Very clever

The vagueness is the point. Vague laws transfer the power to those who enforce it (ACAB) who get to decide if that law applies in that case.

It’s the same strategy used by the Spanish inquisition. Who’s a witch? Keep it vague, and that answer becomes fully arbitrary and dependent on different social factors (such as people trying eliminate others and take their land by using such accusations). It also encourages everyone else to “signal” that they’re not whatever the bad label is… as a precaution. Preemptive antiantifa. This is basic conservative society shit.

We saw the same thing since 2020 with the right-wing turning mask wearing into a signal for “weakness & femininity” and “leftism”, and large numbers of conservatives decided that it was better to get COVID-19 and long COVID. Note that this wasn’t STATE controlled, but it wasn’t organic either, it was more of a private astroturfing phenomenon.

I’m not sure what the solution is, and I doubt that it’s just one single thing, but I’d love to see some ideas.

Peat should be treated as the worst type of coal. Using it for horticulture is also an issue, at the very least due to the peat extraction being horrendously damaging ecologically and for the climate.

Drill baby’s future, drill!

Crowd-sourced debunking is no match for organized disinformation campaigns in the midst of information vacuums during a crisis. The conditions for the rapid and unchecked spread of misleading, and outright false, content could get worse with Meta’s content moderation policy and algorithmic changes.

sigh

Crowd-sourced isn’t going to work well. The crowd is too small; anyone who’s been dealing with the false skeptics of climate science for decades knows this, and it’s only escalating now with rising popular conspiracy theories bolstered by social media algorithms and engaging formats (like short videos).

The whole premise of this crowd-sourced debunking is based on the idea that there are a lot of smart people out there with a lot of free time. Of course, getting paid would add another layer of problems to it as it look like a conflict of interests.

We need to demand moderation and “clean information” like we demand clean water. If the providers are failing to deliver, they need to face serious legal threats for it. And if that means shutting down social media platforms, then that’s the rational thing to do.

edit: And if the problem is that the providers are providing “for free”, then we need to make sure that this business models faces the consequences. Get them to pay users for the information if the business is based on monetizing information. In that case, they won’t want “more engagement” and “more users” so much. If not, well, systems for more safe and secure subscriptions should help.

Make them smaller, lighter, fewer wheels, and add two pedals.

Why Norway is rethinking its reliance on electric cars | Vox

It would also be nice of Norway to stop exporting so much oil.

It’s amazing and terrible that so few people are getting how this works.

The climate going to shit should be the #1 news story on TV and the internet everywhere. Yes, it’s more important than money.

If everyone’s just OKAY with living for the short-term regardless of the risk of edging closer to extinction, then we need to all be upfront and make that a petition, a referendum, a signed suicide letter.