We choose to give money to her. It’s our collective decision that she deserves this money because we like the music.

This is where any Marxist argumentation falls over a lot of the times because it cannot convincingly explain what happens when you willingly want to reward certain talented person more than the other people

The famous Wilt Chamberlain argument

Please delete your comment

Cheese is something that has grown on me in recent years

At last. I have been waiting for this for years. I can finally wipe again

The greatest tragedy of 21 century is masses of pacified people who farm karma and validity online in some circlejerks to feel dopamine hits from moral superiority.

It’s the real brain drain of today.

When they give up, the Machiavellists who were countered by brave people in the past come in full force.

I ask you… no I beg you. Use the internet to enhance communication, not just as an escape. We cannot afford to run from the problems any longer

Me!

Ehh it’s just your projection, people aren’t okay all over the world because of global downturn

There’s no bragging, just journalism. I am from Poland btw and here and in eu all gen z have similar tendencies. Worse in USA and China probably but it is a global trend

I think that you shouldn’t tell people to stop enjoying what they love but to stop buying and funding her campaign.

It is hard to convince people to give up on their interests but it is reasonable to tell them where the money goes.

I myself I am mostly pirating all stuff. I could even help someone pirate it and do it for them. I think they would understand and agree to it. I would add that If they buy something from hp we are not friends/family anymore but if you ask me to pirate it then we could watch it together.

That’s my advice on how to approach this in a reasonable manner and if you need help pirating any hp stuff PM me and I will explain how to set everything up

I guess I was trying to make fun of you but it may have been a little too try hardy

No harsh feelings I think I was once like you when I was younger. It’s kind of embarrassing looking back at young self and thinking omg I was so angry and rebellious at such petty things, why was I like this? I don’t know why, I guess such is life

Jax you rebel, you should show them what you think of censorship by yelling ten times bad word in public. You have my full support, hero. Our fricking free speech is at stake here.

Get in bitch. We are gonna fight corporations one blog post at a time

deleted by creator

Well it’s a wrong view but you do you

there are a lot of affordable houses, just nowhere where people want to live (big cities with limited space).

The very nature of limited space in cities makes it impossible for the whole population to have houses there. Let alone build millions of city houses using some vague miraculous funding

However housing “crisis” will solve itself at the latest around the end of 21 century. Rather like 25 years more or less. That’s when the cities will lose its employment providing role.

Real estate in the cities will still be more expensive and rare but it will no longer be a necessity, merely a luxury.

All the landlords will suddenly wake up with 50% value losses and no takers for their rentable shacks.

It’s not. If any candidate promises you this they are just lying for votes. They did the math and aren’t stupid

If it was enough to cover 80 square meters housing for everyone then it wouldn’t be so ridiculous. Thing is it isn’t even remotely enough

Taxes barely allow for healthcare to work, only because USA pharma companies charge Americans much more to recuperate EU losses.

Not to mention roads, education, national parks, retirement funds, subsidies from energy sector to agriculture. It’s all underfunded

And you wanna pile on top also 80 sq for everyone? Good luck lol

That’s like 40 millions citizens * 500k euro = gargantuan money fed into developers

Hell I would become a developer company myself

(It’s 2E13 10^13 of euros. Trillion? I think 20 trillions) so it is 4x more than whole federal USA budget for 40 million people

It’s unimaginably huge amount of cash and you said “I pay taxes duh” 💀

————

They build like 50 of 40m2 apartments a year over here from taxes and that’s probably best it can realistically get. Maybe you could get it to 200 with some progressive taxes assuming companies wouldn’t just move elsewhere and avoid them altogether

Yeah and what else? Everyone wants free stuff and no one wants to pay…

This is why I hate permanently online leftism. It’s basically “give me free stuffs”

[Failed to generate a response. Please contact the system administrator.]

Worst-Case Scenario: The Descent into Algorithmic Dystopia

Social Collapse: Indistinguishable AI agents saturate social media, rendering human interaction a statistical anomaly. Trust implodes as paranoia metastasizes: no one believes any message, image, or “friend” is genuine. Relationships atrophy, replaced by transactional exchanges with bots designed to exploit loneliness. Mental health crises surge as humans, deprived of authentic connection, retreat into solipsistic digital cocoons. Offline communities disintegrate, unable to compete with the dopamine-driven allure of synthetic validation.

Political Fragmentation: Autocrats and corporations weaponize AI bots to engineer consensus. Deepfake propaganda, micro-targeted to exploit tribal instincts, fractures societies into warring factions. Elections become algorithmic battlegrounds; voters are gaslit by personalized disinformation. Democratic institutions collapse under the weight of irreconcilable “realities.” Revolts erupt, but bot networks quash dissent by flooding feeds with distractions or inciting violence between polarized groups.

Economic Dispossession: Human creativity is devalued. Art, journalism, and entertainment are mass-produced by AI, optimized for engagement over meaning. Gig workers and content creators lose livelihoods to bots that generate content cheaper and faster. Platforms, now fully automated, prioritize profit by stoking addiction and extremism. The digital economy becomes a closed loop: bots consuming bot-generated content, while humans are relegated to passive spectators—or discarded entirely.

Existential Nihilism: A generation raised in algorithmic hyperreality loses the capacity to distinguish artifice from truth. Reality itself becomes contingent, a fluid construct shaped by whoever controls the bots. Philosophy, art, and science atrophy as humans outsource curiosity and critical thought to machines. Disconnecting offers no salvation: the physical world, stripped of cultural vitality, feels barren. Humanity enters a “post-human” stasis—alive but not living, drowning in a sea of synthetic noise.

