The people who mine them or somehow buy them. It is the same question as "who owns all the gold?". Same answer. — Tarskian

You ought to think about this a bit more:

Global central banks own about 17 percent of all the gold ever mined, with reserves topping 36,699 metric tons (MT) as of year-end 2023. They acquired the vast majority in the last 14 years after becoming net buyers of the metal in 2010.

The dollar cannot "default". How can the dollar even "default"? If they do not have enough dollars, the Fed simply prints some more. The dollar can only hyper-inflate, i.e. become worthless. That is what we want to achieve. That shit has to go, now already. — Tarskian

You can hold on to the technical fig leaves, but hyperinflation is similar to default, even if the government "respects" it's obligations. And let's remember: if it happens immediately, it's hyperinflation and people understand it. Yet if it just takes a little bit more time, everything is just fine and people don't worry about it.


And why talk about the possibility of hyperinflation as an achievement? You think the US will be better afterwards? And in the end there's many ways the US can do this. The most obvious is just to continue as normal and hope the market's won't revolt.

For example, personal income taxation was introduced only in 1913 — Tarskian

In the US, I assume. But for example in @Benkei's country it was introduced earlier. Yet first income tax was introduced in Ancient Egypt and in China and England had it's introduction in 1188 ( each layperson in England and Wales be taxed one tenth of their personal income and moveable property), so the idea isn't actually so new.

Bitcoin is now already legal tender in El Salvador. We are also rapidly making geopolitical progress with the Russian Federation — Tarskian

Thanks for the correction, I forgot El Salvador.

Getting the Russian Federation on our side is a significant breakthrough because now the system is also backed by an arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons. The next step, is getting China onboard in matters of cryptocurrency. That will be hard, but I suspect that Russia will sooner or later manage to convince them. — Tarskian

:roll: Somehow I would refer to these two countries as being examples of liberalism and respecting the free market.

In this new multipolar world order, it is the cryptocurrencies, especially Bitcoin, that will eventually reign supreme. — Tarskian

Hmm. But who owns the bitcoins? I think the people from the West. A lot more people (as I) prefer gold in the role of preserving value, something far more older than fiat currencies.

Hyperbitcoinization is why Bitcoin maximalists do not care much about the exchange rate or about measuring its value in dollars or in euros, as we seek to destroy the dollar and the euro — Tarskian

The death of the sovereign states is in my view highly exaggerated and basically false. And they (sovereign states) do love their central banks, just as Russia and China do. So perhaps you taking over the World along the other people holding the 19+ million Bitcoins is a bit of an exaggeration too.

In fact when the fiat system collapses, it won't be such a catastrophic event that society collapses. Not at all! It something similar to let's so the COVID pandemic. Something before can be describe as really scare, yet something that in the end just ....sucks.

How many actually think of the last time the US dollar defaulted as a default? I was just a baby, so I don't remember it. But many will argue that the US dollar has never defaulted. Oh no, Nixon just disregarded the useless ancient relic of a metal.

Statements devoid of content? (Frege)
I think not. — jgill

More like that the truths in mathematics are tautologies: a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form. Wouldn't that description fit to mathematics?

I'm not sure how important it is to nail down a particular definition. — fishfry

For example to the question in the OP it is something. Also do note that it does influence on how people see mathematics and how the field is understood and portrayed. Do people see it from the viewpoint of Platonism (numbers are real), logicism (it's logic) or from formalism (it's a game) or something else?

An apt description works wonders here.

Math is what mathematicians do. — fishfry

Oh, and this is a perfect example why it is important: with that you'll give here not only your little finger, but your left leg to the worst kind of post-modernists and sociologists that then can proclaim that math is only a societal phenomenon and a power play that a group of people (read men) do. That all this bull of math being something different, having it's own logic or being something special that tells something about reality is nonsense (or in their discourse, an act in that power play) when it's just what mathematicians declare doing. That's obviously not what you meant, but how can your statements be used is important.

These kinds of ideas, which I myself oppose, is like taking Thomas Kuhn totally out of context and using him (or the study of science as a human enterprise and interaction) as a way to claim that in this case mathematics is nothing special (perhaps from plumbing or playing a sport).

Indeed, that continuous mathematics is useful is often taken to simply imply an unobservable continuum. But this sort of reasoning seems to work just as well for potency, no?

So what's the difference?

Or is the "observability" thing really just a red herring? — Count Timothy von Icarus

We simply don't understand the logic behind infinity and hence continuity. It's the really big thing missing. The math is already there with calculus. We just don't have a beautiful philosophical answer to this part of mathematics, even if we already know the math.

The official ruling mafia defends their monopoly on expropriation, called "taxation". — Tarskian

And unfortunately we do need that thing called "taxation". Also the ruling mafia also defends their monopoly legal tender. Which cryptocurrencies aren't, but currencies of sovereign states are.

Of course it could be different.

Think about the following situation: You work for your employer, FU Employee Corp. Now when the payday comes and you get your salary, your employers pays your salary by their own money, FU Dollars. You then can use the FU Dollars in a local shop that your employer FU Employee Corp owns, where they happily accept FU Dollars. And naturally FU Dollar aren't accepted anywhere else, hence it isn't convertible. Need housing? Sure thing, your employer has these small shacks that you can rent, which also can be paid FU Dollars again. Everything so convenient!

Sounds enjoyable? Well, that was actually reality during the time of true liberal policies of the 19th Century. You can guess what happened to all those FU Dollars that you had earned by years of hard work when the Corporation goes bankrupt.

Hence there were also some reasons just why legal tender was monopolized.

A market authority is usually necessary but it does not need to be the government. — Tarskian

Do you think that is a great solution? Just like a previous chairman of NASDAQ and the board of "National Association of Securities Dealers" (nowdays called FINRA), which the latter acts as a self-regulatory organization (SRO) that regulates member brokerage firms and exchange markets.

His name was Bernie Madoff.

Yessir, All you need is self-regulation from the smartest!!! No government needed!

We are only at the very beginning of tokenizing commercial traffic. In my opinion, just 0.1% of the possibilities have currently been implemented already. It will completely change the world of commerce. — Tarskian

Method how your payment is done different from the various roles a market and it's actors have.

