CJ is actually demonstrating superior intelligence here. With the larger crackdown on reporting truth or even mentioning certain words on Meta’s platforms, he’s thinking ahead by presenting all the incriminating evidence to viewers while coming across as mocking them. This tactic effectively sidesteps the upcoming AI sentiment analysis b…
CJ is actually demonstrating superior intelligence here. With the larger crackdown on reporting truth or even mentioning certain words on Meta’s platforms, he’s thinking ahead by presenting all the incriminating evidence to viewers while coming across as mocking them. This tactic effectively sidesteps the upcoming AI sentiment analysis based information scrubbing technology. AI would pick up on his negative sentiment towards readers seeking truth and allow his content through for all to see and silently make their own conclusions. Responses that question his motives may lessen the effectiveness of this tactic so think carefully for future articles and comments.
I can’t tell whether or not your comment is sarcasm, but regardless of which is the case, it is an interesting theory. But it is almost certainly wrong. After reading and re-reading this post a few times and reading most of his comments here, it is pretty obvious that he has swallowed the official narrative of 10/7, hook, line and sinker. If he is in fact sympathetic to the 10/7 Truthers, he did such a poor job of conveying that that he should be disqualified on that basis alone. I have already unsubscribed, and will not be reading any more of his posts after this one.
It may have been sarcasm but the main point is that the contextual uncertainty is one of the potential ideas I have presented for communicating under totalitarian conditions. Communication online would need to evolve beyond rearranged L3tter$ for spam bots to bypass the YT et al. algorithms. It might be useful for people to start contemplating such ideas more deeply.
CJ is actually demonstrating superior intelligence here. With the larger crackdown on reporting truth or even mentioning certain words on Meta’s platforms, he’s thinking ahead by presenting all the incriminating evidence to viewers while coming across as mocking them. This tactic effectively sidesteps the upcoming AI sentiment analysis based information scrubbing technology. AI would pick up on his negative sentiment towards readers seeking truth and allow his content through for all to see and silently make their own conclusions. Responses that question his motives may lessen the effectiveness of this tactic so think carefully for future articles and comments.
I can’t tell whether or not your comment is sarcasm, but regardless of which is the case, it is an interesting theory. But it is almost certainly wrong. After reading and re-reading this post a few times and reading most of his comments here, it is pretty obvious that he has swallowed the official narrative of 10/7, hook, line and sinker. If he is in fact sympathetic to the 10/7 Truthers, he did such a poor job of conveying that that he should be disqualified on that basis alone. I have already unsubscribed, and will not be reading any more of his posts after this one.
It may have been sarcasm but the main point is that the contextual uncertainty is one of the potential ideas I have presented for communicating under totalitarian conditions. Communication online would need to evolve beyond rearranged L3tter$ for spam bots to bypass the YT et al. algorithms. It might be useful for people to start contemplating such ideas more deeply.