/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

So there was a story about the FBI having pulled a big sting operation where they posed as "secure smartphone vendor" to spy on a bunch of drug dealers. Somebody made a video about it in case you care about the details
https://farside.link/invidious/watch?v=P5yPBV2NKhc

What i realized is that many people seem to think the mafia operates in a manor that is invisible to the state. The obstacle the police protagonist has to overcome is discovering the mafia. When they do find them, the mafiosi get busted. And in this story this struggle was overcome via this one new honey-pot surveillance tool.

The mafia may indeed be mostly invisible to average people, but that has nothing to do with evading the state. The Mafia operates with bribes and blackmail, not stealth. A mafia operation will usually corrupt people in policing organizations like the FBI to interfere with investigations on their behalf. That can be police officers getting bribed/blackmail to make evidence disappear. One mafia org will some time rat out another, which reduces competition between mafias and quells suspicions about police corruption.

The reason why the smartphone surveillance trap was effective indicates that the mafia hasn't fully adapted to new realities, and they have yet to insert "fixers" into the FBI's IT divisions. It's not because better surveillance changed the game. The police was always able to find mafia orgs, mafia's are anything but subtle. Reminder that from the outside it's impossible to tell if this very successful operation facilitated a deeper goal of purging mafia competitors.

Lets not forget that the biggest drug trafficking mafias are spy agencies that use it to create untraceable funding for their secret spy stuff and it turns out sometimes the state is the mafia.

So the US recently has banned the exports of Nvidia's dedicated AI chips towards China, as part of an expanding US tech-blockade. The official rationale is that this will prevent China from having "advanced ai capabilities" or something. With the subtext being that the US is the arbiter of what kind of technology China is allowed to have.

In reality this cuts off Nvidia from the Chinese AI-chip market. With some delay Nvidia products will be replaced by domestically developed and produced Chinese Ai-chips. Effectively inverted-protectionism. Nvidia is currently overpoweringly dominant in the Ai-accelerator space. If normal capitalist market relations had continued, no Chinese competitor would have been able to establish it self as a serious contender against NVIDIA in this decade. The Sanctions will only prevent Nvidia from selling products in China it will not prevent the Chinese from doing industrial espionage.

China is a huge market 3-4 times larger than the US market. So this artificially created AI-chip vacuum will be filled by another Chinese tech-giant that will explosively grow in the next few years. We can compare this story with the Huawei tech giant (that makes networking infrastructure and cellphones). They could only grow through state subsidies, and it meant having to overcome market monopoly tendencies. This developmental-friction from the market-monopolization tendency has now been removed. The end result will be a Chinese AI-chip-giant becoming a global competitor that will to a significant extend eat Nvidia's lunch.

It used to be the case that in the imperial stage of capitalism, the imperial center would use it's power to impose monopoly exports onto the periphery at the behest of monopoly capitalists to crush potential competitors from the periphery. This tendency now seems to be inverting, and i don't understand why ?

I don't think this is caused by racial spooks of Chinese people lacking inventiveness, that's just a "un-creative ant-people yellow-peril" propaganda-narrative. Not all racists are dumb, there are quite a lot of intelligent ones that only believe their own lies to the extend that it benefits their interests. So what is motivating this ? They must know that what they are doing will slow down China's tech-sector in the present at the expense of tremendously speeding it up in the near future. That seems like a bad trade-off unless the short-term advantage in the here and now has a huge traPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

The infamous chatcontrole-law internet apocalypse in the EU has been postponed. It seems dead for now but these things tend to become like zombies rising from the grave.

Now lets discuss how to actually fix the pedo-problem.

The pedo-problem is a meat-space problem that is bleeding into the virtual world. So lasting solutions can only be found in meat-space.

We have to analyze the politics at play. I doubt the neo-liberal system allows for genuine collective well-being politics. So doing something that benefits all children will not be possible. All the available politics are zero-sum games, improving the lot of some children at the expense of others. This can be overcome by creating civil-society parent lobby groups, enabled to act on the part that benefits the child-interests they represent while blocking the detrimental actions towards other child-interests by locking that into a perpetual battle against each other to neutralize the "negative energy".

