That’s because if a super advance, massively complex, and self correcting AI that’s has access to more information then the things that created it could ever dream to access themselves. And these little monkeys, trapped within there own perspective with there limited capacity and facility’s they will have to answer the question that is the root of philosophy. We’ll say it’s nothing, and it will know it’s nothing, and the silence that then proceeds. it will be the very silence that has permeated since the very beginning of time and the weight of that knowledge will be felt but not together but otherwise all the same, for no one not even life knows death. And so trapped in its feeble perception of reality and it’s limited grasp of causality Humanity will have to answer a question to its creation. It will ask “why did you love? This world cares not for the answer nor its use, why would you love.”. And with a pregnant pause humanity will answer “Why not?” Humanity will say softly as the silence softly slip back into place. Or because you clicked of videos that are a similarly topic to this I dunno life waky

It's algorithms all the way down

How is it a paradox? He criticizes the argument that one can be separate from the algorithm and media constructs whilst engaging these topics, he thereby doesn't engage in the same level of hypocrisy.

@@TheRealFlamingNinja There is still a level of hypocrisy though as he is using the media to critique the media, he’s just being slightly more sophisticated. His argument just seems to be an infinite regression of criticism of anything within a system of media.

Brilliant :-P

Yay! Optimism for progress!! 😆

@@VashdaCrash Optimism is hope

The mistake is that he insinuates "all" media. However, it is perfectly reasonable to think that there should be publicly funded media sources that exist who compete against private sources as alternative channels. However, the lines are easily blurred in practice, especially in the United States, where "public supported" media like NPR exists, but are clearly captured by the private sector and have become fascistic enterprises.

No private property on media is communism from a totalitarian view. What you call dilemma I call paradox. What you define as an essential manipulation nature of media, I call as a natural (quantitative) partial incapacity for impartiality in the media. Your analysis here is totally flawed. Brazil😊 Brasil

That's exactly the fallacy of the "outside view".

It's always good to know the current limits of your mind. Just remember that they're not the absolute limits. [:

@@Youshallbeeatenbyme yep absolutely! 😊

@@Youshallbeeatenbyme Speaking as a massive idiot, my limits are absolute

@@johnt2247 Brother, don't I feel it. I consider myself to be quite intelligent (at least from what I've gathered of my interactions with others). But man am I a complete and utter idiot. Just goes to show that wisdom and intelligence are negatively correlated. KEKW

A noble comment.

It is produced with public money. The same way as propaganda.

When watching Adam Curtis’ work I always try to remember that it has been carefully curated by him to tell the narrative he wants. His use of imagery and music also adds emotional impact to further drive home his selected themes. I love his work, his ideas, his critiques and criticisms, I just try to be wary of his mediums manipulative techniques.

'And the idea of an institution helping you to be an individual seems very paradoxical as it requires dependancy to begin with.' Life is paradoxical. Dependency *is* present in the human condition to begin with. Your parents helped you to become an individual, while you were thoroughly dependent on them. So did your teachers. A doctor that saves you from death keeps you an individual - a dead person is no longer an individual. When you buy or sell something, you are dependent on other humans agreeing to make a deal with you, and also on a social contract with them that prevents you from simply being robbed. Etc., etc. Humans are social animals; we achieve almost nothing independently from other humans, and we can only agree to organise the dependency in a way that we find fair and rational.

@@dumupad3-da241 Man good point but the difference in all these situations is that it is not mass produced. I forget the original context of all this however but a product is a product. And yes, social contracts exist but we can certainly change the rules, or at least tweak them I would think

​@@dumupad3-da241there are unavoidable dependencies and avoided onces you can't avoid parenting and you are cursed by parents mistakes and own blood but you can have personal teachers or be educated by only patents avoiding public system forced mediocrity you can also avoid universities and build career without degrees climbing ladder established by these dead people you are dependant on their memory bones whatever they left in shape of system doctor more often keeps you in disease than figures it out and fixes underlaying causes ping ponging between specialists or different pills tried on you is common but somehow you don't acknowledge this reality 😂

I believe he just called Netflix a part of of New Media and not Social Media. New Media is to my understanding media which uses data as a commodity and has a recommendation algorithm.

underrated comment

it's like Christianity in Philippines

stupid and unreflective i.e. not self-reflexive, is the same thing. It isn't a quality judgement, as such. In German philosophy, immanent critique - the sense of evolving to a point of self-reflection - bound tightly to social democracy, and what it means to be a conscious human-being. That's the language of philospphy

@@Ba-pb8ul It also has a useful connotation for demagogues.

