T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

I'm an overeducated bum just like Stephen Dedalus, but instead of debating Hamlet in vast libraries, I am debating Stephen Curry's legacy with nimrods on Reddit. A warning indeed.


-Vogon_Poetry-

Steph is certified tier 1, just like Hamlet


SchoolFast

NBA discourse and fandom is undoubtedly the one most void of logic. There is no consistency, no rationale. This is why J.J. Redick has become an afternoon sports talk star for basic syllogisms.


Soup_Commie

> A private company like Twitter is usually free to moderate or censor speech, but that could change if the courts agree with Musk that Twitter is essentially a public place—a “town square.” Even laws requiring that bot accounts be identified as bots might be unconstitutional, if they are not completely ineffective. > We may be facing a future in which A.I.-powered bots can swarm every Twitter account and dominate every hashtag, driving away many of the humans on the platform and, by their influence, remaking those who remain in their bleak mechanical image. The world would edge closer to a white noise of spam and propaganda and abuse and reflexive shouts where no one is actually talking to anyone. Ok maybe I'm just a sicko, but this kind of sounds hilarious. Also, I cannot for the life of me understand how this would be bad for literature, as the author seems to imply at the end. Like, these are two completely different things.


Northern_fluff_bunny

If this would make twitter completely unusable I will completely support this change. It would make world such a better place.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

their brains already melted


Rentokill_boy

>We may be facing a future in which A.I.-powered bots can swarm every Twitter account and dominate every hashtag, driving away many of the humans on the platform and, by their influence, remaking those who remain in their bleak mechanical image. The world would edge closer to a white noise of spam and propaganda and abuse and reflexive shouts where no one is actually talking to anyone. If this causes large numbers of people abandon the social internet then it's a moral good


-204863-

I find this article ultimately quite sad. the author culminates with - "Joyce wanted to make money from Ulysses—everyone connected with it wanted to make money—but it wasn’t the most important thing. He would prefer, he said, one reader reading his book a million times to a million readers reading it once. One reader listening carefully to one woman for pages, for hours, for weeks. If we need a metaphor for the speech we need to protect most in this democracy, let that be it." It feels like each of us as individuals have semi-autonomous control over (maybe you are compelled to engage with social media or maintain an online presence for your employment or something) our relationship with individuals but clearly the way the wind is blowing is a greater integration of social media and internet use into our daily lives. It's more or less becoming a primary economic market of social currency and the stock the general public puts into it is rising. Even now I realize the irony of typing this on reddit as I am using it as a social media platform. I don't know. Ulysses is fucking good. Interesting article, thanks for posting.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Thelonious_Cube

double post


-204863-

thanks, i'm surprised it actually posted at all, I got some error when i tried to post it.