficial effects on a global scale.
The ability of any government anywhere to sanction or block payments to and from X and Starlink users would be eliminated.
Overnight, X would become the most important (and largest) financial institution the world has ever seen, and it would be a tremendous force for good.
The billions of unbanked people would suddenly be able to save, send and spend money; an unprecedented event with multiple order effects that no one can fully grasp.
In the long and short term, Bitcoin is good for Elon and good for everyone on Earth who believes in Democracy.
Why then, does Elon shun this manifestly obvious checkmate move?
Andrew Torba of Gab has partially embraced Bitcoin.
Jack Dorsey has gone 100% Bitcoin with Bitkey.
David Marcus has gone 100% Bitcoin.
How is it that Elon cannot see this? How is it that he thinks Bitcoin is a joke?
Your guess is as good as mine.
You’re not capable of understanding how I roll…and that’s ok!
You're offering Straw Man arguments, which is part of the very odd and delusional mentality of people who are breathless Nostr enthusiasts.
"My" solution is not to use "burner accounts" it is to create an environment where people are free to offer services efficiently (server farms etc) and not to run from the problem by building things like Noster, that even if it worked, would not address and fix the persistent problem which is the power to detain people arbitrarily, the same way Durov has been detained.
Having a normie CEO is very much sustainable and has been the norm for most of the history of the services on the Internets, and your "money pit" argument is just economic illiteracy. YouTube is profitable, in case you didn't know, and LiveLeak persisted for years before being sold.
And the argument, "They're just going to stop it anyway" is the exact argument people use against new ideas, even PGP, "The government can get into anything, it cannot possibly be secure". Thankfully the people who know how things actually work are also the people taking the action to do things. That includes Nostr by the way, which may end up solving problems for some people, whilst leaving the problem of the violent thugs untouched.
"Rumble is still small" is yet another fallacious objection. People react like this with nonsense when you "attack" their pet hobby, in this case Nostr. They put up stupid arguments, fallacies and gibberish trying to score points and "Gotchas". It's really very silly and tiresome.
Once again thankfully there are many people working on this problem and as it was in the case of GPG, Bitcoin and GNU, it only takes a tiny handful of dedicated people to solve these big problems once and for all, and no one is persuaded by anon fallacies.
Look at the "crimes" Durov is charged with.
Providing cryptology tools not solely for ensuring authentication without prior declaration (a license)
Complicity in...
Complicity inWeb-mastering an online platform
Complicity in Carrying messages for others.
Criminal association and conspiracy to commit crimes.
These charges capture every platform imaginable, fron Gmail, to every Apple device and service, all of which are end-to-end encrypted.
These charges are completely insane, and every CEO of every web based tool is guilty of them, because encryption is ubiquitous.
As I said https://x.com/Beautyon_/status/1827886987933524347 every CEO of a software company is threatened by this, and they should ALL immediately call for the unconditional dropping of the charges and release of Durov in 24hrs or face an immediate blockade of France.
Literally ANY CEO CAN BE THREATENED IN THE EU.
His business is to get as many viewers as possible and spread the message of Bitcoin. By leaving the most popular platforms and deliberately cutting his numbers and the possibility of getting sponsorship, Nico’s business will suffer. If he were to do that, which he is not, because he is on Rumble.
"Decentralization” is not a magic dust that you can add to anything to make it better, including chocolate cookies. Decentralization is a technique that is good for some things and not for others, like BitTorrent, Bitcoin and similar tools where adversaries are out to kill you. It is not an absolute requirement where good leadership is sufficient to protect users. “Decentralize all the things” is just Bitcoin Cult talk and of no help to anyone.
Rumble is a good example of good services to solve problems. Rumble is better than YouTube and Vimeo because the man who runs it will not tolerate interference. Because video delivery requires massive storage and bandwidth, it is much more efficient to have a service with its own servers, rather than rely on people to keep and manage huge archives of copies of their content available for streaming, like the old Mojo Nation tried to do.
The root of the problem is that the adversarial anti-Liberty State has a monopoly on violence. This is the problem that eventually will have to be faced. Durov being arrested may be the spark that triggers this.
Nico and broadcasters like him can play a pivotal role in getting this message to many people, and he is doing a good job of it.
Leaving an account with 250,000 people just to virtue signal about “Decentralization” is (as an example) super irrational. Those 250,000 users who look to the account holder for tips, tricks and guidance, not being on the new hip platform, are now left in the dark. It’s borderline unethical, and certainly irresponsible, and everybody loses.