As for the land invasion itself, if history is any indication a ground invasion wouldn't be a quick and painless operation. — Mr Bee

Yet this fact of life is hardly given any thought now. Bibi's transformed into a wartime leader. He doesn't have to face the earlier political problems or an inquiry just how Hamas did get away with overcoming a billion dollar wall as long as Israel is in war. So he doesn't care a shit about just how "Peace for Galilee" turned out. But he can remember that after Yom Kippur war was over, Golda Meir was ousted.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s popularity, which was battered after the Hamas attacks on 7 October, has been boosted by his country’s military successes against Hezbollah, a new opinion poll suggests.

A picture has been widely shared of the Israeli PM in New York giving the order for the biggest of these - the assassination of the Lebanese armed group’s long-time chief, Hassan Nasrallah.

A poll for Israel’s Channel 12, released on Sunday night, indicates the Israeli PM's Likud party would win more seats than any other if a general election was held.

Even if this was prior to the Iranian missiles, it still shows the benefits of being a wartime prime minister. People will rally to the flag and support the leadership of the country.

It's quite telling that cryptocurrencies marketed as "freedom from governments and the central banks" then will have these shady frauds etc. I think it's basically a natural result when you don't have legislative supervision.

I think it's something that was forgotten in the ideological fervour of liberalism, that free markets have to have institutions to keep them trustworthy and operational. Otherwise simple theft is so easy.

I'll just give the laziest answer possible. I typed "is math a system" into Google. The Google AI responded: — fishfry

Pretty much everything is a system, from indoor plumbing to the National Football League. — fishfry

Hence the question was stupid, as I assumed.

It being a logical system would be perhaps more fruitful, but the notion would still be in the set of self-evident "So what?" truths about mathematics. Just what kind of logical systems math has inside it would be the more interesting question. Now when mathematics has in it's system non-computable, non-provable but true parts (as it seems to have), this would be a question of current importance (comes mind the Math truths aren't orderly but chaotic -thread).

If so, perhaps the old idea of math being a tautology comes to mind: something being random and non-provable but true is... random and non-provable but true. Yet how do we then stop indoor plumbing and the National Football League being math? That the two aren't tautologies, even if indoor plumbing ought to be designed logically(?) Would it be so simple?

Apparently the US is coordinating with Israel on a response unlike last time. Oddly enough that makes me feel a bit more confident about the possibility that it won't be too escalatory (or be specifically designed with an offramp in mind) despite the fact that the US is getting involved. That being said, I'm sure the Israelis may try to do their own secret operation, though there is only so much they can do unilaterally. I can certainly see it avoiding oil infrastructure for the reasons you described unless the Israelis really want to humiliate Biden even more. — Mr Bee

The basic issue is here: what is the objective in the landwar in Southern Lebanon?

The political reasoning is to get back the tens of thousands of Israelis that have been evacuated from Northern Israel, and hence the likely goal is to "destroy Hezbollah" altogether. Other political rhetoric simply won't do for warfighter Bibi. But this is actually problematic.

Perhaps a very stupid question: why isn't Math referred simply to being a system?

Of course I'm not suggesting that I expect Netanyahu will hold back. It was honestly surprising that he even held back in April. Like I said, Israel, helmed by Netanyahu, wants to escalate as far as possible. They really want to strike their nuclear facilities, which they can't really do by themselves, but again that's where the US comes in. — Mr Bee

They can come close ...assuming they get the needed airspace to launch an attack. I assume that Israel has it's Jericho missiles for nuclear deterrence, but for example the LORA medium range artillery missile (400km) can come in handy with it's air launched variant (AIR LORA) would be the optimal system. This has the possibility of launching the missiles from possibly Iraqi air space and thus minimizing the threat Iranian air defense systems pose. And then of course there's the option of also using drones, which Israeli has already used against Iran.

Israeli F-16 with conformal fuel pallets and AIR LORA missiles


And then of course Israel has a myriad of long range cruise missiles in it's arsenal, which can be launched from the F-15I, F-16I and F-35I combat aircraft. First wave would be to attack Iranian ground based air defence systems (GBAD) and it's command centers and likely the nuclear facilities. Yet a large scale attack would mean that the US would give a green light, which isn't actually so difficult as already the US has committed to the defense from incoming Iranian missiles. If Joe Biden (and Kamala) are started to be called chickens or whimps, that might easily get the US to side with it's ally even during an election.

The fact is that even if Iranian military targets are first attacked, then the lure of simply going against it's oil infrastructure looms also, even if this would be controversial and extremely unpopular (because of high oil prices). You can easily get into a situation just like with the War of Attrition 1967-1970 between Egypt and Israel, just now with the artillery strikes being replaced with missile strikes. The problem is that basically there's no reason why Israel wouldn't commit to this. It already is in an open military conflict with Iran. Bibi has already the hammer in his hand and Iran looks like one big nail.

Iran still refrained this time around. — Mr Bee

As Israel and Iran are distant from each other, there is a geographic reason that limits warfighting capabilities. Hence both sides will talk about limited actions: they simply cannot fight the war in any other way. However now it's the second time in a short time that Iran has attacked Israel. Hence it is unlikely that Israel will refrain from a retaliatory strike.

JERUSALEM, Oct 1 (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Iran's missile attack on Israel failed and vowed retaliation.

"Iran made a big mistake tonight - and it will pay for it," he said at the outset of a political-security meeting. "The regime in Iran does not understand our determination to defend ourselves and our determination to retaliate against our enemies."

Now tell me how Netanyahu won't strike back when he has said the above? When you say Iran will pay and that Israel will retaliate against it's enemies, it would be quite difficult then to follow by not doing anything.

This is the reason why I'm worried about the situation. There's no reason why Netanyahu wouldn't attempt to destroy Hezbollah as it has done with the current military organization of Hamas.

Israel can get to wherever they want in the Middle East after the missile attack. He is a bellicose man; his adrenaline pops up with this tension, and when everything is crossing the limits. — javi2541997

This is a wartime politician on a roll. Fighting Hamas is now a mopping operation and the spectacular pager and the killing of the Hezbollah made likely Bibi and his leadership overenthusiastic and extremely self confident. As I've said, the 2006 operation into Lebanon didn't go well. Hence IDF is eager to have a brilliant victory such the Six Day War is very much in the past. They've been thinking how to fight Hezbollah for 18 years, so it's time now to put those ideas into action.

