If voting mattered they wouldn’t let you do it.
Too many people have too much power and control over the system. We just have the illusion of influence.
Petitions are the perfect example, it gives people the illusion that they’re having an effect. But in reality, when those 10k petitions are hit, it’s up to the houses discretion whether they even want to talk about it.
Yea I’m all for it.
It’s a toxic place full of political propaganda and dangerous mechanics designed to hack their dopamine systems.
Is it the best option? No. Digital literacy about the effects of spending time online, and being taught what it is they’re actually giving their attention would be best.
But this will have to do for now.
If this doesn’t happen, we’re going to have a whole generation of people who never learnt to think for themselves, have absolutely no impulse control whatsoever and who knows what else.
The ways they find around it, again, are good - because they’ll probably be free from agendas by other state actors and profit at their expense.
I’m all for it. The internet is unregulated, and it has a direct impact on people’s consciousness, it dictates what they think about.
Therefore, our minds, our emotions, our impulses and intentions are also unregulated.
My only concern is that this is a rather lazy approach when all it took was good digital literacy.
Edit: reading that back I’m putting over the wrong message. Our minds shouldn’t be regulated directly, what should be regulated is those who have the power to influence them. Otherwise, we’re no more free than if our minds were regulated.
Just remember this guy is a scapegoat. The real evil dudes got away Scot free… As they always do
I know this has a cult following, but never took the time to find out why. Can somebody explain what was so good about it at time of release?
RDR2 and Cyberpunk. Although they are more linear roleplaying games than Skyrim’s experimentation.
You need a lower dopamine threshold to make the most of those games, but they’re a treat when you learn how to do that.
It never will be.
This asset can be used as collateral for leverage. So now the owner has it, they can use it to put up maybe around $30,000,000 if they have a good enough relationship with a broker.
Because of the way America is right now too, they can give trump a 10m cut if he slides a particular stock one way or another.
President gets 10m, punter gets got knows how much, and nobody is any the wiser.
It’s the same with art, but with art, it’s a lot more speculative, which is why you have so many god awful contemporary pieces, because again they’ll pay an appraiser to say it’s worth 100m when it’s a handful of beans on a canvas, and then use that as collateral.
These are just infinite money glitches for the rich.
In all seriousness, there’s nothing stopping you and your friends and their families from doing the same thing, but because it’s not the system they designed they’re going to be skeptical of it and not want to do that.