I'll give you a hint though - the article doesn't even quote him, it just puts out a spicy headline.

What he actually said and the context:

"Ban social media. Keyboard warriors can anonymously say anything at all. Without any fear.", with regard to a misinformation bill.

Considering the sources deliberately stripped everything of context and you've repeated it without checking, would you say we have a misinformation problem with media in general, or social media?

This is about legislation penalizing social media companies for shoving algorithmic slop down the throats of consumers.

But if we want to introduce political figures and their thoughts on social media; the traditional opposition party is lead by this man - someone willing to manipulate the public with social media.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2026/feb/12/fantastic-gr...

And the newer wonderkid of the media is engaged in widespread slopaganda: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-11/foreign-fake-news-pau...

By 1992! We knew about withdrawal issues: https://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/SSRI_discontinuation_syndr...

Let's be generous and give it until the 2000s for the knowledge to spread and science to validate; and we're still left with 26 years of blundering around without IMO sufficient warning to patients about withdrawal risks.

I would wager some of the doctors who prescribe today were well past a glint in their father's eye when we started to know about this.

https://www.commonplace.org/p/reining-in-the-unaccountabilit...

In this case this person was "responsible for getting five- to 12-year-olds to play football in the Hunter region".

She would have the occasional exposure to children, market to them, gather statistics and survey them. She asked if she could not expose this group to AI and the answer was "no".

These mainstream journos would have to exist in a clean room environs.

Or set up a maproulette challenge with much the same detail.

Or just a geojson dump under an ODBL licence and share with with relevant communities. The third one or something very like it is required if you have mixed ODBL with non ODBL content.

1) Impromptu yoga class brunch. No one says "oh, who needs to top up their parking since we'll be an extra hour"; so it's technology at fault that they got a notification half way through, not the people involved? The consequence was no one got ticketed?

2) 6 people with 6 phones, some of them the "latest iPhones" scanned a QR code once each, after struggling; chose their meals, didn't pay via the app, and it created a shared bill with complete loss of who ordered what.

I have never used a QR code ordering system this bad. The only way this makes sense is if they all told a staff member what they were having from reading an online menu. Paper menus would not have changed this. A restaurant wouldn't typically use a solution so bad, it'd be gone in a few weeks if they have any kind of autonomy.

How did these people live through COVID and never encounter a QR code they had to scan with a phone? Is this elderly yoga? Or ultra rich kids with butlers their entire lives? It doesn't make sense that they are so technologically illiterate any other way.

3) They all paid, but the only information they could see was the remaining amount unpaid. At the end, the last person paid; and the staff told them there was 24Dh outstanding - and this was a surprise. The last person just left without mentioning this, or their eyes don't work? How is having the only piece of information visible to you the bit that causes the surprise?

None of this makes sense to me as internally consistent. Yes, the writing style doesn't look ChatGPT flavoured, there are mistakes in it to appear more human; but the cognitive model of how things work seems to be utterly inhuman.

https://youtu.be/sgspkxfkS4k?si=JgnhenF0qeTZXeGS basically explains the situation.

While having data/code stolen isn't ideal, there is a certain point where you need to assume it's already out there. There's actually more probability of harm from shady US companies imo, because people are less suspicious about data sovereignty

Simple example: Who will renew the SSL cert? Day 1: meh, no impact. Day 2: meh, no impact. Day 700: who the hell manages this and why are we making no revenue?

You might think that is laughable; what a pack of newbs!

But this stuff has already happened without even LLMs in the mix.

https://www.digicert.com/blog/lessons-from-the-equifax-data-... comes to mind.

The number of flea circus level orgs where someone has flubbed it and been on leave, causing a few hours outage? More than one in my experience.

Where it's more hostile? https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/1itiu8n/it_team_f... is a common narrative.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2799035/

Smart people drink and smoke more; not less, potentially to self sooth/deal with the oppressive reality they find themselves in.

It is more like being a firefighter and being opposed to airlifting icebergs to drop on fires.

Sure, you'll get water eventually and you might even extinguish a fire; but how long does it take to organise and deliver, what can go wrong in the process, what are the consequences of a mistake like dropping it prematurely, and why are we ignoring the honking great big cheap river right next to the house fire we are fighting?

It's like expecting a fish to stop swimming - it feels like it's suffocating, it's going to panic and do everything it can to get back into the water, get moving again. The fish isn't playing 4d chess, it's just flipping all over the place until it feels safe again, and then probably forget all of the chaos minutes later.

How much this is applicable to the other examples - Musk, Napoleon - unclear. But saying they do "stupid" things without looking at why they might do stupid things is reductionist/overly simple/can PROBABLY be answered with psychology in most cases.

Here's a 3 minute explainer from the researcher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ1fSW7zevE

This model defines a few different categories of how people respond - "Withdrawal","Attack-Self" and "Avoidance", "Attack-Other".

If you were to look at your comments through the threads here, would you be able to classify your responses as matching any of the categories above?

As a hint, you may be surprised to learn the person with multiple comments in question I was referring to isn't you. Yet you've sought this out and decided the most suitable response to why are two groups posting responses at different rates is to attempt to relitigate an imagined argument.

IE; just looking at their puff piece demo for https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxKghrZU5w8

- semantic data integration/triplestores/linking facts in a database.

- feature extraction from imagery / AI detection of objects as an alarm

- push to human operators

You or I might expect this to be held to a high standard - chaining facts together like this better be darned right before action is taken!

But what if the question their software solves isn't we look at a chain of evidence and act on it in a legal/just/ethical manner but we have decided to act and need a plausible pretext; akin to parallel construction?

When you assess it by that criteria, it works fantastically - you can just dump in loads and loads of data; get some wonky correlations out and go do whatever you like. Who cares if its wrong - double checking is hard work; someone else will "fix" it if you make a mistake; by lying, by giving you immunity from prosecution, by flying you out of state or going on the TV, or uh, well, that's a future you problem.

To take a non US example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robodebt_scheme

Debt calculations were flat out wrong

The unstated goal/dogwhistle at the time was to punish the poor (cost more than it would ever recover)

It was partially stopped after public outcry with a few ministerial decisions.

It took years; people dying; a royal commission and a change of political party to put a complete stop to it.

No real consequences for the senior political figures who directly enacted this

Limited consequences for 12 of 16 public servants - no arrests, no official job losses, some minor demotions.

If the goal of the machine is to displace responsibility; the above example did its job.