[slg]

Do you not see how this comment is actually counterproductive to the point you’re arguing? The long list of suspects, most of them being totally independent of each other is evidence of this not being orchestrated by some central group.

[fc417fc802]

The fact that a bunch of seemingly disparate actors are behaving in a highly coordinated manner is evidence against central orchestration? What an absurd suggestion.

[tzs]

You are assuming without evidence that they are coordinated, then using that to infer central orchestration, and then using that inferred central organization to support coordination.

When there is something that aligns with the interests of several disparate groups it is common for them to all support that something with the need for some central organization.

[fc417fc802]

> You are assuming without evidence that they are coordinated

The evidence is the highly abnormal behavior. The alignment of interests is a red herring.

> it is common for them to all support that something with the need for some central organization.

Sure, as is frequently seen with the conferences and administrative bodies surrounding treaties and the like. Would you care to point out this central organizing body that a bunch of people posting here appear mysteriously determined to deny the existence of?

What exactly is your position? First you object to an alleged lack of evidence on my part, then turn around and seemingly attempt to justify the observed behavior with the argument that coordination in the open is normal and expected. So do you acknowledge the presence of what appears to be centralized coordination in this instance or not?

What was your purpose in responding here?

[intended]

> The evidence is the highly abnormal behavior. The alignment of interests is a red herring.

This is labelling the behavior as abnormal, and then basing your conclusions on it.

Are you unaware that there’s been decades of reporting on social media impact on children? It’s covered issues from bullying, anorexia, toxicity, attention issues, sleep issues, focus issues to name a few of the topics ? These are separate from CSAM, grooming, stalking, revenge porn and NCII.

It’s he’ll out there. It’s been hell for years.

Do people not know ?

[slg]

What counter evidence is there against you, AnonymousPlanet, and gslepak being the same person? You're all seemingly acting in a highly coordinated manner. Would it be reasonable for me to assume you're all one person? Because a suspicious similarity seems to be the only reasoning any of you are providing for these laws being centrally orchestrated.

[fc417fc802]

> Would it be reasonable for me to assume you're all one person?

Depends on context. Would that be the statistically favored explanation for the behavior you're seeing here?

In the case of international politics it is indeed the highly favored explanation. Particularly when there's such a clear nefarious motive.

[intended]

When it rains, disparate actors take out umbrellas.

[AnonymousPlanet]

So if I don't answer your question, you use the fact I didn't answer against me and if I do answer, you use the fact I answered against me as well. It's hard to take your non constructive way of arguing serious. Have a nice day.

[slg]

This is a very strange response. Am I not allowed to criticize the answer you provide when it doesn't actually answer the question?

For example, if I asked you who killed JFK and you responded with "It could have been Oswald acting alone or the mafia or the KGB or the CIA or Fidel Castro or a misfire from Secret Service...", you didn't actually answer the question, you just gave a list of potential answers. One of those answers could be right, but the way you provided so many answers shows that you can't actually answer the question with any degree of certainty. You effectively answered "what's 2 + 2" with "something between 2 and 10". I'm not going to respond with it's not "2+2 is not 8 because..."

[gslepak]

They answered your question sufficiently. Have you ever done what you're asking of others here, btw?

Some questions aren't easy to just answer, even if the answer is known to the person being asked. Some topics are supressed rather well. If you're already acting like someone who is more interested in derailing conversations than having an honest discussion, it's unlikely you'll get the exact list of names of those primarily responsible for driving this push to KYC access to online services. Especially on a website that's heavily moderated and basically a battleground.

[slg]

>Have you ever done what you're asking of others here, btw?

What question do you want me to answer that isn't some loaded rhetorical question along the lines of "What is your motivation for denying the obvious?"

[gslepak]

And yet, it is all part of a script. The future, without naming names, without knowing names, without pointing fingers, can somehow still be known and seen. So is that a conspiracy? Even if it looks like many disparate groups, clearly there is a central script, and if there's a central script, there must be a central author of that script.

[slg]

>And yet, it is all part of a script.

You, AnonymousPlanet, and fc417fc802 are all responding to me in very similar ways and yet I'm not accusing you of reading from the same script or being puppeteered by the same person/group. This is because I can recognize that people can have the same thought process without any active collaboration. And yet I would have just as much evidence to make those accusations as the evidence that you provided here that all these laws have the same shady origin.