zurew

This is a very significant study. More such studies should be made with larger samples (But i know its hard to make such studies especially with young children). This process could be the first step to select those kids out who is likely to be transgender not just pretending to be one. Then after they go through that long 5 year process if they still indentified with being trans, then they could go through other processes before any surgery or hormone blockers just as Vaush said: They would had to talk to a psychiatrist, and they would have to go through an additional level of scrutiny from medical professionals.

Most people lack time. They don't have the time nor the desire to look through every post rigorously carefully to decide if it is banworthy or not. Its a full time job to do this its not easy at all, also what most people are lacking is the ablility to analyze things as unbiased as they possibly can. So why moderators are better for moderating? Because they can do this full time, they have all the time in their hands, and in an ideal society they could be trained for the job ( they could be taught philosophy and how bias works, they could be taught to be multiperspectival and how interpreation works and they can learn all the nuances of the guidelines which most people don't know or misinterpret) they aren't trained yet for the things i mentioned, but its much more easier to train up moderators than to suddenly train all society. Also i don't even know how your approach would work in practice. Lets say there is a platform with 10 million users. Lets say there is 3 million people who wants to ban a person called X. How this would work in practice? THey wouldn't be able to ban this X named people because less than 50% of the platform is voting for the ban and all the other people are not engaging in the voting? The same question arises with an unban. How can democracy work if not all people are engaging, and what is a time limit you can have to engage to vote? Imagine there is a 1000 different ban reccomendation in a week ( of course in a large platform there is much much more) so do you really think, that all the members who are voting would rigorously looking thorugh all those 1000 people's posts, analyzing deeply what they did and in what context and they have enough time on their hand? You still haven't made any argument in favour of your idea. You just tried to argue why mine is bad. plus, i don't see how your approach would be any different from reddit. We know very well how reddit dynamics work, and i wouldn't call that ideal nor fair. Your idea is not more fair, because of the arguements i made above (people don't have enough capability nor enough time to be good moderators themselves) and again it would just open of more negative dynamics (like large groups using their power) In this case, who will make that large group accountable, if the owner has almost no say? How can you hold a group accountable? Its much more easier to hold an owner or a handful of people accountable for their policies and also for their actions. Why would that owner be obligated to give a platform for society if its negative for him/her at the end of the day. You need to balance both sides out.

Yes, its a total gamble what is currently occuring with the NFT "market". The biggest problem with it that it is super volatile and don't have any inherent value to it. What determines an NFT's price? Basically the owner and nothing else. We can't even say that the market has its own effect on a particular NFT price, because every NFT is unique by definition. I think the current use of NFT's are really bad, but they have potential to be used in the future. They could be used to verify that you have this x y z property to your name. This property could be physical or not physical, but the NFT part would only be used to prove , that that particular thing is yours and unique to you. Imagine if you would buy anything lets be it physical or something online, when you purchase that thing you automatically get it with an added NFT to it. In this cases the NFT part would only be used to prove that the purchased thing is yours. Currently we have solutions how to prove what physical property is yours or not, but it involves a lot of work and papers. What if you lose your papers or receipts? You cwouldn't be able to prove that the property is yours ( There are cases of course when you can prove it because its being saved in a database, but there are cases when they don't save it in any database). It could be simplified with NFT's and if we are talking about online stuff, now there would be especially useful to use NFT's to prove that whatever thing you bought online is yours.

Its a good point, but its not totally same to the elections. There is a nuance to this. We want to have a society where people have a say who they want to elect, but i don't think we want a society where people have a say in every possible specific issue including complex environmental,political,medical,psychological,economic issues. (Why? Because those are up for people who have enough knowledge and far more information avalaible to them to make far better decisions than i could ever make as a layman, with very limited information avalaible to me) So my question would be for you, do you think that the majority of people who would engage in moderation would have enough time and enough capability to make the right choices or do you think its more plausible that if a few highly developed people who has moderating as thier jobs , they could manage the bans and other situations regarding to moderating on a platform. And again most people have actually a say in moderation (not individually, but if they do it in a large group) they can have a significant effect on platforms. I don't know if they are that much of a minority, they are growing. But i agree that of course silencing them won't solve any root issues, but it can solve some problems for the platform's owner, and for some other people who are using the platform in a good faith way. ( I don't think that the platform owner's responsibility to solve the root issue for people, who have beliefs an thinking that is not acceptable in today society) I wouldn't say that it is more balanced, but the outcome of the bad decisions can be more easily managed, and the whole banning thing and moderation takes less time

Why can't socialism use aspects of capitalism? Why is it inconceivable to have a sort of hybrid system? You don't have to call that socialism if you don't want to, but i think a hybrid system is possible.

