Consept

I don't really know too much about this guy and my Spanish isn't good enough to get much of what he's saying (even though I'm in Spain atm). But I just wanted to say a couple things ive noticed about influencers in this space. The main goal is to make you feel something, motivated, happy, intrigued, even envy, whatever. This is done through talking in a tone that seems completely certain of what they are saying. What they're saying is somewhat important but the more successful ones are able to say it in a way that hooks you. The actual content won't be anything you couldn't get and even better in relevant books, so it isn't really the content it's the feeling you get from the personality. So what happens is you buy in wholesale to this personality and even defend them when others criticise them. You overlook any flaws because you're focused on the way you feel when you listen to them. This feeling trumps any logic because it's addictive. There's also the feeling of 'normal' people don't get it but I do, so it gives you a sense of you're the one in the know. These guys are experts at doing this, this is their real talent. This isn't to say that you couldn't have this talent and also have something worthwhile to say and don't have any ulterior motives. But in my experience it's more likely people that develop these talents to this degree, are usually covering up something. If you are really trying to seek further understanding and knowledge, I would build up the skill of trying to discern who is trying to manipulate your feelings for some sort of gain and who is genuinely just passing on solid, helpful information

Tbf the royal family have always done this, but the coins are never as high in price as Trumps coin and are produced by the royal mint where all the currency is minted - https://www.royalmint.com/shop/commemorative/royalty/

I think the main issue with being a debunked is just by debunking it puts you at a higher moral ground or at least attempts to, than whoever you're debunking. So your bias and your own ideology are very important factors. Everyone has bias' but if you're not aware of them and actively work to counter act them, you would feel in the trap of someone just attacking people that don't believe what you do. Another issue is being taken in or gullible, I've seen Spencer Cornelia literally be fooled by grifters that he's interviewed. You have to have an open mind but it can't be so open that you're being convinced by bullshit. A lot of online people set themselves up as debunkers, lets say someone like candace owens, but really she's just trying to forward her narratives and discredit others. So it's extremely important that people just learn how to actually discern when someone is like this, it's difficult because if someone agrees with you, you'll probably overlook red flags. Regarding decoding the gurus, I like them because Brand and the like are obvious grifters and I like to see people going at them, but I think because of their snarky, laughing at them mode of conversation, it takes away from their ability to actually convince anyone who mightve been a follower of Brand, that he's bullshit. Imo coffezilla does a great job in terms of it would be hard to watch his videos on Logan Paul and still be able to side with Logan Paul even of you did before.

I think his intentions are probably sincere but he's definitely got biases that are quite obvious. But then again unless you get some unbiased ai, that's always gonna be a factor

thoughts?

So you don't think the danger from absolute free speech is enough that it would be worth working out a balance and have some regulations on free speech? You'd rather go with the binary blanket free speech. OK I mean it's an opinion I guess

Would you guys say the right are more likely to grift? Like would prominent figures on the left sell out to promote Russian propaganda?

Whats your opinion on the anti-tourism movement? Obviously there are pros in terms of money coming in but very relevant cons in terms of pricing locals out of the market

So are you saying there are no dangers to blanket free speech, aside from what you mentioned previously about screaming fire in a theatre?

Hopefully one day humans will get to a point where they don't need any rules and their consciousness is high enough where it's not really an issue. Kind of like if you have a kid that's really responsible, you don't need to give them rules really. But I commend you on being open to a different perspective, that's what this forum is about

Laws won't save you, Russia specifically did this through 3rd parties to avoid detection and they definitely could've gotten away with it. Apart from espionage, there are people within the society who could promote lies, hate speech etc in an effort to gain power or radicalise people for their own purposes. Think about the fact that most school shooters or mass murderers, have some distorted, hateful ideology that they picked up from the internet. These are all very real problems that are not simple to deal with. The sort of free speech you're talking about could only exist successfully if there weren't any bad faith actors. Using the forum as an example, if Leo didn't have any rules and regulations, it would work if everyone was posting in good faith and not attacking each other. But in reality if there were no rules and regulations it would attract all sorts of people spamming the forum, if Leo relaxed all rules for a week the site would be unusable and everyone would leave. This is even more important in wider society otherwise society would be unlivable. People that talk about we should be free from government control, don't actually understand the freedom afforded to you by the government, in that they protect your freedom from others. Without that you wouldn't 'have' anything.

When you're paid to say stuff like "Ukraine is the enemy of America" I'm sure you know something is up. But in terms of proving it in court or wherever that might be difficult they're argument has to be 'I'm so dumb I didn't realise'.

