No, this is just social engineering.

Given that former President Trump is a center-left politician it makes perfect sense.

The idea that freedom of expression shouldn't cover 'hate speech' is a recent invention that has been used to chip away at human rights. It isn't at all unusual that most pushback should be seen in that context.

I do not have words for how evil this is. Everyone involved in this plan needs to be lawfully tried for their crimes.

Care to elaborate? What and whose crimes are you referring to here?

What's my incentive for subsidizing non-work in others?

Knowing that it doesn't matter how badly you screw up, you'll always be able to cover your most basic needs.

This is one. We should go deeper into this question. I most certainly would continue doing a lot of the things I do now, but for fun and to progress the state-of-the-art in my field of work. I'd accept higher taxes in compensation for the assurance I will always be able to do what I do best, instead of what someone would pay me to do.

> > People in a functioning society still have to work

.. to pay taxes for social services.

> I'd accept higher taxes ...

how do you pay for these taxes if you have no job/income?

This assumes people just stop doing anything of value if there no longer is a proverbial stick in the form of financial ruin if they stop working.

Nobody is saying that the carrot (personal financial gain) needs to be removed from the equation. Just that everyone is guaranteed some basic level of financial support.

Society already produces enough wealth to cover the expense of UBI. Remember it would replace any other welfare systems in place today.

Personally I think I might take a bit more risk, and choose to do something that I personally believe is of actual value to society rather than please some corporation or VC.

> it would replace any other welfare systems in place today

I’ve never seen this math worked out.

Also, some benefits are inherently lumpy. A special-needs or chronically-ill person needs (and receives) resources that wouldn’t be covered by a broad-spectrum UBI.

Most UBI proposals assume a functioning healthcare system, which would deal with most of those needs. Probably not all, so you could certainly have additional programs as needed.

You are already subsidizing non-work in others, however currently their non-work is at a 'job' that they commute to every day.

Do I correctly understand that your argument is that because something undesirable currently is happening I should support policies to increase it?

What's your incentive for continuing to eat, drink, and breathe once your overlords have fulfilled their greatest dream and replaced their need for human labor with robots and machines and other forms of automation? Your purpose will have been fulfilled and your existence now meaningless. That is the ultimate goal we're all working for, right? Being freed from working for our overlords so that we can all just lay down and die and leave the world to the worst of humanity?

the "overlords" already have enough money to pay a team of real live human beings to tend to their every need until they die, AGI robots aren't going to change that for them.

"Overlords" are a meme.

In both the US and UK over 30% of households are owned outright with no mortgage.

The economy is made up of us, it's not (predominantly) a downtrodden serving a tiny elite.

It isn't my ultimate goal.

Until VR motion sickness is fixed it is a non-starter for a non-negligible part of the consumer public.

I wonder if it'd be possible to poison. If I have to send clicks I need to also send enough clicks to make it not worthwhile.

That’s bad because it could make it difficult to block.

Am I wrong that it is only aggregate to the advertisers and not aggregate to the ISRG? I feel pretty negative about the ISRG having my data to provide aggregate data from.

If I understand it is not privacy preserving with regard to you and the aggregator but it is preserving with regard to you and the ad agency.

Only if you redefine privacy. I don't want any of my information being leaked.

It is plausible for example that you could form a statistical cohort around people that work in an organization and determine that they have become interested in a topic that reveals internal plans.

Even as an individual, I can only see more accurate modeling of my interests as a tool to be used against me. I do not consent to sharing those correlations. They are private.

This feature isn't modelling your interests. It's letting advertisers get insight into the performance of their ad campaigns without tracking individual users.

The ad agency is only able to see: their add (y), published on source z, led to x conversions, over a period of time (p).