So basically, trying to make the mods accountable for their actions? I have some problems with this approach. People with the biggest groups can dominate how platforms should work, they can reverse any ban they feel unjustified, and they can report people they don't like and get them banned (thats basically cancel culture) Most bans that are going to be percieved as unjustified will be on the edge. What do i mean by that? I mean, that most of the unjustifiably percieved bans are made, because we are talking about such cases where the line isn't precise or clear so its on the moderator's interpretation to decide if its banworthy or not. Now, how you are going to manage to reverse that, when you can't defend it with clear points, you can only argue about interpretations? (so the people who wants to reverse some other person's ban, can only say that this x mod's interpretation of this post was wrong, so please unban him/her) In those cases, where the ban is clearly unjustified, i would agree with this community driven approach, however in such cases where most people are angry about a ban is already avalaible. If enough people start to shit talk about a platform and their mods actions they will be forced to make changes. Or if they don't make any changes, then the platform's integrity and prestige going to be hurt. Look at it from being a platform owner perspective. You want to have a platform what you can fairly moderate, because if you can't moderate your own platform, then eventually you can lose your whole platform, because rascist and other bad faith people can dominate it and decide what can and what can't be done. So you are going to lose advertisers, promoters and business opportunities.

I really like this 'Dark Academia' one This is a good one as well.

Yeah, this. Set your vision up first and foremost and that should motivate you through your life. But this vision should be work/busniess/carrier related (How you want to help humanity, or how do you want to express yourself in this world) @PenguinPablo i think you should get yourself grounded in everyday life. What do I mean by that? I mean, i think you should first get rid of your debts, think about your life what do you want to work, get your financies right ( where you don't need to constantly worry about money). Basically set your 'normal' life up first, then you can go full on awakening and enlightenment. I noticed a few years about myself, that by watching Leo i unconsciously parroted some of his views and beliefs and goals. Contemplate about your beliefs, goals and about your aim in life. Sometimes we get depressed because we don't actually do what we want, and other times we want to live up to people's lifes and goals and dreams (and of course we do a lot of this unconsciously) One of the biggest mistakes most of us young Leo followers make, is that we quickly jump for God/enlightenment work without getting our everyday needs met and without getting our everday life work. Because of this, we face a lot of problems and this slowing down the spiritual development process as well. So the ground should be very solid first and then you can try to build on it. So first get your normal life ready, contemplate about what you actually want to do, and then you can "attack" spirituality and enlightenment with as much energy and force as you want.

Yeah the democratic free speech system sounds great, however it still has the same weakpoints as the centralized one. Also with the centralized one you only need a handful of very developed people who control the information flow, in your case we need at least 50%+ of that particular communties people to be very developed, because if they are not, it will just become an echo-chamber. Also, another weak point of the democratic free speech approach, is that what if not all people are engaging in voting? Every topic and every thread and every post needs to be voted by everyone or at least by 50% of people? Because that doesn't seem sustainable to me. What if less than 50% of people are voting? Those topics/threads/posts won't be published or if they will be published they won't be moderated? @Rokazulu I saw, that the link you gave mentioned a holistic approach and also mentioned AI as well. AI moderation won't be possible, because we ourselves don't even know where the lines should be drawn. It sounds great, that an unbiased AI will moderate, but that AI to become a moderator, it needs to be trained on already structured data and examples and how should the AI decide what should or shouldn't be moderated and in what cases? I think the AI "solution" is just pushing this problem forward but not really solves anything and it begs the question that we can't answer yet. If moderation could be algorithmized, then we would have done that already. Unfortunately it can't be or it can't be yet. If you @Rokazulu don't agree, please share some points why your 'democratic free speech' approach is better than the centralized one.

This should be put in the Entertainment/Fun section

Nope, this is why.

