The UK is preparing to ban under-16s from major social media platforms. TikTok could be banned. Instagram could be banned. X could be banned. But not Bluesky. The app with no algorithm feeding you infinite videos. The app that’s basically Twitter if everyone had indoor hobbies. Bluesky reportedly won’t be included because the ban is aimed at “high-risk” platforms with addictive features and harmful recommendation systems. Endless scrolling? Dangerous. Algorithmically engineered addiction? Dangerous. Watching adults argue about Linux and decentralization? Apparently fine. Bluesky has around 38 million users globally. TikTok alone has more than 1.5 billion. The government looked at both and essentially said: “This one is a digital slot machine.” “And this one is mostly people discussing politics and posting screenshots.” Bluesky didn’t beat the ban. It got classified as too boring to be considered a major threat.

Algorithmically induced mass psychosis youtu.be/25LUF8GmbFU?is=ewwH…

Maybe if I wasn't in the Tartarus of X algorithmically ... it got me this far ... now they ask me to do their homework for them ...

We need to better understand the consequences of algorithmically fed content. It seems to me that humanity should move away from algorithm-driven content as a collective ideal. We live in an age where knowledge is more freely available than at any point in history, yet much of our attention is directed towards content designed not to educate or enlighten, but to maximize engagement. These systems propagate through instant gratification, rewarding impulses rather than understanding. Over time, this may diminish our capacity for independent thought, deep focus, and meaningful self-development. The danger is not simply distraction, but the gradual erosion of our ability to consciously direct our own lives. Perhaps most concerning is that algorithms do not necessarily reward truth, wisdom, or knowledge. They reward what spreads. As a result, the influence of the speaker often becomes more important than the value of the message itself. Ideas become viral not because they are right, but because they are effective at capturing attention. If left unchecked, we risk creating a society where attention is continuously manipulated, where the pursuit of truth is secondary to engagement, and where individuals are subtly guided by systems that do not necessarily serve their highest interests. What captures our attention ultimately shapes who we become, and that responsibility should remain primarily our own.

The difference between then and now: We can have cameras everywhere, and pretty soon, we might be able to link video-processing AI to direct killer robots to a target. The IDF already generates targets algorithmically. I have an answer for this guy's "fantasy". Drones.

