It's a fair point. I actually posted the article mostly to get discussion... and before I realized exactly what the rest of the website was about. So I would urge taking things in that spirit, including feeling free to call out that the assertions in the article are wrong in fact or interpretation.
I do think it raises some fair questions about the drive to certain forms of digital commerce and identification. Perhaps, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.... at least sometimes...
For the record, I've seen no convincing evidence for the existence of a divine presence of any sort and don't support most of the site's messaging. Sure, we could be on the edge of real apocalypse, but am very doubtful that, should that day come, it will be the Christian Apocalypse or the same prophesied from any other faith for that matter.
Those are predictions...not policies. You'll note that the WEF is far from the only group saying that meat consumption will go down because of climate change.
The WEF (one member in an opinion piece) said that subscription-based services will become cheap & fast enough that owning things will become less desirable than renting. That's the conspiracy here.
I'm fully willing to believe that the rich are conspiring against us, but the whole "own nothing and be happy," is just another meme-level conspiracy theory.
Believe it if you want, but there is NO PUBLIC PLAN BY THE WEF TO REMOVE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP. You can even read in their 2030 document that they explicitly endorse ownership of private property.
They don’t even need to conspire for this to become true,
it is happening by momentum alone, now.
Food delivery is offering financing.
From the jump off point of what they said, and where we’re at, you can start to see how it doesn’t really matter if it’s listed as a top goal on the header of their website or not……………………
It said that, as in it literally said that that was a prediction the member had for the future. It is no way an economic policy of the WEF. And its not deleted.
lol no. You have no proof and thus will supply none. Your assumptions (about me) are also baseless and frankly pathetic. Is the WEF also planning to remove the US as the world's superpower? It's another of their predictions for 2030.
Which deleted statements would those be. I can see that the original 2016 article has not been deleted. Klaus Schwab referencing it during COVID is also not deleted. Neither is the video on X which has the quote, along with a series of other predictions.
So what exactly are you privy to here that the rest of us aren't.
Way back in the 90's I used to date a pretty crazy Christian girl who saw my tech prowess as useful for fighting "the mark of the beast" which she thought was some kind of future government electronic ID. While she was kind of nuts about Christian conspiracies, I actually kind of agreed about where we were headed with electronic surveillance - even back in the 90's we kind of saw this coming.
I remember the local evangelical TV station running "documentaries" about the "mark of the beast" and "cashless societies" when I was a kid in the early 90s. I assume this is more of that.
I was flagged (bizarrely) because I was asking for help in propagating another website like this for similar ends. Joachim however reached out to me. he's working on an open-source model of his website.
We can just eat less meat, and the meat we do eat can be non-factory farmed. Eventually lab grown meat will take over (not because it achieves sentience, but because its tasty & cheap).
Also, it routinely interfered destructively in the market sector (e.g., price controls, e.g., overspending on showy public works); its taxation system was oppressive and often arbitrary; and it routinely debased its currency
That's why sites like this are so powerful. They can bring it back, and we can restart the email bombardment at any time.
This is such a hugely superior approach to the traditional single signer petition or mailing campaign. I think to should be studied by citizens groups worldwide.
> They can bring it back, and we can restart the email bombardment at any time
I'm one of the founders of Stop Killing Games. Me and a large group of other people have gotten annoyed at this cycle and have taken it upon ourselves to make such laws impossible to implement in the future. We're organizing the campaign now - this is fully separate from SKG, but a bunch of the same people who helped SKG succeed, and a plan that takes into accounts the learnings from SKG.
We're looking for people such as politicians, lawyers (EU/US/UK law), journalists, and donors who want to see Chat Control dead forever. If interested, email stopkillinggames+hn @ google's email service.
I think the value proposition for VCs and C-suite is pretty obvious here, you get to keep the government's hands off your communications and internal systems, which is directly where Chat Control is headed. Even avoiding the cost of Chat Control compliance (dev work, devops, legal, ...) can easily run into 7 figures for a larger corporation, and 8-9 figures for the top players.
I know in the US, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden is highly involved in Net Neutrality and tech. I once had a long conversation with his aid who specialized in tech issues and was quite happy with what they were trying to do. I'd recommend reaching out to his team. I'd expect that they would be happy to work with you all and help you navigate the space.
> This is such a hugely superior approach to the traditional single signer petition or mailing campaign. I think to should be studied by citizens groups worldwide.
Why would mass-emailing be effective, though? This one instance strikes me as the exception, not the rule, especially in a world where I see calls to write to your local government all the time (and basically none of it results in anything)
It costs them nothing to ignore emails. There's nothing on your end of the argument to use as leverage. It doesn't put any barriers to just right click->deleting the emails, or answering with something akin to "Thanks for your concern, but this isn't about you and we know better than you, so please stay out of it", just worded in a vaguer and more polite way.
Both things I'm citing can work on a large scale with some effort, through the power of mass-deletion and auto-replying. I'm just not seeing how pushing some text towards a government representative compels them to act at all, especially when money and power are what's on the other end of the scale.
Well, maybe take a look at how this worked out? Because you're saying that all they have to do is delete the emails, but clearly that isn't what happened here.
The biggest difference is that there's little effort involved here. One click to send mass emails out to all relevant politicians. No they can not ignore a constant stream of emails from the electorate. Frankly, it doesn't seem like you understand why this site was different or effective.