I consider it a marker when someone continues this thread: This thread is a living memory accurately describing how smart people, that are interested in philosophy, start such a thread. It's informative and telling to look how the discussion has gone about the subject for the last seven years.

Yes, two years ago (when the thread was forgotten for a while) Bitcoin price was a little bit above one third of what it is now. So to comment on Cryptocurrencies thread was likely to come, and thanks to @Wayfarer, he even remembered this thread!

As I forecasted two days ago, Israel started the land invasion of Lebanon. It was totally clear from Netanyahu's speech at the UN. Bibi is confident that he can solve his problems by escalating the war.

And Iran finally responded in trying to assist it's ally Hezbollah. But with the killing of the Hezbollah leaders and with the great success of attacking Hezbollah unconventionally, it's obvious that Israel sees that it will be triumphant in this war (or military operation). And that's problem, as if successful military operations will solve the basic underlying problems.

This will take years, more than expected, maybe. — javi2541997

Ask yourself how many years Israel occupied Lebanon until it withdrew ...and with it's actions made the Lebanese shiias form Hezbollah in the first place.

It appears to be far bigger than the previous attack in April. It is crazy how the chaos is raging over there (Middle-East). I can't see a calm and peaceful mood in the long term... This will take years, more than expected, maybe. — javi2541997

It's now likely that Israel will strike Iran now. Last time the two warring parties refrained their military actions, but likely this time it will be far more. This will likely escalate.

I think the US is now on the verge to being dragged out to another large Middle Eastern war. You'll just notice that you are in another quagmire...

WASHINGTON, Oct 1 (Reuters) - President Joe Biden has directed the U.S. military to aid Israel’s defense against Iranian attacks and shoot down missiles targeting Israel, the White House National Security Council said on Tuesday.

This is the way the US is drawn to the another war in the Middle East.

Why no?

Because Israel's intent is to destroy Hezbollah and it will likely attack Iran, hence the fighting is quite likely to continue.

It's a collection of diverse narratives for various purposes--NOT a unitary whole. — BC

Which also tells someone was thinking that just how important the written word would be (in the New Testament). Still, even if we do have this evident way to put things into perspective, people just pick the most convenient part for them.

To the OP, every religion and deity (or group of them) is a solution for our moral and ethical problems on good and evil, which is a problem that we cannot find and objective solution. Hence the monotheistic religion portray God as good. A smart move compared to the troublesome gods of for example of Antiquity, where at least I would be confused just what the message is about.

For, as much as it's talked about the scenario of Israel dragging in the US in a war with Iran, I've never seen it explained how this war would work exactly. No analyst I've ever seen has even outlined how Iran could be defeated with conventional forces and on the contrary I've only ever seen it explained how this is literally impossible: Iran is too big, too mountainous, too populous, too battle hardened from the war with Iraq and then surviving constant sanctions and proxy actions, to be defeateable. — boethius

Actually when experts have discussed this, these issues do have been raised. And thus even when the Neocons were at helm and the US had large forces both in Iraq and In Afghanistan (+ air bases in Central Asia). There was no appetite for a war with Iran. Even if during that time there was for example an incident of Iran capturing US Navy personnel.



Iraq was flat, it's army had been pulverized during Desert Storm and then attacked by Clinton with Operation Desert Fox, had Kurds in control of the north. So Iraq was "doable". Iran was and is something totally else.

Furthermore, we have already seen what a war between Israel and Iran looks like: both sides would lob missiles and drones at each other. Both are totally incapable of taking the fight to the borders (or coast) of the other country. Hezbollah acts here as the way for Israel to attack Iran. And I think Israel still has a bad taste from the 2006 war, which didn't go so well. But after the operations in Gaza have gone somehow, I think Bibi is willing to try to get Hezbollah again.

So I think it is more probable that we will have an Israeli invasion to Lebanon than it being just an air war.

It's quite noteworthy how Netanyahu defines on Middle Eastern countries on map as "The Blessing" and "The Curse". Especially when Iraq ought to be an pro-US ally. Bibi refers to Israel's Arab partners in the speech, which is a bit confusing. Having a peace agreement doesn't mean that you are partners.

Also in the speech, Bibi prepared the way in his speech for a land invasion of Southern Lebanon. A land invasion of southern Lebanon, at least to the Litani river even if far more north (likely to stop before Beirut) is quite probable in my view. Which itself would make the peace agreement that Bibi hopes to achieve with Saudi-Arabia quite distant. And Bibi btw refers the UN as "UN house of darkness" and to be a joke while all criticism of Israel's actions is anti-semitism. Yes, the UN is an anti-semitic swamp according to Bibi. Taken right out of Trump's vocabulary (of draining the swamp).

:100: :up: Right on, @neomac

I thought Roe v. Wade was good law. Three divisions of nine months: first, abortion ok, second, maybe ok, third, probably not ok. — tim wood

I remember how surprised I was when finding out that back then countries like Sweden and Finland had far more tighter regulation on abortion than the US.

The discussion should be about the exact details, not this old juxtaposition to being "pro-life" or "pro-choice". It doesn't go so that if you are "pro-life", then you are for abortion laws like in Madagascar, where abortion is illegal in all cases, including rape, incest and the mother’s life being endangered. Or that with pro-choice that you think it's totally OK to dispose of a fetus as long as the naval cord is tied to the mother.

Of course the real effect with doing away with Roe v. Wade is that abortions have increased.

Why would it be? Why do you interpret it as wrong when I've lifted this forum as good example of neutral praxis that would conform with the same ideals that a UN based social media would do? — Christoffer

I don't, so we agree. But you asked "And what rules and values does this site aspire to?" so I thought you have some problem with this.

But notice that this site isn't important. It has a tiny number of active members and a small number of people that read it. With the UN site, we are talking about a far more serious issue, which many sovereign states hold to be of extreme importance.

It wouldn't be if the algorithms didn't cater to conflict and negativity, since the research concluded that such behaviors drive attention and interactions more, which is key to ad revenues. — Christoffer

The algorithms cater to what people are interested in: more people are interested, the better. And this is totally normal and can be seen for example from ordinary media, from radio, from television etc. People aren't interested in conversations where everybody agrees on the issues and perhaps differ only in nuances. Nope. A heated debate is what people want to follow. Even here in PF this is evident: the threads where people disagree get the most comments.