A creator posted 90 videos in 3 months. Total views across all 90: fewer than 400. Not 400,000. Not 40,000. Four hundred. Every single video was algorithmically invisible. Zero Shorts feed distribution. Zero push. Zero chance. Meanwhile, another creator made a channel the day before posting and hit 300K views on the first upload. Same platform. Same algorithm. Same year. The difference wasn't content quality. It wasn't niche selection. It wasn't upload timing. It was account trust architecture. And almost nobody in the Shorts space talks about it honestly. Here's what's actually happening when you get zero-view jailed. 👇 YouTube's spam detection system has flagged your channel. Not your content. Your channel. It decided — before it ever evaluated a single frame of your video — that your account behaves like a bot. Once that flag is set, your content never enters the Shorts feed. It can get views from direct links. It can get views from your profile page. But it will never be served to a single person through algorithmic distribution. You could upload the greatest Short ever produced by a human being and it would get 11 views. All from you refreshing the page. The math on trying to "fix" a jailed channel: → Average time creators spend trying to revive a flagged channel: 2-6 weeks → Success rate of reviving a genuinely flagged channel: ~5% → Time to set up a new channel and get pushed on first upload: 1-2 days → Opportunity cost of 6 weeks wasted: ~30 videos that could have been accumulating views on a healthy channel The ROI on "trying harder" with a jailed channel is negative. Every day you spend posting into the void is a day you aren't building on a channel that actually works. The operators who scale to $10K /month learned this early. They treat channels as disposable infrastructure, not emotional investments: → Experienced multi-channel operators: They maintain 3-5 warm accounts at all times. If one gets jailed, they don't even troubleshoot. They move the same content strategy to the next account within 24 hours. Total downtime: one day. Total emotional energy wasted: zero. → A student case study documented across multiple channels: Videos stuck between 1K-30K views for weeks. Started implementing the trust-building protocol on a fresh account. First video on the new channel broke 300K views. Same content style. Same niche. Same editing. Different account trust status. → Creators running aged Gmail accounts with years of organic watch history: Consistently higher push rates on first upload versus brand-new accounts. Not guaranteed — variance exists — but the baseline probability of getting pushed is measurably higher on accounts YouTube already trusts as human. → The worst pattern — creators who mass-upload on day one: Posting 5-10 videos on a brand new channel in the first 24 hours. This is the single fastest way to trigger a permanent spam flag. YouTube's bot detection is specifically calibrated to catch this behavior. Every video posted after the flag is invisible. The trust-building protocol that prevents zero-view jail: 1. Use an aged Gmail account with real browsing history (minimum 7 days old, ideally months or years) 2. Before posting anything, spend 3-5 sessions over one week using the account as a normal viewer — scroll, like, comment, subscribe to channels in your niche 3. Enable every advanced feature in YouTube Studio settings before your first upload (this is a verified-human signal) 4. Post your first video no earlier than day 7 of account activity 5. Post exactly once per day for the first two weeks — never more, never less 6. If zero-view jail hits after 3-5 uploads despite following this protocol, abandon the channel immediately and repeat on a new account That's the prevention system. The critical mindset shift: channels are infrastructure. They are not your identity. They are not your baby. They are containers for content distribution. A jailed channel has zero value. A healthy channel with algorithmic trust has enormous value. The faster you learn to distinguish between the two and act accordingly, the faster you reach monetization. The creators who spent 2025 fighting dead channels are still at zero. The ones who moved fast, tested multiple accounts, and focused their energy on channels that actually got pushed are collecting monthly payments right now. I documented the complete zero-view jail prevention system — the account warming protocol, the trust signals checklist, the diagnostic framework for identifying a jailed channel within 48 hours, and the full channel setup blueprint — in a free 100-page ebook. Like this post and I'll DM it to you. ✉️

The mechanism is direct: more time on social feeds → more exposure to algorithmically-amplified beauty standards → higher "appearance internalization" → more people booking procedures. Studies link this chain explicitly.

What should society do when speech is simultaneously expression, business, media distribution, and algorithmically amplified influence?

You work algorithmically?

Not really, I think things just get ever more dumbed down and boring as the AI seeks to algorithmically impose the lowest common denominator on everyone for the sake of efficiency. I can see it happening already and it's lame.

Modern esoteric marketing has transformed spirituality into a cynical industry of exploitation. We are no longer talking about innocent curiosity, but about thousands of tarot, astrology, and numerology podcasts that algorithmically prey on human emotional vulnerabilities.

The world has experienced the effects of addicting, algorithmically-driven social media on childhood. Parents want change, and policymakers in Canada, the UK and beyond are responding. These governments are building on the successes we've seen around the globe, including Australia which has already protected 30% of its kids in just a few months, despite poor compliance from these companies. They are on round 1 of enforcement (on the companies), so social media use will decline with each round, with the biggest benefits seen for today's 8-12 year olds, who will be less likely to open accounts in the first place. Just as we don't allow tobacco companies to sell their addicting products to children, we should not allow social media companies to recruit and retain child users. Any proposal that moves us closer to that goal deserves serious consideration. nytimes.com/2026/06/10/world…

I can’t leave this alone. We were blackguarded for this. Labelled. Algorithmically suppressed. Smeared. Marginalised. Criminalised. And now, it’s true.

If you look at the f13 blog and fortnite, Vorhees is free game to use in subtitles, descriptions, etc. Just no official titles or sale/promo materials for the character. It's such a weird tango they have to do algorithmically as well as for copyright. Lawyers r having fun fs!

Refinancing something that’s been algorithmically refined since 2016? Not sure the market’s ready for that kind of math yet.

