this is an interesting idea, but seems more easily said than done.

'fighting misinformation' is not a terribly realistic nor even a desirable goal.

it rests in utopian fallacy of 'knowing what information is correct.'

how can one know what 'truth' is without the debate

there was nothing 'mild' about the social pressure to mask. children were accused of wanting to kill grandma if they resisted. 'your mask protects me' was fallacious twaddle pushed as moral inversion to force as 'duty' that which was pointless and pernicious.

masks were

question: if you quote tweet someone and then then block you, does it crush the visibility of your QT?

seems like this one got shut off like a switch the minute mike blocked it.

if so, that's a pretty lame way to structure the algo. makes it difficult to engage with those

i find your lack of faith disturbing.

teflon tony testifies on june 3rd.

can the book deal be far behind?

pro tip:

if your identity requires subsidy, it's not identity, it's dependency.

i'm all for 'you be you' (and best of luck with it, really) but mistaking 'gimmie dat' or 'validate me (or else)' for self-expression and self-actualization is not progressive, it's pathological.

glengarry glen ross got nothing on pfizer.

when AI decides to take out the humans, there are easier ways than 'skynet.'