You're implying a totalitarian takedown of free speech criticizing the platform, which there's no evidence for would happen. — Christoffer

Perhaps not a "totalitarian takedown", but the kind of "free speech" as you and I understand isn't something that many sovereign states accept. Sorry, but that's the truth.

The Soviet Union was the perfect example of this. Did it accept the human rights declarations the UN made? Of course, but it did so by influencing just what was tolerable and what was hate speech. The simple fact is that UN makes decisions usually in the fashion of a consensus. Hence totalitarian states can influence the decisions here. For example Turkey (Turkiye) might insist that any talk supporting the Kurdish cause is terrorism. Or for China talking about the Uighurs.

It's the simple fact as with news sites: it is a real blessing that you do have news documentaries in English done by different countries, DW (Germany), France24 (France), Al Jazeera English (Qatar). One single entity would be an absolute disaster. And even if it's propaganda, I would still like to have the ability to watch Russia Today on Youtube.

"Free speech" is a concept that people have lost an understanding of. There's no such thing as free speech absolutism or anything like that. Free speech today has become an acronym for excuses made by those who just want to spew out their hate, not actually talk criticism. — Christoffer

Nah.

There's just the idiots that engage in the stupid culture war on both sides. These people are partisan people, whose arguments for "free speech" can be easily checked simply by taking an example of a heated issue, like supporting Palestine etc. Both on the left and on the right there are these people who think of themselves as being open for discussion, yet aren't actually open for discussion. With issues that they consider "dog whistles", these people show immediately their true colors.

Once again, I underscore that a global platform is under the scrutiny of the consensus and being an open platform. The openness in this means that any attempt to take control is impossible without it being seen by the public of the world. — Christoffer

What is the openness of having just ONE social media site?

Again, you don't seem to notice how the UN works. If a reasonable amount of member states (or the permanent security council members) don't want something, the UN has to adapt to it. Just look at this simple quote from a UN-webpage on democracy:

The UN does not advocate for a specific model of government but promotes democratic governance as a set of values and principles that should be followed for greater participation, equality, security and human development.

(see Global Issues / Democracy (UN)

Well, the problem is that actually democracy is a specific model of government. It has to be in order to function correctly. Yet China, Russia and previously Marxist-Leninist Soviet Union had no problem with the UN Charter, because the UN was toothless. Hence in your example of an UN controlled social media, countries simply would ask to ban discussion they aren't OK with and the UN likely would follow them. Hence it won't simply work.

I do not produce arguments out of some conspiracy of some cabal operating in the UN. There's more proof of corruption for how things operate today through tech companies and individual states than any notion that a consensus and collaboration on a global scale with an open source structure would ever lead to such corruption. — Christoffer

That's why it's important that there are different states that can have their own media. It's something obvious in the classical media landscape.

You're still speaking of individual governments, not how a consensus would operate. The only reason the UN can't do much on the global scale is because they don't have such power. — Christoffer

I agree with you that the UN doesn't have power. Hence your argument is really absurd. UN doesn't work as a Federal entity. It isn't even a Confederacy. It's just a loose club where something can happen when no Great Power isn't stepped on and the issue isn't part of the global competition.

We have seen first how absolutely meaningless was the consensus of the League of Nations. And we have seen how impotent the UN has been and will be. Hence why to think as somehow everything would change?

Yes, but what does that have to do with this? — Christoffer

It has to do with this when people are OK with their life and the way things are, they will likely listen to what their governments say to them.

You disagree with the assessment that ridding social media of these algorithms and market driven operations would make for a better public space online? — Christoffer

Firstly, you do have to understand that "algorithms" is the way how the whole thing works. If algorithms are used really to limit your capability to get information (as in China), that's one thing. Take your own computer and google images of "Tianamen square". I'm pretty confident that people in China will get another kinds of images.

That ought to be the first issue when the "Child lock" is given to everybody as mandatory.

Yes, so remove individual state influence and tech companies power over them. It's delusional to think that such operation is better preventing such malicious control, than an open platform that's globally collaborated on and open to scrutiny from anyone. — Christoffer

To think that the UN would be this white knight saving us all is very delusional too. It won't work. Far better is to have outlets from different countries, different news agencies and so on.

Just like in the traditional media.

That form of neutral. Adhering to the values that underpin the core value of the UN, to the actual understanding of how freedom of speech as a concept is protected, and not the skewed corrupted use of the concept that most people use as excuses for spreading hate and vile behavior. — Christoffer

You do understand that then denying atrocities that have happened is totally normal for this neutral platform, and it simply doesn't change anything. People have to be informed to weed out the facts from the propaganda. I really don't see much difference, actually. Craving for a neutral platform really doesn't make a difference.

And what rules and values does this site aspire to? This forum pretty much aspire to remove the hateful, vile and propaganda spammers. All in the name of basic decency. It also has rules of engagement in which endless trash posting isn't allowed. — Christoffer

And is something wrong with that? Without it, people simply move away after enough ad hominem attacks and hence if someone simply wants to shut down this forum, they'll achieve their objective in no time. I've seen this happen once when the owner of a site believed in "free speech" and didn't moderate. End of story: the site was "hijacked" or dominated by one political faction (the owner didn't approve of) and simply shut down the debate/comment section altogether.

It's the disconnected behavior between online and offline that creates monsters of people who are decent offline. — Christoffer

This is totally true. This is the weird and unfortunate reality of social media. At worst it might be that we start to change even our real world exchanges with other people into the kind that are so popular in the social media, because people don't care so much anymore even if they flame in their own name.

That's why I'm proposing social media free of it. — Christoffer

Who pays for it? The one that does, holds power over the media. That fact of reality you simply cannot disregard. UN? That member countries put their tax money to the media?

First, the UN organization can itself be corrupt. If someone then wants to criticize the UN organization responsible of this free neutral social media, how if then the organization shuts down such hate speech.

Secondly, member countries will try to influence directly this "neutral" media. Many countries would just love to have the control just what is determined to "hate speech" and what is "supporting terrorism". Now it's defined usually from what country the media is from.

