* "Amusing ourselves to death": visual media is fundamentally different from writing and that impacts society. As a medium it supports certain messages better than other, ex. emotion.
* "Technopoly": defines the difference between tool-using and technocratic societies and impacts it has on society.
* "The End of Education": what is the purpose of an education system.
Attention is a limited resource. When people spend it on something, they cannot spend it on something else at the same time. If you want to get away with something unpopular, do lots of unpopular things so the really bad stuff gets mixed in with all the rest. From the outside, it all looks very benign and random.
> The absolute largest change I would expect would be to end birthright citizenship for children whose parents illegally entered into the US and have never had a visa of entry permit of any type whatsoever.
That's the vibe I get.
However, I don't see a definition of jurisdiction in the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" that would make this workable. How do you see this being resolved?
At a much higher level, this court seems to be attempting to slowly and carefully reign in the power of the federal government.
I expect that there will be enough of a headline here for the Trump administration to hold it up as a victory, while being so narrowly defined that it will only apply to a relative handful of individuals.
The court's interest here is most likely a precedent that will be applicable in subsequent cases. It could conceivably end up establishing a new, weaker form of Chevron deference where ambiguity is interpreted in the light most beneficial to the People.
I think the court is trying desperately to avoid having to rule on anything and will slow walk this until it hopefully goes away, while giving the admin virtual carte blanche to do what they want.
I can see why you'd say that, but I'm actually thinking on a longer timeline. They've been trending that way for almost a decade now, and seem to be accelerating a bit. Most recently, the overturning of the Chevron deference doctrine comes to mind, and that was in July 2024.
The precursor to this case is Trump v. CASA[0], which arose from injunctions blocking the executive order banning birthright citizenship. The case made it to the supreme court on the emergency docket. The court did not address the merits of the case (i.e. is the ban on birthright citizenship constitutional), rather they heard an argument against universal injunctions and the authority of a judge to block executive order. The court judged against universal injunctions. Basically the EO stands.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs forced a certified class and sought a class-wide injunction. This case is called Trump v. Barbara. SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case on the question of the constitutionality of a ban on birthright citizenship.
EDIT: The Trump v. CASA opinion handed a win to the executive to issues orders without universal injunctions blocking the order immediately. My hot take is that this was part of the original strategy. Not sure how the court will land on the current question at hand.
Lumping AI together with social media is confusing for me. One is a tool for the user, the other is not.
If social media is a tool for anything, it is for the company to generate ad revenue. Sure there is value someone can extract (keeping in touch family). But I can also extract value from junk mail (using it as scrap paper for notes and lists.)
AI is still a tool. I think? I have not seen any direct way that monetizes it through ads, yet. I expect AI with a revenue model will look way worse.
AI is turning people dumb. I see it all the time with code slop. It's the old "give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish". Maybe a tool-using approach to AI is "should me how to do this", rather than "do this for me". "Show me an example of some code" is more useful to me than unleashing it on my project.
Also, social media is obviously a sort of digital narcotic. Probably should be scheduled.
I suspect that's how it started and then put it out there and gained momentum. Possibly as a joke.
As a note on satire, is there a term for satire which is perpetuated for long enough that is take seriously at some point by someone?
I have been referring to this pattern as "the pizzagate phenomenon". Basically, making a joke repeatedly until it reaches an audience that's not in on the joke. It is not quite a "self-fulfilling prophecy.
> Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture which states that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent (such as an emoticon or a disclaimer), it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views.
This "law" describes exactly the scenario you've outlined: a joke or satirical statement, especially online where tone and body language are absent, is perpetuated long enough that it reaches an audience not "in on the joke" and is subsequently believed to be a genuine viewpoint.
Specifically to prepoison the collective consciousness to gloss over the newly revealed facts that real active politicians have participated in a large international trafficking ring
It's nice having a device not connected to the internet.
In the past I used jellyfin.
reply