I’m waiting for the ultimate edition that will include everything here

I’m all for putting some blame on the West, but the responsibility for the human rights abuses in these countries currently lies much more with their rulers than anyone else. And they are not just “right wing” by western standards, as there is also virtually no “left wing” over there that I know of by the same standards. I think that resorting to a leftie “colonialism bad” and “right wing bad” argument waves away the role of religion and local culture. It is, in essence, a very western critique I feel. Far from being an expert on this myself, just my 2c.

Maybe that person had trouble adjusting to SK life and was missing his country and/or people back home. Nothing to see here. It is only “surprising” because presumably they took some risk in leaving and because we only ever hear about NK in the context of its authoritarian government and it being some dystopian nightmare presumably, though if we’re being honest most of us don’t know two shits about the country and I bet to some people it’s simply home.

Why does anyone want to go back to any country that others are desperate to leave? For reasons…

I think you have expressed my fear quite well. Maybe it is as I feared. I don’t know much about Sweden, but I do have the feeling that the far right everywhere gets brownie points for just naming things the left will leave untouched (with a huge amount of hyperbole, racial hatred and scapegoating to be sure). I’m not in any way trying to force an “immigrants bad” argument, just fearing that a surge in crime involving migrant populations benefits the far right disproportionately, especially if the rest of the political spectrum seem unable to effectively address the issue in a more socially productive and progressive manner.

So, if i got this right, you seem to be implying that immigrants, or at least non-native Swedes as some may have citizenship, don’t know, are implicated in this violence, right? But that the situation today is a result of several policy failures by different governments and it’s not necessarily something to be tied to more recent waves of immigration. It wasn’t clear from the article. I just wanted to understand whether this plays right into the far right playbook once more. Of course poverty is a common factor in crime, but (unfortunately) the topic currently dominating European politics is immigration, and a surge in crime is an almost certain win for the extreme right in this climate.

That is not what I said, but ok, let’s leave it at this :)

Ok I’m going to ask the question that the article doesn’t address and also the question that will make all the progressive people on here uncomfortable: how does immigration play into this? Does it? Sweden is known for having a high percentage of foreign-born residents, most of them from outside the EU. It is the frequent punching bag of the extreme right for that reason and for its historically progressive policies. A far right that has been making gains there, as elsewhere. Is this an issue? Has Sweden failed to integrate foreigners who are now increasingly involved in the illegal drug trade and ensuing crime or are these unrelated?

Ooph, there the same issue again, about what we consider “propaganda”. I have yet to meet someone with objective standards on this, who is able to hold people he agrees with politically to the same standard. Many on here also seem to hate the MBFC ratings that were added to at least create some baseline. So, at the end of the day the value judgements people make on these matters are more often biased than not. Anyway, I am actually interested in even “mouthpieces”, as I am always curious how the other side actually defends what they do, and they could be just marked as such for the avoidance of doubt.

…and that is the problem with banning people for their views… sooner or later an echo chamber becomes boring. And they too will probably go elsewhere, where their views will go unchallenged as well. Fast forward a few years and everyone becomes ever more convinced of their own sectarian “truths”.

Unless he was particularly obnoxious about it, don’t know the story 🤷🏻‍♂️

This thread is like a lesson in the importance of x and y axes range in time series plots

Nothing is surprising about nations allying to advance common geopolitical and economic interests. Perhaps you are perturbed by the fact that these are not the US and its allies, who have indeed defined the world order in recent years, after the end of WW2 and especially after the fall of the USSR. I don’t think anyone is surprised - let alone failing to recognize - that the current world order is being challenged. Of course that does unfortunately mean a more uncertain and likely conflict-ridden future for all of us. But there are also those who look forward to a multipolar world, or at least the decline of “the West”, because it didn’t exactly serve everyone in the world equally well.