This is strange, cause i can see it both using youtube without an account and seeing it with an account. putting the sorting on 'newest first' is working for me well, even if i use UK's vpn. So it will be something with your account or i don't know.

Such as?

I did it after you made this thread. I can still see it but i think i know whats going on. You need to choose the option 'the newest first' because automatically the comment sorting is on 'the best comments' which basically means it will display comments with the most likes. Both option should display all the comments, but for whatever reason 'only the 'newest first' comment sorting option displaying Leo's comment.

I could find his comment, but it was hard to find. Some sort of moderation is always needed to have a good platform. The problem is how to find the right tools for moderation and how to balance it out. The 'being bias' problem will always come up, but it can be mitigated if one can set up very precise and clear rules. So if the moderators could follow some golden rules that could help, but of course, its super hard to make rules for every possible future scenarios. The other big problem is, that sentences and messages can be interpreted in multiple ways, so its is really hard.

There was this other thread, where not just metaphysical movies were mentioned, but you can find some there.

Hardy's paradox: How can we make inferences about past events that we haven't observed while at the same time acknowledge that the act of observing it affects the reality we are inferring to? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy's_paradox

The question is where should he donate and how much and why. Becuase he could donate for a 1000 different issues, but is donateing will solve the systemic problems why things are arising or it will just make things a little better for a while? I think the thing is, if he would donate 75% of his money to try to mitigate the world's hunger, then there would be critics who would say "okay, but what about kids who have cancer,Isn't that more important? or "What about donateing for virus research, isn't that more important to protect humanity from potential pandemics?" etcetc. Most global problems wouldn't be solved, even if he would donate 100% of his money and assets. That does not mean that donateing don't have any purpose i don't want to make it look like that. But i think that he is contributing a very large percentages of his money for humanity. Just look at his companies and what he is working on. Could he do more? For sure, but compared to me or any normal person he is doing 100000% more. Then we can get into arguments like, yes he can do a lot because he has money etcetc. But i don't think that money is the only medium we could use to contribute with.

Anything that stateing you can get money free without any effort and without any risk, should set your alarm off.

This makes total sense even logically too. Thanks for your explanation!

I think you could be right. The only problem i see with this is the 'recognition of problems' part. Different countries with different political developments and with educational levels see complex problems differently. To add to that, we can even see highly educated people who have "interesting" worldviews like the Earth Creationists who believe that the World was created 6-7 thousand years ago. And they add to that, that global warming doesn't exist (caused by humans). And of course, the Earth Creationists group is not the only one i could add here, but in general we can say that when it comes to complex problems drawing the lines and making sense of the problem is pretty hard, and even if you have evidence and great arguments there will be a bunch of people who won't agree with you. So at the end of the day even if shit gets real, and the burning starts ,there will be a bunch of people who won't even agree that the problem came from x reasons, so they won't agree on the x solutions (cause they think that the root needs to be discovered somewhere else). So we have a situation where there is a disagreement about: If there is a problem at all what are the causality factors of the problems when will shit gets real and apocalyptic where there is no coming back. So having those three premises the solution making and acting on the solution part is really fucking hard. So when there is a disagreement about the "when will shit get real" part, then we have a dynamic where all the actors will wait as much as they possibly can, before they will be willing to make a sacrifice to start acting for the planet to survive. Just look at our conversation, we have somewhat a disagreement about when when will shit gets real so the action taking is really hard to agree on especially hard: when to start taking actions, what actions and at what costs.

By ego death most people mean killing an idea of a you, to be able to see yourself for what you actually are. Nothing actually dies, you just self reflect using an infinite mind, so you realize for what you actually are.

Yeah, its interesting to see that even if someone can create a technology that is super environmental friendly thats just the beginning. It needs to have a design that is suitable for the customer. Most customer doesn't give a fuck if its environmental friendly or not, or if they care, they care less about the car being environmental friendly and they care more about how they can use the car and how suitable the car for them for whatever use. I don't blame them though. I do the same. Its just an observation , that even if you create something, if you want to be able to sell it, it needs to get through a very hard process. Basically the lesson is, that if you are an inventor, who wants to save the world or want to make it better, you have to remember: You need to create your invention in a way that is in alignment with your idealistic goals and with the targeted customers needs.