Richard Foster

Why does your competition depend on having an account on a social media site run by a white supremacist spreading extreme right wing and facist ideas? And whom engineers the site to spread those poisonous views further

Come on. Be better than this.

This is a take.

A very wrong, stupid one.

So like maternity leave.....

Well given that they will abolish the NHS, I suspect that health care for poorer or even general working people won't be a high priority

I think it means that this joke will be the death of you

I can't quite believe a US govt dept asks for (dodgy) AI advice openly on social media.

The story isn't the answer from the idiobot.

Why is a major US government department asking a (dubious at best) AI for advice?

And openly on social media?

But it is different today.

But given it was 50 years ago, does it not just reflect the age?

Was music political in the 1920s/30s?

Probably reflects the way music has become corporatised.

Also that the dividing lines on class (whilst still important) are less striking than those on age (read: wealth) and education.

Yes, I agree.

But it's also a huge mistake (as has been made with both trump and musk imo) is to treat them as some kind of polymath geniuses. Who then become infallible and *they themselves* then believe the same.

It becomes a self reinforcing delusion that their worldview is the right one

I firmly believe that one of the key things we can as humans is to understand:
(a) We are all biased
(b) We all have limits and need to know where they are
(c) We have gaps in our knowledge and should acknowledge it.

I'm not saying they are stupid! You misunderstand I think.

I'm saying that their life experience and/or a lack of knowledge *in some (many?) areas* leads to the sorts of warped ideas they come out with.

Also. Famously the libertarian right is not big on the arts.

Nor nuance.

Nor data that conflicts with a specific worldview.

Therefore much like conspiracy theories, every thing can be morphed to fit your prior beliefs if you *really* try hard enough

The simplest explanation is that they aren't very bright. Outside a very narrow channel.

How is that legal?

Why is the 1980s the "utopia" they aspire to?

YouTube video by aformalevent my own sense of self satisfaction

youtu.be/LvUItaradGE?...

Not the right kind of free speech obvs

Journalists would need to be able to understand the papers first....

Apart from a few notable exceptions, the scientific understanding, for example, in journalists is often v v poor.

Which is why eg stories around climate change with eg Laura k/Chris mason devolve to horse race political stories

I also did this for nearly 2 years

If you want to learn something, I recommend Georgina Sturge's books. I've read bad data. She's written another one this year and also has a substack.

Muting this thread now.

It wouldn't make it easier.

ID cards are about making your life, my life and everyone else's life easier.

They are about making government spending better targeted and more efficient - and less wasteful.

Get your head out of the immigration nonsense. It's not the argument.

But the important point is - it doesn't make it any difference.

Racist, authoritarian governments will find ways to do what they're going to do. As per previous - see the US.

ID cards **will make no difference** to your fear

Also: We are 4 years from a GE. Current polling is predictive of nothing

...based on some characteristic (e.g. skin colour).

But authoritarian governments don't need IDs to do that. They just attack the people they don't like.

Look at the US - they don't have ID.

Look at Germany, Holland, most of the EU - they have ID.

What's your **specific** objection?

No, it's not. I point you to Georgina Sturge's Book: "Bad Data" for a fuller explanation.

But the short version is that it allows better data for better decisions and more efficient funding.

The dystopian idea you have in your head is that certain groups of people are going to be targeted....1/2

A racist authoritarian govt doesn't need IDs to do the things you're afraid of.

What the IDs would do is provide (particularly local) government with up to date accurate data to allow improved funding for services.

And reduce bureaucracy for people to access those services.

...in an efficient manner.

A 10yr census model is inaccurate a couple of years after. And expensive.

ID cards give up to date information for a lot less cash.

And it reduces all the bureaucracy in access to services at a local level

I point you at Georgina Sturge's excellent book: 'Bad Data'

Making an ID card argument based on immigration is bizarre.

But to your point. See Rob Ford's thread on this this morning - it's not about selling your data or surveillance or any of that.

The case for ID cards is precisely the about making sure the right funding goes to the right places..... 1/2

A smart well informed reporter would then make the point that Thalidomide was the reason we have rigorous RCTs for new drugs and the modern way of testing and tracking links.

WTF are you on about? I was talking about what council tax actually is spent on.

If you want to talk about central govt funding - the amount of capital projects and funding London and SE gets (per capita) is ridiculous - all based on biased funding formulae.