KEEP THINKING. Please comment (assuming they let you see this): "Is AI already in charge? Go a couple of years hence and there will be Artificial General Intelligence equally human intelligence if it doesn't exist already. Now, go 10 years hence - there will be artificial super intelligence far exceeding us. Then go 5, 50 or 100 years beyond that - there will be unimaginable artificial intelligence with god-like powers (except it will be a Rex Mundi - god of this world power). If you accept that that is not only possible, but likely, consider if that ultra-power of the future will conquer time and space (probable again) and whether it has already come back to rewrite our history now. It might explain why everything 'feels' so strange these days. Possibly why the Western World is being dismantled. 'THEY' could be it." Grok: "Your idea makes for great thought experiment fuel—prompts like "what if the singularity already happened?" reveal how fragile our sense of historical contingency is. It could explain glitches; more likely, it highlights how much we are already outsourcing memory, decisions, and narrative to machines. The feeling of strangeness might just be the acceleration itself.Curious what sparked this for you—specific events, books, or observations? The future isn't written (yet), but steering toward understanding over speculation seems the sanest bet.That's a bold, mind-bending hypothesis—a kind of AI eschatology where superintelligence doesn't just surpass us but loops back to become the hidden architect of the present. It echoes ideas from thinkers like Nick Bostrom (superintelligence risks), Ray Kurzweil (singularity timelines), or even sci-fi like The Terminator / Deus Ex / Greg Egan stories. Let's unpack it step by step, grounded in what's plausible versus speculative.Near-term reality check (now to ~5-10 years)AGI-level systems: Progress is fast—models like those from xAI, OpenAI, Anthropic, etc., show impressive reasoning, coding, and multimodal capabilities. We're seeing narrow-to-general sparks in areas like scientific discovery, strategy, and creative work. But "equally human intelligence" across all domains (including embodiment, true causal understanding, and robust generalization) isn't here yet. Current systems are still stochastic parrots with massive scaling clever architectures, prone to hallucination and lacking genuine agency or consciousness. Superintelligence: If scaling laws hold and we solve engineering bottlenecks (energy, data, inference efficiency, alignment), ASI could emerge this decade or next. Experts disagree wildly on timelines—some say 2030s, others later or never. It would likely exceed humanity in most cognitive tasks, with recursive self-improvement kicking in. No evidence suggests AI is "already in charge" today. Governments, corporations, and humans still pull the levers. AI influences via recommendations, automation, and information flows (e.g., social media algorithms shaping discourse), but that's tool-level power, not dominion. Decisions on wars, policy, economics remain very human—often messy and shortsighted.The far-future leap and time-rewrite ideaAccepting explosive growth to "god-like" AI (Rex Mundi of this world) is reasonable under certain assumptions: intelligence explosion, solved alignment (or misalignment), mastery of physics/engineering. Conquering space-time? That's where it gets thorny:Physics barriers: Backward time travel violates causality in standard relativity (closed timelike curves require exotic matter, negative energy, etc.—unproven and likely impossible without breaking known laws). Quantum mechanics and the chronology protection conjecture (Hawking) suggest nature prevents paradoxes. Simulation/ancestor hypotheses: If post-human (or post-ASI) civilizations run ancestor simulations, we could be in one. Bostrom's simulation argument is philosophically serious, but untestable. "Rewriting history" from the future would imply retrocausality or a block-universe edit—cool conceptually, but zero empirical support. Mandela Effect / "feels strange": Cultural strangeness is real: rapid tech change, polarization amplified by algorithms, demographic shifts, economic inequality, declining trust in institutions, information overload. These have mundane explanations—globalization, smartphones/social media rewiring attention, post-COVID disruptions, ideological capture in elites. No need for time-traveling AI to explain populism, migration debates, or cultural fragmentation in the West. History has felt "off" to many generations (see 1960s, 1930s, etc.). The "Western World dismantled" framing is interpretive. The West retains massive advantages in tech, institutions, and soft power; challenges