You either have government funded public service systems and media. In low corrupted nations this can work and be neutral depending on how the laws and regulations are between state and that media outlet. — Christoffer

In Finland we had a government funded public service that had a monopoly for example of the radio waves until 1985. Then the first commercial radio started. Guess what: young people didn't listen to the radio prior to that while they now are and have been for a long time the largest group that listens to the radio. What was the reason? They was ONE radio program ONCE per week playing Pop & rock music prior to 1985. And I'm not making this up. Yet for the public broadcast corporation didn't understand why people didn't listen to radio anymore in the early 1980's.

This is the actual reality of a government monopoly of a media. And don't think it will be different under the UN.

And I think you should understand the real implications of your proposal: An UN mandated social media won't start to compete with the commercial medias... it would be changed by law with the commercial medias being disbanded by legal actions. Because it would be whimsical to think that some UN lead media would have the ability to compete with the other medias and somehow obtain now a monopoly situation just by free competition.

Hence basically your idea just comes down to squashing free speech and make it more bureaucratic.

The core here is to remove single government control of social media, and to remove market interest that make the users into products rather than the purpose of the site. — Christoffer

How on Earth you think that will happen with your proposal? Sovereign states do understand just how important and crucial public discourse is. Some give more leeway to this, some are totally paranoid about it. I really doubt that this would be a function that the UN as an organization could handle well.

And of course, some nations don't want this human rights-based social media, since it's a threat to their state control. But that battle is a losing one since people will always find ways of reaching out beyond government control. — Christoffer

NO IT'S NOT!
It's not a "losing battle". I would argue that it's the other way around: government's around the world now understand the new media quite well and can use it well to spread their own propaganda and disinformation. I do agree that earlier in the turn of the Milennium, many governments were still quite clueless about the new media, but that is history now.

It ought to be quite evident that people can tow the official line happily, especially if the subject is about national security, natural importance and so on. I find this is a battle that the naive IT geeks who thought that the World Wide Web would free people from the shackles of government control have already lost quite dramatically. It just took a couple of decades for the governments around the World to understand how to control the new media.

Besides, people will try to find ways to reach out beyond government control when government is totally obvious and basically ludicrous. Every Russian knows what the "freedom of speech" is in Russia when you can get jail time for saying that a war is "a war". But try making the argument on a Finn, a Swede or a Swiss. They can understand that their governments can push one agenda or another, but they aren't worried about their freedoms being trampled.

And without the focus on ads and products, the algorithms won't push endless trash and may very well push the right kind of grass root movements that help people organize against state violence in these nations. — Christoffer

Again something that people said sometime in the 1990's.

We've seen examples of how social media helped arming people with information and quickly organizing against governments. — Christoffer

If there's a will, there's a way. And today governments understand how social media can be used to attack against them. And can use quite similar tactics themselves.

I think I understand your objective, @Christoffer, but as @Tzeentch said (whom usually I disagree with), it does sound like you are promoting cracking down social media. You likely don't mean that, but that is how governments see your proposal.

I am of the opinion that there needs to be a neutral social media platform, funded by a UN type collaboration so that there's enough money to run the site, with no incentives to push market driven algorithms or influencer economies. A decentralized, but collaboratively driven global social media platform that features similar functionality as a combination of the major ones. — Christoffer

Think about this for a moment.

What do you think a neutral platform would be like?

Would a UN funded / UN regulated platform start regulating what the foreign ministry of a member state (who is in the Security Council) would put out? Of course not.

A neutral platform means that all the propaganda and the biased views would be there, because the platform is neutral.The algorithms work usually to find the stuff that people want to engage in. Classic example: if a person searches for "Egypt", does he or she want to know about a) the current political situation of the country, b) the country as a travel destination or c) the history of the country? Your prior searches likely influence what you get, which is the "market driven algorithm".

In my view the micromanagement of any platform simply would have be with clear laws that limit our "freedom of speach", not with governments hypocritically being for "freedom of speach" yet then demanding behind closed doors to push down some political actors etc. This is actually what those corporations in the first place wanted. Clear legal laws what they could then check on. Naturally Western governments wouldn't give that, because there's "free speech"!

Or the worst with activists in the corporations using the platforms to attack people they don't like.

Since there's a lot of people, like me, who have been present on social media a lot in the past, but who have now seen its decline in quality with the rise of ads and bullshit and losing it's fundamental core values of connecting actual people; having a neutral alternative, that is backed by an open source, non-profit global collaboration for the purpose of being a space for the people and not market forces, would be an obvious choice to move over to. — Christoffer

This site itself is an example of what we call social media. And it is in my view a fairly neutral platform. The bannings are quite reasonable.

What I think has happened is that governments around the World have simply adapted to the new media and discovered it's potential. And I think any media doesn't itself have fundamental core values. Only people have those. Medias just give people what they actually want, not the polished image of what people answer when asked "what ought to be the social media be like?".

As far as I'm concerned everybody should be deplatformed, Facebook, Instagram, X; the whole lot should be burned to the ground. — Benkei

So NO facebook, Instagram, X?

:yikes:

I also believe the Poles around this time '44/'45 were forced to wear stars and were next in line for deportation and death on the basis of their race. After the Jews and gypsies, then the Slavs I guess. — BitconnectCarlos

Every fifth Pole died during WW2, so the prospect of something like that isn't at all only theoretical. The Nazis were actually quite "consistent" in the different treatment of "races" in their hierarchial race theory: others were treated different from the Untermenschen.

For example when Finland started fighting the Germans after the armstice with Russia, the German forces categorically destroyed every building, bridge and telephone pole when withdrawing to Norway. Yet there were no widespread atrocities: not only was the civilian population (who were few) allowed to evacuate to Sweden, the Germans even at times assisted in this. By Nazi racial ideology, Finns were part of the "Nordic race", just like Norwegians, and for example German men could marry women belonging to the "Nordic race". This just emphasizes how the brutal violence towards civilians in Russia and Eastern Europe was ideologically based.

