the minimum would be transparency for the algorithm. If users can see exactly what a social media algorithm is doing with their content feed, they would always have a way to identify and escape dark patterns of addiction.

But this minimum itself would require powers to compel tech companies to give up what they would describe as intellectual property. Which would probably require a digital bill of rights?

The most practical option would be to just ask your kids directly about the kinds of content they’ve been consuming and why. Dinner table conversations can probably reveal those dark patterns just as well

if this instance has more of this obviously fake, state-department propaganda then yes i’ll block it the same way i blocked a half a dozen other servers for spreading easily debunked disinformation.

Recommend anyone still hypnotized by this low-effort propaganda to seek out dilyana from bulgaria and her impressive work explaining how the skripals were not poisoned by nerve agents at all. No chain of custody existed on the test results which supposedly confirmed nerve agent poisoning, symptoms and timeline don’t match nerve agent poisoning progression, and of course no supporting video evidence exists and also there are basic plotholes in much of the witness testimony.

Navalny was also not poisoned by novichok nerve agent. He would not have survived almost any dose of that substance and it’s hard to imagine how that poison could be delivered to him without also poisoning others. His symptoms were more consistent with prescription pill overdose, which a person might do if they’re attempting to kill themselves, which apparently he was quoted as saying before he boarded that flight.

With navalny it’s also likely that the OPCW participated in obscuring the gaps in the chain of custody of the lab results (which were also suspiciously delayed) The organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons has a precedent for falsifying its results as demonstrated by the syrian gas attack false flag operation which they at first tried to expose but which was then covered up.

Some of this context is covered here and here

at least they’re finally admitting that it wasn’t novichok… In 50 years maybe we’ll get to read about how this entire story was nonsense

a globe-spanning mossad influence operation which manipulates our politicians, business-people and academics from the shadows with child rape and blood sacrifice is already pretty grand …

what larger context do you mean? spiritual warfare?

bad word bad! no context! only hurt feelings! whos feelings? an imaginary person that might get offended! also they are underage.

what is the deal with your neighbour?

don’t forget team blue

Sorry i deleted my comments because i thought you were saying something you weren’t, and responded ungenerously.

Your points are well taken, especially concerning silence itself constituting a moral act (or inaction), especially in the context of injustice or deceit.

My interpretation is that Matthew instructs us towards an active, radical love which demands that we act against what is unjust.

I recognise that this view of JC stands at the edge of a slippery slope, where violence can be condoned in Christian terms by the great manipulators of the world, but in our historical moment, i see a greater danger in emphasising the pacifist, passive aspects of JC. I am more afraid of his flock becoming domesticated and losing their ability to discern between true and false, and therefore also between right and wrong. I guess I choose to believe it is more wrong to pacify a righteous anger than it is for that righteous anger to miss its mark.

He entertained the devil during his temptation, and even hinted towards the instrumental nature of evil in the abstract, but he did not hesitate to take great offence at seeing money lenders ply their trade in the house of his Father. In one there is an implied recognition of the value of the work, and in the other a complete rejection.

Where does your confidence even come from? western media? the same media which serves the epstein class?

Also you realise that russia is not a communist country right? so accusing me of being a ‘tankie’ here doesn’t really make sense…

I know it’s painful to hear something that isn’t reinforced culturally on the ABC but australia is not a sovereign country, whereas russia is. It is really is that simple. Live wherever you want, prefer whichever country you want, but reality will still be reality.

it sounds like you don’t distinguish between australians and ‘Australia’.

One is a group of people that (if you live here) probably includes everyone you like, know and love, including your immediate family. The other is a nation which exists within a historical and material context, one which can and must be criticised as a matter of civic duty.

Which country recently passed legislation restricting speech on behalf of the zionist entity? the one you live in or the one you read about in australian media?

deleted by creator

my russian is a little rusty, plus unfortunately my family still live here.

You think that calling a spade a spade is disloyalty? I just gave a neutral description, i could have been much more flattering of russia and disparaging of australia, but who cares how i feel? i’m just describing reality.

deleted by creator

Not super fair to compare a constitutional republic like the russian federation to an american vassal like australia. They don’t have zionists writing their social media laws to pick just one example of australians not deciding what happens in australia.

deleted by creator

‘ukraine’ stopped being a sovereign, democratic state when the euromaidan coup of 2014 (orchestrated by nuland and others in the obama admin) overthrew yanukovich.

The coup itself was exceptionally violent, including burning many people alive in a trade union hall, as well killing many civilians in the donbass region by indiscriminate mortar fire (by the ‘ukrainians’).

The regime itself is openly fascist, and has formally integrated military units which openly wear nazi-era symbols and which glorify the infamous nazi steppan bandera.

Modern ukraine is now a proxy state, which the west uses as a money laundering operation to wash american tax dollars through ukraine and ultimately to europe, and as a weapons blackmarket for terrorists around the world. The banderite regime is also trafficking human organs at an industrial scale, and it is widely assumed that sex trafficking from that region has also increased. (ukraine was one of the most corrupt countries in the world even before the coup stole the sovereignty away from ukrainian people.)

Now that ukraine is badly losing on the battlefield, and that this useless war has dragged on for years longer than it should, to still be supporting ‘ukraine’ in 2026 means one of two things. Either:

1: You are historically / politically or media illiterate. This means you believe every news story from cnn, fox news, or from other cia cutouts. You can’t understand why the US would have anything to do with coups because that doesn’t gel with your disney-level understanding of reality. No critical thinking, no context, no details. Just ukraine good. zelensky good. putin bad.

or

2: You are an ideological fascist. In the ww2 sense. You support the legacy of bandera, you believe their concentration camps and holocausting of jews, gays, romani etc didnt go far enough, that their project went unfinished, and you hope that with western backing zelensky and his coterie of banderites will this time complete the fuhrers final solution and make ukraine an ethnically pure fascist state.

I’ll be generous and say as a third option you might be a ukrainian national and just be playing along with the cancerous banderite junta (which has banned all non-state-sanctioned religions, cancelled all elections, outlawed opposition political parties, and even banned the speaking of the russian language amongst ethnic russians) out of pure fear. This one i can at least understand, especially if you lacked the foresight or the means to flee your country when it was lost to the west in 2014.

russiagating in 2026? catch up

propaganda

do they have a gofundme i can donate to?

tl:dr when they say ‘I have nothing to hide’ you respond with 'you aren’t even really you without privacy so you can’t really say what ‘you’ have to hide. Then when they give you a confused stare you walk them through the previous logical steps. I’m not sure it’s incredibly persuasive IRL especially to the kind of person who would argue against their own fundamental human rightd in this way (i’ve had similar chats with my own father fwiw) but it’s a good starting point.

Following up with concrete examples of harm (which don’t rely on a logical chain of propositions) is a good follow up.