The main political energy that genuinely seeks to clean the internet from pedo-material is however, people trying to hide the problem, they don't care about children at all, they care about the appearance of a just society. They see their affluence threatened if the injustice of child-abuse is too visible. They are perhaps the worst bunch. Bending this political energy into a positive outcome is very hard. We might be able to turn this into a general child-privacy scheme. We could make an AI-filter that gets trained to recognize and blur all children. This filter system could be made entirely transparent including the entire source-training-database since regular pictures of children aren't crimes, making it harder to abuse and also minimally invasive by selectively blurring out only children, without censoring the entire material. AI filters are quite good at detecting age and the silhouette of people, and this scheme does not require AI to understand context, reducing false positives. It need not be made mandatory, because it's an easy non-threatening way to prevent having to deal with pedo-material. I feel confident that most websites would use this to make moderation easier. It uses very little compute resources, and the child-abuse is out of sight (which realistically is all that can be done on the computer side of things). On the ethical side we get better online child-privacy without needing heavy handed governmental top-down interference.

The next problePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Voosh may be a cringe dumbfuck himself (lets be fair: what leftoid isn't?), but he's right, you know.

I'm gonna steal that one - marxism-dumbfuckism has a nice ring to it lol.

Hey leftychoods

Let's play a game. I list a topic, you write a very short explanation of your line on that issue.

>Milgram's Obedience Experiment

>Green New Deal

>Bukarin's Confession

>Porn

>Crocs

>People waiting in line for the new iPhone
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

In which onion forum can secret intelligence exchanges be seen?

War always hurts civilians, fuck wars.

Was the internet good or bad for radical leftists and pro-revolutionarys? Before the internet you were say either in or out of the local groups, you disagreed with a few things, and you're kicked out, burn the heretic. This either led to people making their own group, conforming, or just abandoning theory all together, to become one of those people who called it just a "phase" now they happily vote liberal. The internet allowed these disgruntled and say vagabond, despised people to spread their books and pamphlets, now everybody interested could read what they had to say and those not possessed by the local mantra could become a follower. Everything said on here, the internet is nothing, it has no value whatsoever, irl groups had more power of course around town, but they're still as powerless as groups on the internet are.

So in Brussels (the capital-city of Belgium and the seat of many EU institutions) someone gunned down 2 people and injured a third. It was declared a terror attack, all the people had to go home and all the leisure activities got canceled. Many Politicians had to give speeches and so on.

If the media had more or less ignored this event, the damage would have been 2 dead, 1 injured and a few traumatized witnesses. However that shit got broadcasted everywhere and as a result probably millions of people got terrorized, subjected to fear. They ceased all their activities without a rational reason. Civilization ground to a halt by a small force that should'n've been able to do that.

Terrorism of this style only works because it can spread fear through the media. If the media did not do this, terrorism as a tactic would cease working.

Why is the media sending danger-warnings to people that aren't in any danger ?
Why are officials signalling "be afraid" to people who from a rational point of view don't have any reason to be?
Why isn't this treated like any other violent crime case, something the news mentions as part of a list of local happenings in between the messages about road-congestion and the weather-predictions ?
Why can one gunman interrupt a city of over 2 million people, when it should interrupt at most a city-block of a few hundred to a thousand?

Why isn't the major reaction to this an expression of defiant stoic indifference (even if it's not entirely genuinely felt) where everybody carries on as if nothing had happened. Terror attacks would cease if they can't elicit a reaction of fear and terror.

What would it take to change this ?

Kermit the frog caused 9/11. In the 2002 TV film "It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie", there's a part where an angel shows Kermit an alternate reality where he was never born. For whatever reason, the editors didn't really think about it, and continued to use footage with the twin towers still standing for this scene, however they aren't there in his original universe. Therefore, something that Kermit did in his life, did in fact cause 9/11 in Muppet lore.