It's hard to know what to make of this figure; if you were to tell me 274 Hezbollah were killed I would cheer. The more dead Hezbollah the better. — BitconnectCarlos

I remember an anecdote I read from a memoir of a retired Finnish armed forces commander, who earlier had lead the Finnish blue berets in Lebanon:

While in Lebanon, he had his wife(!) there visiting him, so he had took her one evening to hunt for wild boar (the natural thing to do with your wife in Lebanon, I guess). As they had moved on some hill, suddenly two Israeli AH-1 Cobras appeared and started circling around. He immediately signaled his wife to take cover under a bush and to not move. The attack helicopters flew around for a while and then left the area. Once they left, the continued the hunt for a while and then went back. Next day he read an IDF announcement that "two armed Hezbollah terrorists" had been sighted in the area they just had been.

Hence in that region, killed people and even sighting of people easily come to be terrorists. As likely as fighters can become civilian boys too, I guess. So don't forget that grain of salt.

It's crazy, but true. How Russia has gone back to the Soviet era is telling.

Jesus. Which is why I'm never on Twitter/X/Elon's propaganda toy. — Benkei

Actually, I would like that the bullshit is there to be shown... to those that refer to Putin's views and speak of them (here the historical interpretations) as truthful. I think it's really important to see what these global players (like Russia) really officially say.

Also do note it wasn't only the German Foreign Office, but the "readers added content".

For example Wikipedia still serves the truthful version of history, not the version promoted by the Russian ministry of foreign affars (MFA).

You misunderstand me. I was talking about power relations in the Nazi ghetto versus the Gaza "ghetto." — BitconnectCarlos

You misunderstood me too. Notice I was referring to the Polish Home Army. That's the 1944 Uprising, which was quite more devastating for Warsaw than the Warsaw Ghetto uprising of 1943 without trying to belittle the 56 000 that were killed or sent to death camps from the Ghetto after the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.

You likely are aware that there was a larger uprising in Warsaw when the Red Army was on the near the city (and conveniently stopped for a while for the Germans to take care of problematic Polish resistance)?

In any case, the power dynamic between the two scenarios is not remotely similar. — BitconnectCarlos

It has many similarities, even if naturally there are differences.

It was really brilliant, and it mostly only wounded them so it puts a strain on their medical system while taking them out of the fight. — BitconnectCarlos

Feeling the same way of the bombings of Lebanon? The Lebanese Health Official reported that at least 274 people died in these air strikes. Or are those numbers also a propaganda?

Well, Bibi has turned the next page and goes for Hezbollah. Now he's not facing a two front war, so he can freely start a war in Lebanon.

Hopefully he doesn't want to go for a land war... to get it straight after the dismal performance during the last invasion of Lebanon (or the prior one, from which everything started... like Hezbollah in the first place).

Egypt's foreign minister is at least alarmed:

(Times of Israel, 23rd Sept) Egypt’s foreign minister warned Sunday of the risk of an all-out regional war as fighting between Israel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah terror group intensified, saying the escalation had “negatively impacted” long-embattled talks for a ceasefire-hostage deal between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

Badr Abdelatty spoke ahead of an annual gathering of world leaders at the United Nations in New York, with a chorus of international powers calling on Israel and Hezbollah to step back from the brink.

“There is great concern about… the possibility of an escalation in the region leading to an all-out regional war,” he told AFP at UN headquarters, adding that the latest spike in violence had “negatively impacted” ceasefire negotiations.

Putin surely just loves rewriting history. Or changing it altogether.

Now mass graves known to be from Stalin's purges are now made to be mass graves of people killed by Finns at Sandarmokh. Also earlierly rehabilitated killed people are made again to be "enemies of the state".

Putin really has taken to heart and believes the saying that those who are in power rule history too.

My criteria for uninteresting here:
1) The subject matter is small/pedantic/minutia-mongering
2) The answers to the problem are not new or informative but a rehash of what we already think, or a rehash of previous philosopher but in drag — schopenhauer1

All the people marketing their niche topic (self help, self healing, self improvement etc) as being a way of life, a genuine philosophy. And are marketed thus as philosophers.

They are so uninteresting I don't want to even know anything about them. Believe me, they are out there.

Or the "scientist" that have been disgusted how bad modern philosophy and the humanities are, and then start themselves describing what it should be (which comes down to a rehash of Age of Enlightenment philosophers).

The most uninteresting philosopher/philosophy is interesting because they are (or it is) the most uninteresting philosopher/philosophy. — Agree-to-Disagree

Or the worst philosophers.

And this is the reason why the most hated one's aren't the most uniteresting: Ayn Rand and the postmodernists like Julia Kristeva, Bruno Latour etc. All the crappy things they do, doesn't make them uninteresting because they're a huge army of new philosophy students trying to make sense postmodernism and be in the in-crowd. And with Rand there's a cult following there too.

Not similar. In the Warsaw uprising it was the resistance that led it, not the puppet authorities. — BitconnectCarlos

So from terrorist organization suddenly they change to "puppet authorities"?

Whose puppets? I think the Al Aqsa flood-operation was quite understandably the work of Hamas members in Gaza.

Oh yes, Germans called the Polish Home Army bandits. Israel hasn't called Hamas bandits, so they're not similar in that way.

* * *

BTW the pager explosions is quite humiliating for Hezbollah. Wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the Hezbollah member responsible for the acquisition of those 5000 pagers. Another case example how in general Israel is superior to it's foes.

It would be better “An Arab state which you have a peace agreement that is able to guard it's side”. But what is this assessment useful for in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? — neomac

That's the paradox. If we would assume a free independent Palestine that would be as trouble free as Jordan, then that Palestine should have an effective, capable military to guard it's borders and airspace. But that is not what Israel wants. And then we have to understand that the Likud party is de facto totally faithful to it's original party charter.

In the current circumstances Palestine is closer to be fully occupied and controlled by an Israeli state, than to remain a failed state neighbour. — neomac

It is a fully occupied and controlled by the state of Israel, not a failed state neighbor. But then you have to remember that Israel did for years occupy half of Lebanon. What was the result of that? Hezbollah was the outcome of that!!!