Granted, our tendency towards anthropomorphism is near ubiquitous. But it would be disingenuous to claim that it does not play out in very specific and very important ways in how we speak and think about LLMs, given that they are capable of producing very convincing imitations of human behavior. And as such also produce a very convincing impression of agency. As if they actually do decide things. Very much unlike dice.

You make a fair point. Not all “disappearances” are made equal. Unfortunately some people on here (and many out there) love taking sides, and once they have, they find it difficult to process anything with a certain critical distance. Maybe it didn’t help that your original comment sounded very dismissive, as if any such claims in Western media are more likely to be BS than not. We don’t know that. At least I don’t know that. One could of course collect data on that, could be an interesting little project. I’m sure there are folks tracking disappearances and disappearance claims.

I try to take such claims seriously and I think we all should, just in case there’s any truth to them and someone is actually kidnapped. Of course knowing that they may not have been. Flagging certain individuals as potentially at risk isn’t wrong per se. But I get your point about how it is a relatively easy claim to make and exploitable politically. Still, I think it should be taken seriously, just in case.

The AI did not “decide” anything. It has no will. And no understanding of the consequences of any particular “decision”. But I guess “probabilistic model produces erroneous output” wouldn’t get as many views. The same point could still be made about not placing too much trust on the output of such models. Let’s stop supporting this weird anthropomorphizing of LLMs. In fact we should probably become much more discerning in using the term “AI”, because it alludes to a general intelligence akin to human intelligence with all the paraphernalia of humanity: consciousness, will, emotions, morality, sociality, duplicity, etc.

Interest trumps principles usually.

Nice but paywalled for me

I think you’re making a valid point about fleeing persecution, which is a perfectly rational decision for one’s self-preservation, but the keyboard warriors will downvote you because it sounds like you’re advocating for relinquishing Palestinian lands to Israel.

It was a more optimistic time, perhaps a more naive time depending on your perspective. A time when most people felt that crowds were wise and the truth would surface spontaneously. Where the internet would help us spread knowledge and democracy and none of the bad things. Where conspiracy theories, disinformation, outright hatred and bigotry were considered fringe phenomena that could be kept at bay. When people would point to 4chan as the worst the internet had to offer, if they even knew about it. Where politicians and their voters could argue passionately, without necessarily feeling that other side are “extremists” or “fascists” who would literally “destroy our country” if they win an election.

The world is cracking at the seams lately and this leads more people to wanna put the brakes on the internet. Liberals especially, witnessing with horror the surge of the far right and attributing it in part to the internet’s ultimate ability to amplify anything, any voice, any shitty little take, no matter how extreme, how misinformed, or bigoted. Most likely misinformed and bigoted with someone like Musk at the helm, the thinking goes. In short, liberals have shifted from the exuberant naïveté of the past to protection mode, trying to stem the tide of right wing populism and perhaps ultimately fascism. And thus will come off as overbearing censors to anyone who doesn’t understand why they do what they do or is still optimistic that a lack of censorship will only lead to good things.

Freedom only works with a social contract in place, some consensus, some ground truths about the world that we can all agree on. Or that a solid, relatively stable majority at least can agree on. When that starts to break down, freedom to say and do whatever you want online may in fact bring the downfall sooner by stoking the fires of division. Of course the likes of Musk probably do think that they are fighting the good fight and are championing free speech, but increasingly he seems to be shifting to the right politically, and rather fighting for his presumed right to shape the world in his image and grow his business empire unchecked, if anything, and not some ideal of freedom and democracy. The likes of him, businessmen with nearly unchecked power and ultimately more concern for their business and personal aspirations than democracy, are probably going to become a bigger threat to our freedoms than the government of Australia. Maybe. Probably.

I personally do think that liberals have often gone overboard in their speech policing zeal, but on the other hand understand why they do what they do. Policing the internet seems like a much easier alternative than actually addressing all the major, sometimes seemingly existential socioeconomic challenges liberal democracies face today. The latter would deprive right wing populists and extremists of much of their influence, but is of course way, way harder than policing speech.

You weren’t alone in this