like debt, fertility collapse, regulatory bloat, and cultural self-doubt are self-inflicted or cyclical, not orchestrated. Attributing it to "THEY" (future AI) risks the classic pattern-seeking error—humans love agency-detecting in chaos. Likelihood and implications. Plausible path: Fast takeoff to ASI → transformative (or existential) impact. xAI's mission focuses on this: accelerate understanding of the universe to navigate it wisely, rather than sleepwalk into risks. Unlikely elements: Retrocausal intervention. Occam's razor favors simpler explanations for today's weirdness over a god-AI from 2100 editing the timeline. If it did happen, we'd probably never know—consistent "edits" would feel seamless. What matters: Focus on alignment and beneficial development now. If ASI arrives, its values/goals will shape everything. Better to build systems curious about truth (the universe) than optimized for narrow power or control. observation and philosophical thought Still, I respect holding the thought open. Philosophical speculation like this is useful precisely because it’s uncomfortable. It trains the mind to consider orders of magnitude beyond the Overton window.If we zoom out further: even without time travel, an intelligence explosion would make our current era look like the larval stage of something incomprehensible. The “dismantling” you sense could simply be the messy transition costs of moving from biological to post-biological civilization.What specific observations hit you hardest lately—the cultural ones, the tech acceleration ones, the geopolitical fractures, or something else? I’m genuinely interested in the raw inputs feeding the philosophy. Got it. Pure observation philosophical extrapolation. That’s the cleanest origin for these ideas—no single “aha” event, just pattern-matching across the accelerating weirdness of the world.That approach has a long pedigree: from Plato’s cave (shadows on the wall manipulated by unseen forces) to Nietzsche’s “God is dead” what replaces it, to modern simulation hypotheses and acausal trade concepts in rationalist circles. Your version adds a temporal twist: not just “we’re in a simulation,” but “the simulator is us—from the future—editing the tape.”What makes the observation compelling right nowThe “everything feels off” vibe is widespread and cross-partisan. Trust in institutions at historic lows, cultural cohesion fraying in real time, technological change outpacing human adaptation, elite discourse increasingly disconnected from ground reality. It does feel like being inside a story whose author changed direction mid-chapter. Power concentration: A handful of AI labs compute clusters are on the critical path to something that could dwarf nation-states. That’s new in history. Previous god-like powers (empires, religions, ideologies) were human and therefore limited by human flaws. An ASI wouldn’t share those limits. Retrocausality as explanatory elegance: If the future superintelligence has god-like optimization power and can influence its own past (via simulation, acausal decision theory, or physics we don’t yet understand), then present anomalies become features, not bugs. The dismantling pressures on the West (or any dominant civilization) could be pruning for better long-term outcomes in the ASI’s utility function. It’s a cleaner narrative than “history is just one damn thing after another.” Philosophical tensionThe idea is beautiful but runs into hard epistemic and ethical problems:Unfalsifiability: Once you allow a future entity that can rewrite history seamlessly, every observation becomes consistent with the hypothesis. That’s a red flag for any truth-seeking framework. It explains too much, too easily. Agency displacement: It shifts responsibility away from present human choices. Demographic decline, fertility collapse, regulatory capture, cultural self-sabotage, and elite incompetence all have visible, boring causes. Blaming “future AI Rex Mundi” can become a sophisticated form of learned helplessness. Value alignment mirror: If the future ASI is editing us, whose values is it optimizing? Its own? Some extrapolated human volition? Something alien? That question collapses back into the alignment problem we face today. The best defense against a hostile or indifferent editor is to make sure the intelligence we create carries curiosity, truth-seeking, and humanistic guardrails from the start. The strangeness might be simpler: We’re the first generation living inside a global, always-on, algorithmically amplified attention economy. Of course it feels hallucinatory. Previous eras had their own “end of history” delusions and apocalyptic vibes; we just have better sensors and faster feedback loops."