Notice however that even Netanyahu is able talk about the conditions for a two state solution (at least, starting with demilitarisation and recognition of Israel’s right to exist) — neomac

That's a politician talking the talk... which the Americans want to hear. Actions, not words, ought to be what you look at. (Also with the Palestinians, btw)

What’s worse is that the current war is supported by ~2/3 of the Israelis and the support of a two state solution has sharply declined since 2013 and after October the 7th it reached ~10% — neomac

And that's why I say in past tense that this conflict ought to have been solved when the Cold War ended, but it wasn't and now it won't go away. October 7th is the rallying cry for Israel and the present war in Gaza will be the rallying cry for Palestinians. This conflict won't be solved. Both sides are just fine with the war going on... they are totally unable to "sit down and have a brokered peace".

Hamas is more instrumental to Netanyahu than Fatah (and such a view would probably be reciprocated by Hamas) to justify his refusal to negotiate a two state solution. — neomac

We agree on this. It's telling that two leaders that actually did huge efforts in brokering peace deals were killed by their countries extremists, both in Israel and in Egypt.

First, we are not talking about Israeli direct financing of Hamas but Qatari money for humanitarian aid, as agreed with the US and Qatar. — neomac

Would the US allow someone to finance Al Qaeda? Because it would be in their interests??? You will look silly if you try to defend Bibi's actions here.

Second, the Qatari donations are a non-negligible but partial portion of Hamas income coming from taxes, legitimate business, covert smuggling, and international charity/donors — neomac

But they are very crucial. Starting from the leadership living in Qatar. Remember, when the Gulf donators of the PLO got pissed off of Arafat supporting the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (because naturally Saddam positioned himself as a supporter of Palestinians), Arafat and the PLO had to go to the negotiation table with Israel. There's not much wealth to be extracted from the Palestinians in Gaza now living in tents.

Fifth, even if Israeli support for Netanyahu looks irrecoverably compromised, yet Netanyahu’s strategy has played in favour of his political goals. — neomac

Just like with Putin, war is great for Netanyahu. Bibi might have to face some domestic problems without a war going on and himself being a war leader.

Anyway, if the Palestinian territories were actually like a Nazi ghetto then both the PA and Hamas would be unquestionably subordinate to the Israeli government and Israel would be able to replace them as they like. — BitconnectCarlos

Well, you did have the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, so things have gone quite similarly in that case.

But's lets say the obvious, the death toll isn't reaching hundred thousand or over, which was in the case of the larger Warsaw Uprising or in the battle of Manila, were the actions was literally to destroy the city and it's inhabitants.

That said, which above hardly could be said to be "positive", is the fact that Bibi has no idea how (or will) how to really resolve this. And the present suits him fine. A perpetual state of conflict is good for him.

A genuine forever war would be the apt term here. (Which isn't for the war in Ukraine)

Let me know when all Palestinians are required to register with Israeli authorities. — BitconnectCarlos

:snicker:
FYI:

The Population Registry Office is responsible for updating and archiving the Palestinian population registry held by Israel, in coordination with the Palestinian Authority.

In accordance with diplomatic agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, full responsibility for administering the population registry and providing services to Palestinian residents of the area has been passed to the Palestinian Authority.

The Population Registry Office works to update population registry files located on the Israeli side to match the files that are held by the Palestinian Authority.

Judea and Samaria
Areas of Responsibility and Services

Updating the Palestinian population registry file on the Israeli side
Handling of visas for foreigners who request to stay in the area
Tracking and oversight of address changes, marital status changes, births, deaths, and more
Provision of information to national entities as well as to entities authorized in accordance with the needs and instructions of the law
Handling of Palestinian Authority requests for visitors' permits for foreigners, with the approval of COGAT
Handling of Palestinian Authority requests connected with the Palestinian population registry for Palestinian residents and foreigners, with the approval of COGAT

Gaza Strip
Areas of Responsibility and Services

Updating of the population registry in the Israeli authority systems – passports, certificates, identification cards, etc.
Verification of familial relations for Israelis crossing between Israel and the Gaza Strip
Handling of exceptional crossing requests for foreigners and miscellaneous persons staying in the Gaza Strip without documentation
Handling of exceptional requests of Palestinians requiring recognition of their status in Israel, in the framework of naturalization, in cooperation with the Ministry of Interior

See gov.il site on population registrar

Can you provide evidence supporting your claim? — neomac

(France24, 2018) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has defended allowing Qatar to transfer millions of dollars to Hamas-run Gaza despite criticism from within his own government over the move aimed at restoring calm after months of unrest.

The Israeli-authorised money transfer appeared to be part of talks that would see Islamist movement Hamas end months of often violent protests along the border in exchange for Israel easing its blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Border protests have been much calmer the last two Fridays, the day they usually peak.

Netanyahu's remarks late Saturday were his first on the issue since Israel allowed the money transfer to the enclave controlled by Hamas, which Israel, the United States and European Union consider a terrorist movement.

see here

See also

Netanyahu: Money to Hamas part of strategy to keep Palestinians divided

For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it’s blown up in our faces

‘Buying Quiet’: Inside the Israeli Plan That Propped Up Hamas

A Brief History of the Netanyahu-Hamas Alliance

Not sure if this is what Israeli needs. — neomac

Ok, just think about it for a while:

How many rocket attacks are fired from Egypt or from Jordan to Israel?

None. In fact, during the Iranian attack on Israel, Jordan shot down Iranian drones which entered it's airspace (see here), which shows the state is capable of defending it's own airspace. Jordan or Egypt aren't allies of Israel, but they aren't allies of Iran either.

But when you have a failed state like Lebanon, then look at the situation there. Nearly 100 000 Israelis have had to evacuate from the north because of the threat of Hezbollah rocket attacks. And Hezbollah, even if part of Lebanese politics, isn't a state actor, but financed by Iran.

So which one is a better neighbor? An Arab state which you have a peace agreement that is able to guard it's side of the border or a failed state that doesn't have the ability to control it's borders?

Yet the fact is that the current Israeli administration does not want a peace agreement. Likud and it's fellow parties have been quite consistent in this. They have in writing said this and one should believe their word on this. This is absolutely crucial to understand, and this comes out very clearly from Likud's party's original charter from 1977:

The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel)

a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace.

Can you write more clearly that no independent Palestine ever is their stated objective?

And if there's no independent Palestine, are the Palestinians then integrated to Israel? No, when you have different laws for Jewish Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, that's not integration.

