Twitter no longer recommends misleading information during crises – IT Pro – News

Which ideas are good and which ideas are bad is shown by the comparative advantage or disadvantage of the people who live according to these ideas. It is irrelevant whether these ideas are true, but merely whether following them is good or bad.

Polarization is only frightening for those who themselves are ‘invested’ in the middle, or for the group at the far end of the spectrum that ultimately draws the short straw.

Civilizations go through stages of development where the battle for the direction one wants to give to the future is fought and the winner is the one who ultimately has the most success.

There are also examples of how this ultimately led to the demise of a civilization. Ancient China, for example, was once a global frontrunner, but their way of thinking (extremely introverted and no interest in outside insights) eventually brought the Qing dynasty down.

Ditto with ancient Egypt, being so entrenched in their own rotten mindset (such as that members of the ruling dynasty had to keep power within the family through consanguineous marriages) destroyed this once most advanced civilization in the world, after which the Greeks (the Ptolemy) took over. And they continued to make the same mistakes and Ptolemaic Egypt eventually became a vassal of Rome.

Progress comes from ideas competing against each other, with the most favorable ideas winning.

That’s why we should worry less about polarization and focus more on the really important questions in life:
– how do I best represent my own interests vs. that of my community?
– what is the optimal balance between sticking to traditions and being open to new insights that provide a bonus compared to already common traditions?
– how can we act decisively, but not excessively, to secure our place under the sun (ie access to resources, territory, and nurture healthy and mentally resilient next generations)?

Suppose it turns out that atheists are literally dying out due to demographic decline, while the Mormons (I will give a clear example) have large families and also a high degree of self-reliance (few benefits, low care demand due to a healthy lifestyle)?

Who’s the complete fool then? The Mormons who believe in a fairy tale book? Or those scientists who see everything only as a function of cosmic processes and their followers adhere to ideas that are correct, but which do not turn out to be beneficial to the followers at all?

Mi is the only explanation for the way in which the ‘powers that be’ strive for control over the information supply, the idea that deep down, perhaps even completely subconsciously, they realize that they never organically win.

And the problem is that we CANNOT afford to have a situation where the information supply is centralized anyway. Suppose you confided this to the current rulers, what if their carefully built control over the information falls into the hands of the opposing party after political trends change? Doesn’t that scare you?

Personally, I don’t trust the political elite, whoever is in power, and the role of the press, and therefore of individual opinion makers, should be to play devil’s advocate against prevailing views. But do you think that will happen in a situation where, for example, a society is in the throes of panic terror, such as in a pandemic or in times of economic collapse? New. And what if there are centralized control mechanisms that promote and counteract the views of the status quo enforcers? Because that is exactly what you can see in such situations. In the first case, this led to countless unnecessary COVID victims because effective technological interventions against aerosols (ionization and UV in ventilation systems in healthcare institutions) were omitted, and they went all in on an idea (which turned out to be incorrect, later on), namely that personal contact was the main distribution route, so all you had to do was keep the elderly in their room (where the Grim Reaper with a scythe literally came in through the ventilation). The second example led to the emergence of the Russian authoritarian state system headed by Putin in the late 1990s, early 2000s.

–