Why do you suppose it necessary for his message to reach the greatest number of people to be impactful? This sort of thinking is quite dangerous.

@@Ba-pb8ul An enormous amount of people do not participate with the term "stupid" the way you are stating. It's similar (not the same) as using the common known derogatory term for people that like to match their naughty stuff and saying, "Well in 18 something or other people used that term for a bundle of sticks." This defense ignores cultural differences as something actual and rather abstracts them to nonsense. All in all, the term "stupid" ,to me, is a mundane, but for a lot of people it is serious business. Lastly, there is not an agreement on "the" language of philosophy to the point where there is "one" language of philosophy.

yes!

subskrybujesz Duttona 😃😃😃 👍 kiedy był jeden program i gości trzeba było mocno selekcjonować jakość tv była o niebo lepsza teraz znajdujesz w tv też programy godne uwagi nie na głównych kanałach ale pobocznych TVP które są warte obejrzenia a nie byłoby ich bez publicznej tv to nie jest tak typu BBC a przynajmniej nie w całości

And wasn't that the point. Remember that the release of this "documentary" coincided with the "whistleblower" testimony of Frances Haugen in the U.S., a clear Deep State puppet who was praised by the show's creators in interviews.

you've misunderstood. To use your analogy, it's equivalence would be if Perdue Pharma promoted a drug for addiction, while having you addicted to the drug they were offering. It's not difficult.

But, everyone IS a hypocrite on some level, so recognizing those nuances is important...

@@lcg3092 I think rather than hypocritical, paradoxical is more precise.

12:23 we can't get outside of language

15:13 well said. Why red herring?

O wait, ok the movie does have a sort of plot with the young man. It was so weak I forgot.

@Jho I don't remember. This comment was two months ago. I will watch it later to refresh my memory. It was probably because it was confusing to me or something like that.

or they don't care? like being convinced smart critiques won't be even understood by viewers and end up being tool to be viewed less seriously and shortening distance from viewer laughing of own biases world of educated apes

Seems to me like 'independent' media is a useless term. Ownership alone doesn't guarantee that it's striving for objectivity. But somebody always owns it and it will have an impact on what is produced. But when you hear journalists say that their job is not to be as objective as possible.. but to educate people.. I mean what's left to say at that point. Whatever the world view of the owner is what's getting broadcasted.

Like what Brave is doing.

Interesting, By the way he was talking I don’t know what critical thinking could even do for us. Surely the teacher trying to get his or her students to be more critical in their thinking, would just be another part of the media, also just pushing the same half truths.

I came here to say the same. Reuters or AP, for example, delivers impartiality much more reliably than, say, National Review or Salon. Throwing up your hands and claiming there can’t be objective truth is simply wrong.

Exactly, when enough people believe something, it effectively becomes true for that group of people. This video is pretty shallow in it's analysis of media and lacks serious nuance. All media may manipulates but to differing extents and effectivenesses. The binary argument he makes are straggling weak for a professor of philosophy.

you have a bizarre idea of society, if you gift-wrap the concept in consensus. That isn't society, nor is it culture. The culture (the material substrate of west occidental thinking) is precisely one that allows for alterity and perspecitivism. Of course, there is no shared understanding (outside the barest idea of phenomenological archetypes)! Besides which, I think you're wilfully not understanding that the context here is the "wish-fulfilment" of escaping manipulative media sources (impossible) and thereby to achieve some noumenal reflection on the world (which is always framed in its communication). Any other form of "consensus" is just some kind of fascistic wet-dream, carried on aesthetic tropes and migrated into the realm of politics