In this information war, reaching people is key, not virtue signaling to the cognoscenti.
Redundancy at the platform level is the thing that is needed in the case of Simply Bitcoin, so that if YouTube cut Simply Bitcoin off for talking about Bitcoin (that’s coming for sure) then he can resort to his mirror channels and reach all his followers..
Because these threats are being unleashed rapidly, it may be the case that there is not enough time to replace the old distribution systems. Does this mean that people should not try? Obviously not. And in the long term, new tools may be developed to solve these problems.
Should these techincal problems be solved, then the tools can be shared and…wait, what’s that? They have to be shared by people who control the distribution channels? Oh dear. If the distribution channels and the people who own them are also under draconian control, the tools to bootstrap any new system can be choked off.
It’s a fundamental problem that will not go away by itself; and the exact nature of that problem is what needs to be identified and directly addressed.
Bear in mind also, that the storage of files is a burden for the ordinary person. Max Kaiser’s archive of thousands of episodes was just lost as YouTube deleted his work. He doesn’t have the means or skill to keep a permanent service up to host his archive; that’s much better handled by YouTube or Rumble; its more efficient, more accessible and serves the purpose.
The problem here again is the character of the people running YouTube, who do not care about freedom of speech, are not interested or don’t believe other people are real, and who destroy a decade of people’s work without an afterthought.
If YouTube had been run by someone ethical, then Max’s body of work would not have been deleted. Its the same as burning down a library of books. Unconscionable and completely unethical.
UGH!!
The MPAA/RIAA, in their efforts to stem the flow of piracy, "lobbied" and bribed their way into the statue books to try to stop people sharing files.
The CEOs of companies got together to form associations for this purpose, and they were successful to an extent.
They also bought special laws to extend Copyright lengths; the "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act":
The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), often referred to simply as the Sonny Bono Act, was enacted in 1998. It amended the United States Copyright Act, extending the duration of copyright protection in the United States. The Act is named after Sonny Bono, the entertainer and U.S. Congressman who advocated for the legislation before his death.
Key Provisions of the Act:
1. Extended Copyright Term: The most significant change was the extension of copyright protection. Under the CTEA:
• For works created by an individual, the term of copyright was extended from the life of the author plus 50 years to the life of the author plus 70 years.
• For works made for hire, anonymous works, or pseudonymous works, the term was extended from 75 years to 95 years from the date of publication, or 120 years from the date of creation, whichever is shorter.
2. Rationale: The extension aligned U.S. copyright law more closely with European Union standards, which already had a 70-year term. Supporters argued that it would protect the economic interests of copyright holders and provide more incentive for the creation of new works.
3. Criticism: The Act was controversial, with opponents arguing that it was primarily a benefit to large media corporations who held rights to older works, rather than encouraging the creation of new works. It was often referred to derisively as the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act” because one of its effects was to delay the entry of early Mickey Mouse films into the public domain.
4. Impact on Public Domain: One of the major criticisms is that the Act delayed the entry of works into the public domain, potentially stifling the availability of cultural works for educational and creative purposes.
Legal Challenges:
• The Act was challenged in court, most notably in the case of Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003). The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the CTEA, ruling that Congress had the authority to extend the term of existing copyrights.
The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act has had a lasting impact on U.S. copyright law, significantly delaying when many works will enter the public domain.
The CEOs of music and film companies had no problem corrupting people and manipulating the State for their own ends for money. This is exactly what needs to happen now on a global scale with the prohibition on arresting CEOs providing Social Media services to the public.
It took coordinated and cooperative action to make the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act happen. It will take similar coordinated action to stop the threats and abuses of CEOs. And if you think this is just about Social Media companies, you are insane.
Gambling CEOs have already been arrested simply for travelling, and that is where everything their companies do is 100% legal.
This is a big problem, and something must be done about it.
Don’t ask questions, just post hashtags and ignite Memetic Warfare. Right?
You’re right. Words matter. If English is not used correctly, it is not possible to convey meaning accurately. Or understand the true nature of an event or problem. The unethical nature of what has happened is not conveyed by “arrest” which implies a proper legal process where a criminal was interdicted.
Pavel was kidnapped. He did not know there was a kidnap order placed on his head. It was an Organized Crime style hit. PERIOD.
This song is for you! https://youtu.be/RQRIOKvR2WM?si=Gn9xZo1YrRE0dTn1
This is very possible. It is also possible if this is true, that this can change. Look at Elon and Torba.
We can’t give up because the odds are against us. This should be more clear now than ever before.
Cheer up…you’re winning!