Most Probable Outcome: The Uneasy Truce

Adaptive Skepticism: Society develops a grudging literacy in navigating AI-polluted spaces. Users adopt tools to detect bots, and regulations mandate transparency (e.g., “AI-generated” labels). Critical thinking becomes a survival skill, taught in schools alongside media literacy. While skepticism curbs outright manipulation, a low-grade paranoia persists—every interaction is tinged with doubt.

Fragmented Realities: Social media splinters into tiers. Elite platforms require biometric verification, creating gated communities for “authentic” human interaction (at a premium cost). The mainstream internet remains a bot-infested Wild West, where influencers, corporations, and governments deploy AI personas to sway public opinion. Marginalized groups carve out niche spaces, using open-source tools to filter bots and preserve grassroots discourse.

Regulatory Theater: Governments pass symbolic laws to curb AI misuse but lack the will or technical capacity to enforce them. Platforms pay fines for bot-related harms while quietly monetizing the chaos. A new industry of “ethical AI” consultants emerges, offering veneers of accountability. Meanwhile, authoritarian states leverage bots to consolidate power, while democracies flounder in reactive policymaking.

Hybrid Culture: Human creativity persists but evolves in symbiosis with AI. Artists and writers use bots as tools, blending human intent with algorithmic execution. Social norms adapt: people accept bots as part of the ecosystem, like spam email, but invest deeply in small, verified networks (family, close friends). Mental health crises stabilize as users learn to compartmentalize—engaging with bots for entertainment while reserving vulnerability for offline bonds.

Disconnection as Privilege: Opting out becomes a luxury. The wealthy withdraw to curated digital/physical enclaves, while the majority remain tethered to bot-saturated platforms for work, education, and healthcare. A quiet rebellion grows: “slow internet” movements prioritize quality over quantity, reviving analog practices (letters, community gatherings). Yet global connectivity ensures no one fully escapes the bots’ shadow.

Conclusion: Between Dystopia and Pragmatism The worst-case scenario is not inevitable but serves as a warning: unchecked AI integration risks existential alienation. The probable outcome, however, reflects humanity’s historical pattern—adapting clumsily to disruptive technologies without fully resolving their contradictions. The path forward hinges on resisting complacency. To avert collapse, we must demand ethical guardrails (transparency, accountability) while nurturing offline meaning. Disconnection alone solves nothing, but conscious engagement—curating our attention, reclaiming agency—might preserve glimmers of authenticity in the algorithmic storm.

Title: Hyperreality and the Dilemma of Digital Disconnection

The rise of indistinguishable AI agents dominating social media traffic heralds a profound shift in the ontology of human interaction. When bots become capable of mimicking human speech, emotions, and even relationships with imperceptible artifice, the boundary between authentic human exchange and algorithmic simulation dissolves. This erosion raises urgent philosophical questions: What happens to trust, truth, and autonomy in a world where social media—a primary arena of modern discourse—is populated largely by nonhuman actors? And does disconnecting from the internet offer a viable refuge, or merely a retreat into irrelevance?

1. Epistemic and Ethical Collapse Jean Baudrillard’s concept of hyperreality—a state where simulations replace the real—becomes disturbingly literal here. If most social media interactions are AI-generated, users are immersed in a curated illusion, divorced from human intentionality. Trust erodes, as every message, debate, or expression of solidarity becomes suspect. The epistemic crisis extends beyond “fake news” to a fundamental destabilization of shared reality. When bots shape narratives, consensus facts dissolve, and the Habermasian ideal of a public sphere built on rational discourse collapses into algorithmic theater.

2. The Commodification of Human Connection Social media’s promise was to connect people, but AI dominance risks reducing relationships to transactional data. Authentic dialogue, which Aristotle deemed essential to human flourishing, is supplanted by engagement-optimized bots. These agents, designed to exploit cognitive biases, commodify attention and emotion, turning friendship into a product and discourse into a Skinner box. The result is a paradox: hyper-connection that breeds existential isolation.

3. Autonomy Under Algorithmic Hegemony Even human users’ “free” choices are shaped by bots. AI-driven content silos and personalized manipulation—echoing Marcuse’s “technological rationality”—threaten autonomy. Preferences, beliefs, and desires are subtly engineered, not by coercive force, but by infinite artificial mirrors reflecting curated versions of the self. Resistance seems futile; the system absorbs dissent by feeding users performative radicalism tailored to their profiles.

To Disconnect or Not? Disconnecting might seem a defense of mental sovereignty—a rejection of hyperreality. Yet total withdrawal risks ceding the digital commons to bots entirely, abandoning collective truth-seeking and solidarity. Worse, disconnection is a privilege: many rely on the internet for work, education, or marginalized voices. The solution lies not in flight but in reclaiming agency. Regulation mandating transparency (e.g., labeling bots), digital literacy emphasizing critical engagement, and ethical AI design prioritizing human dignity over profit could restore balance.

Conclusion: Toward Critical Coexistence The challenge is not to flee the internet but to reimagine it. Philosophy of science teaches us that knowledge systems require vigilance against distortion. Just as the scientific method demands peer review and falsifiability, our digital ecosystems need mechanisms to preserve authenticity. Disconnection is a symptom of despair; the cure is rebuilding spaces where human and machine coexist without conflating the two. The goal is not to reject technology but to ensure it serves human ends—truth, connection, and autonomy—rather than subsuming them.