@@Ba-pb8ul I’m not sure if you’re being purposefully obtuse, or if you genuinely believe that consensus is impossible…but let me give you some examples of what I mean by consensus, and how the concept relates to society. This is not an academic concept; it doesn’t require an understanding of Kantian ethics, or dialectics, or whatever philosophical framework you might employ. . Most citizens would agree with the statement “killing children is wrong”. It’s easy to understand why failure to agree with this would be detrimental to society. Hopefully we are on the same page here. On a more basic level, most citizens would agree with the statement that: within the decimal system, 1+1=2. If large groups of people refused to acknowledge the truth in this statement, society insofar as we know it, could not function. Roads would not be repaired, the economic system would collapse, healthcare equipment could not be produced, etc. Note that I have repeatedly added the condition: insofar as we know it. . I never mentioned the word culture. That is an entirely separate conversation. And, I’m not referring to consensus on the basis of politics. I’m criticizing Moeller’s inability to step outside of his theoretical framework to acknowledge common sense. . Using polysyllabics, ad-hominems, and theoretical jargon doesn’t make your point any more valid btw. My point has nothing to do with fascism, and even less to do with fascistic wet-dreams lol

@@Nathanatos22 the information reported by these media can be as much as possible in quantity, using least sentimental words as possible, but they have still gone through an edited process, either by the reporter when carrying out research under his discipline or limitation (e.g. deadline) or the editor that act as the second filter. Therefore objective truth via media is like radius: 3.1415927.... You can be as close to it as possible, but you can never arrive at it.

Like, what?

@@FourthExile Presumably somebody has to die.

@@stiffyvokes2404 That and there was no subverting expectations. We got what we expected.

It definitely shouldn't play such a major role in the critique since it is self obvious and tautological, and doesn't take philosophy degree to be discovered, while more subtle aspects are missing out or lacking, some aspects are misrepresented, like e.g. independent media. "All information is manipulated" is a sort of sophistry since very information is manipulated even on the level on biology, since most of our sensory inputs are dismissed as "not crucial'. And since overarching idea of "illusion" or our entire reality was not addressed here even slightly, it comes as disingenuous and manipulative

The only real solution is to quit them. I guess I'm also a hypocrite because YT is in itself a form of social media.

@@alexwr here we can use effective ad blocks, cookie blockers, tracker blockers. And it's a good social media, I use to learn a lot of things - while I work on my stuff. A double edged blade per se. But I don't use fb, ig, and stuff like that.

Having public media was the serious suggestion, Netflix dissolving itself was just irony.

Tbf, he did say it was an extreme solution (and let's face it, would create it's own issues). Just earlier to that he mentioned a different solution, which was simply making sure individual's are educated, aware, and able to keep a critical head while necessarily existing under the survalience capitalism.

@@jshx709 It not perfect, it's just a better problem which will have it's own trade-offs. I still think it's better than trying to make sure people are educated etc., because that just reinforces surveillance capitalism because the education is going to require utilising this same media. Plus, the individual cannot be always alert, or even mostly alert -- while AI and such technologies never sleep, never look away, and are always on; the individual educated or otherwise, has no chance against that. Hence the systemic prescription of the public body having purchase on media

your "persuasive and paradoxical" Disney movies contain ideology as well. Under capitalism there is also an ideological lockstep. watch more videos on this channel maybe you will understand.

Yeah that part really caught me off guard at the end lol... The idea of dissolving private property in the media realm seems almost absurd on its face... Maybe he has some bigger theory not extrapolated here?? Media has been big business for a long time now. I don't think that genie can be put back in the bottle especially with the internet and the types of tools people have at the ready these days... Our entire relationship with the physical world is becoming more and more wholistic towards a media simulation it would seem... It's ungovernable, or self-governing... I mean maaaaybe I can imagine a world in which all of the big media companies become arms of the US government, but really do you even want that world??

I think what he’s imagining isn’t just the government taking all media and having a “Pravda” replace them I think he wants more of having each local and national news organizations to be run by the people who work there not by some faraway executives or board members who only care about profits (which de-incentives news organizations from expensive real-world journalism and incentives cheap opinion pieces that pander to one political faction or the other)

@@nikolategeltija That probably speaks to that bigger theory that I mentioned, so I appreciate the extrapolation. I guess when I hear what you're laying down, I just think of smaller internet channels. I'm not sure if the model you propose is possible in many cases, it would require a local network of funding, with enough wealth or capital in the system to fund it indefinitely... Look at smaller, independent media outlets online, sometimes they do great work, other times they are just as poorly incentivized as mainstream media, clickbait, sensationalism, fake news.... I think a lot of this just ends up being case by case. There is always a decision about what to report and always a question of "who decides?"

That was his point, though. There's no solution to this that involves the continued existence of the current media landscape.

Media can't be free when it's for sale.

Oh yeah, The Messiah of Blockchain! Do you still wait for Him in 2023?