We're not talking free speech from within a society, we're talking the lax laws on regulating freedom of speech allowing foreign propaganda to proliferate and potentially destroy the society in the namevof free speech. Your free speech won't last long when you're taken over by a dictator. If you were running would you allow damaging false information to run wild? I understand your concern of going too far in terms of regulation, but that is where the balance has to come in. To just say there should be blanket free speech is a very simplistic approach that could never work in reality. It couldn't even work on this forum which is why Leo regulates it and has to because most people may not want to be on a forum where hate speech is allowed, hence there are rules.

Literal idiots

Yeah there are protections in place because obviously the US is gonna police threats and attacks on it. But the point is that if you go down the road of minimal regulation on free speech, these incidents are 100% going to happen. What if this wasn't caught, it hasn't been for a long time. The balancing act of free speech and regulation is a lot more complicated than those advocating for near limitless free speech. Imagine of Russia could just legally spread propaganda, it could literally lead to the collapse of society. This is not even a fantasy worst case, they are literally trying to do this and have been for a while.

Have you heard the news about Russia paying some right-wing commentators to spread Russian propaganda including anti-ukraine sentiments? Some of the commentators were Tim Pool and Dave Rubin, although they're still digging into it. How would your law deal with this real world scenario? Would you let them spread the disinformation in the name of free speech?

Who is an important question, but I'm asking if its you in charge how would you navigate it?

He gets angry all the time when he gets questions he doesnt like, when he was president he pretty much wouldnt take questions from publications that he didnt like. Whats a lot more rare is seeing Trump genuinely laugh, i cant imagine that

Ive seen some of his podcasts where hes really pushed people to explain their positions. Even with Kanye he really pushed him on the anti-semetic stuff to the point where Kanye got angry with him (although it doesnt take a lot). He does have the 'open minded' style but he definitely has a bias toward Trump, either because he likes him or because he was a bit starstruck with him.

This is still basically an absolutist position. Let's imagine you are an elected leader of a society and you know that someone promoting misinformation and propaganda is potentially dangerous to your society, in that they plan to gain power through misleading your society and ousting you from power. You also know that they don't care about your society and basically want to bleed it dry for money and maybe will even kill those that oppose them including you, once they have the power to do so. What they are saying is technically within the rules of your laws in that it's not defaming but it is mostly untrue or 'alt-truth'. You also see signs that some people are buying into the false narrative. As leader do you allow them total free speech even if you know the outcome will be negative for you and your society? Or do you come up with some other solution? If so what would that be?

Can you steelman the position of regulation of free speech?

Those are actually the more dangerous diseases. Think about if the disease is contagious and super lethal and kills people very quickly, it wont really have time to spread because a few people will die and everything will just get locked down but youll know who exactly is infected. When Ebola happened a few years ago it only killed a few thousand people, even though it was very lethal and contagious. With covid it spread so easy and although it didnt kill most people, because everyone got it the death rate was going to be higher. Mathematically its like if ebola is 80% lethal but only capable of infecting 10 people, then 8 will die. If covid is only 1% lethal but capable of infecting 100k people then 1000 are gonna die, so covid is actually more dangerous. Virus' in this spot of being not as lethal but very contagious are the most dangerous

I dont even know its so much the consumer 'choosing' to believe a narrative, i think now content creators can very accurately target users, hitting certain pain points and getting them into a pipeline that ends in them potentially being radicalized. For example it wouldnt be that hard for me to start a channel for incels where i focus on how important looks are and how bad women are etc I can use false or it least grey zone information, to further aggrevate them, then if i want to introduce a new idea to them it wouldnt be that hard because they now trust me. So really the issue is bad actors and people that distribute misinformation and disinformation, intentionally or even unintentionally

I think people advocating for the right of absolute freedom of speech dont actually understand the danger of propaganda, its literally a tool of war. Its been used in the past to great effect and now with social media its on steroids. So to just allow potential bad actors, dictators etc to just spread misinformation freely can only lead to disastrous consequences. Part of the reason why so many are in this maga cult is because of propaganda, so we can see the effects of it real time. The discussion around freedom of speech is interesting and nuanced but to not consider the negative of effects of it is very short sighted. Musk is taking advantage as much as hes allowed and im glad Brazil have shut him down. Hes actually very dangerous in terms of how he adds fuel to the fire of issues going on in other countries

Jesus imagine actually being a maga supporter where you look at that at get excited. Literally milking them for money