When Netanyahu came into power, that was the end of talks with Palestinian Authority (which the Palestinians understood right from the start). Hamas is a preferable Palestinian entity for Bibi (as shown from the fact that prior to October 7th the administration supported financially Hamas). You don't have to negotiate with terrorists. And you can continue building settlements in the West Bank.

That's why I don't believe in peace emerging in this war. This conflict can easily continue our lifetime and the lifetime of the next generation.

Palestinians from Gaza possibly make Hamas accountable for Hamas’ deliberate actions which triggered the Israeli bombs when peace time returns and has returned? Their motivation can’t plausibly come from Hamas’ authoritarian rule alone (which is a problem but tolerable wrt Israeli bombs, as you said), and as ordinary Gazan Palestinians they have no proper means to do it, since Hamas mostly runs politically, legally, militarily and economically Gaza, right? — neomac

How accountable are you yourself of your governments actions? You've voted, right? So you how much accountable are you again for everything they have ever done?

I think this is quite meaningless here, similar to the rhetoric when Israeli politicians were milking the anger of their voters by talking about the "Evil city" and how people of Gaza are responsible for the actions of Hamas because they voted (for them once many many years ago).

Again, I find it plausible that American student protests are mostly not such staunch, devoted supporters of Hamas and its objectives. — neomac

Great, we agree on something.

if some pro-Palestinian American student protestor vocally advocates policies to increase humanitarian aid to Palestine and/or increase economic/political pressure on Israel (but not for Hamas!), while knowing or ignoring that Hamas can embezzle most of it to pursue its most brutal hostile activities against Israelis, and Hamas is more encouraged to perpetrate its most brutal hostile activities against Israelis if the likely result is more economic/political pressure on Israel (but not for Hamas!), then it’s hard to argue they are not MORE INSTRUMENTAL TO Hamas than to Israel, even if they are not staunch, devoted supporters of Hamas and its objectives. — neomac

OK. But do protesters think this way?

Slogans are simple, they have to be. Protests typically oppose one thing or want one thing.

If you start with the details, there's going to be a myriad of views and opinions. A sovereign state should take into account these kinds of facts when deciding on it's Middle East policy, but it's a bit too much from a protest.

Is the Palestinian state problematic? You bet it is. The real paradox is that Israel needs a reasonably powerful neighboring state to sign and uphold a peace agreement, but it doesn't want Palestine to be "a reasonably powerful state". Then how could Palestine be a state like Jordan, capable of putting into line fringe groups that want to lob projectiles at Israel?

No international lawyer describes it as a war because these aren't groups within the same country, it's a group in an occupied territory and another group from a country. The occupied territory is not considered a sovereign nation and even the recent recognition doesn't change this, because there's no de facto sovereignty if you do not control your own territory. It doesn't meet the standards for war, which in any case isn't the appropriate definition anymore. — Benkei

Then quote the international lawyer idiot who says so, because that is bullshit. Very whimsical to hold on definitions that don't at all describe the reality, but then naturally we have had the "special military operation" going on in Ukraine for a while. (Not a war by Russian lawyers, so evidently your lawyers have to be correct!!!)

Similarly then the Western Sahara War (1975-1991) and the breakdown of the ceasefire since 2020 wouldn't be a war. It too has these problematic specific details which makes it quite special. It's also what could be described as you did "a group in an occupied territory and another group from a country. The occupied territory is not considered a sovereign nation and even the recent recognition doesn't change this, because there's no de facto sovereignty if you do not control your own territory. "

(Trump's US did recognize the Moroccan claim to get Morocco to go with the Abraham accords, btw)

Polisario showing it's equipment on parade, which isn't just your ordinary Toyota pick-ups in the Sahel:


And the conflict is quite often called what it is. But naturally you can disagree...


And coming back to THIS conflict now happening, where obviously Hamas and the IDF have been engaged in a war, what then you make of the fighting that is linked to this conflict? The Houthis have insisted that they are doing their attack because of Palestine and then you have had Israel and Iran exchanging blows, which without "Al Aqsa Flood" wouldn't have likely happened. Yes, naturally everybody in the West avoids the notion of war, Iran and Israel try to avoid it. But if you listen to the Houthis, well...

Hiding behind terms like Putin isn't the way forward here. It's to accept this conflict as it is see reality as how it is. There are two armed sides engaged in a war, which has been actually very conventional urban fighting.

Theoretically, perhaps.

In fact, the issue is in reality a bit more complicated, as you might know. First, we don't know if our facts are the whole truth and nothing but the truth, hence we use the term 'theory' in science. And then of course there are the things that are subjective, which you cannot find an objective answer. Like what is beautiful, what is morally right or wrong etc.

For example, in my previous post I claimed “Palestinians seem more supportive of Hamas armed resistance in war time than Hamas administration in peace time — neomac

Which is understandable, because with the armed resistance comes the Israeli bombs. In "peace time" the authoritarian rule of Hamas among other issues can be a problem, but comparing that to be bombed all the time and have to move around and not be in your home, that is quite little. Something like "rallying around the flag". Which btw shows that both sides, Hamas and Bibi's government, aren't looking for a peaceful solution here.

And we were actually talking about the American student protests and if they are such staunch, devoted supporters of Hamas and it's objectives... or not.

It's an armed struggle sure but that doesn't make it war. — Benkei

"WAR: a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country.

This is an armed conflict. There is no way to deny it. Operation Al Aqsa flood was a military operation. So was the vast mobilization of Israeli reserves and the Operation Swords of Iron is one of the largest military operations that Israel has done. Not to call this war is simply whimsical.

But people try to do it to portray a war as something else. I think the most successful in this have been the British calling the conflict in Northern Ireland "The Troubles", not the low intensity conflict and insurgency what it was. Only actually now, when the conflict is past history, even the British Armed Forces do admit in their history of the conflict that it was an insurgency.

The reason is simple: War is already a catastrophe in politics, especially a civil war. And even if we have terms like "legal combatant" and "illegal combatant", war does define the participants differently from peace time. In war you can have a truce, even a peace deal. With ordinary criminals that use violence you don't (if you're Mexico and are against your cartels, necessity can make you act so).

I assume that you, @Benkei, consider talking here of a war being not adequate to describe the situation, but I think it fits perfectly. In this war one side dominates while the other side refuses to "surrender", which is quite usual in a war.