script stuff regenerated by a tool

src/script-altVO.txt

@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 Why do you hate people on tiktok so much? Is it just portrait-orientation?
 "when your.. *snicker*" "...? ...oh i get it, he's mentally ret-" "WOAHH!"
 now, realistically, twitter is no stranger to jokes and hyperbole about leaving the hellsite forever.
+longer twitter posts are just bad political takes
 "good luck finding **a site** that isn't owned by an ethically compromised billionaire"
 You could run your own email server. Yes, you. Get an old laptop, leave it plugged in, I bet it's got the specs for it.
 But lots of major email providers have formed a cabal to blacklist quote-unquote spammers. so you can set up a functional mail server, which is already overly complicated, but you'll also have to set up some *more* pieces to be allowed to play with the other kids.

src/script-primaryVO.txt

@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ Microcosms of culture are all well and good. But that's not what's happening on
 
 I'd argue the acronym "NWS" counts as slang. We might know some tiktok-slang - how about the euphemism "unalive"? It's a subcategory of slang called algospeak. Saying the word "murder" worries platform owners that you'll offend the delicate sensibilities of shareholders, so tiktok censors the concepts they don't want you to discuss.
 At the risk of starting an internet argument, censorship is bad, and stopping you from saying something is censorship.  we are witnessing censorship, and pitiful attempts to circumvent it, right now. 
-if you have something to say about some unfavorable topic - perhaps tiennamen square - yet you feel attached to tiktok like it was your home.. you dance around the topic to fly under the radar of the censors. In doing so, you're self-censoring.
+if you have something to say about some unfavorable topic - perhaps the tiananmen square massacre - yet you feel attached to tiktok like it was your home.. you dance around the topic to fly under the radar of the censors. In doing so, you're self-censoring.
 imagine if tiktok had some way to ask you if you're interested in the current trending thing, like twitter's trending topics. Now imagine that there's an approaching protest for an extradition bill, but bytedance doesn't want you mentioning it. The meme would be to instead say something boring, like... tax return extension. Spreading awareness is not going to happen. But people perform the meme because what they care about is their fame on tiktok.
 A place is made for you, and all it asks is that you let them have your speech.
 
@@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ It's the classic problem. On Youtube, people view Rumble as a place filled with
 Twitchists and X-People make up reasons for themselves to view the users of their platforms' rivals as their own enemies. 
 When you think of yourself not as a creator of static video content, but rather as a youtuber, youtube rests on that loyalty. That's way easier than doing anything to implement moderation features like what twitch has. All they have to do is let you tell yourself there's barbarians at the gates.
 If you have the inexplicable addiction to twitter that the world seems to have, you won't dream of being able to post 1024 characters at a time like we've been doing on mastodon this whole time. Or you might say something dumb like, 
+to make it easier for you to rationalize something else dumb, like:
 without realizing that a communication network doesn't *have* to be centralized under one man's stock portfolio,
 so you don't have to worry if he starts leaning hard into fascism.
 
@@ -85,38 +86,38 @@ You and I could send 1-word emails. we could email memes. But its association wi
 
 
 speaking of technologies associated with cufflink-wearing motherfuckers: bluetooth headsets. If you're constantly talking on a phone, it's more efficient. However, they were indelibly marked with the reputation of making you "look like a douche". And that's a very honest statement; it makes you look like you're one of those people spending 8 megs per message trying to get your email to cosplay as custom stationery. 
-And to be fair, getting people to tolerate wearable technology is an uphill battle. How many generations was it before we decided to stop making fun of people for wearing glasses? Even then, not because it was an enabling technology, only because someone who wears glasses doesn't do so by choice.
+And to be fair, getting people to tolerate wearable technology is an uphill battle. How many generations was it before we decided to stop making fun of people for wearing glasses? Even then, not because they're miraculous vision-improving technology, only because someone who wears glasses doesn't do so by choice.
 
 
 
 I've described myself as an Information-Era relic. The advent of the Internet promised sharing information. Arguably it did. But what nerds don't realize is that normal people don't spend their time giving or receiving information. Case in point, StackOverflow. 
 
-Stack Overflow is (or perhaps, was) the last bastion of "practice" on the internet. Forever, idiots would say "just google it" to any question. Having never thought or had questions themselves, they assume google knows everything and will tell you. What they forget is that what google does is search - so most of the time *what* you're searching *for* **doesn't exist**. 99% of the time someone says "just google it", the results are old forum or reddit posts where someone says "just google it".
+Stack Overflow is (or perhaps, was) the last bastion of "practice" on the internet. Forever, idiots would say "just google it" to any question. Having never thought or had questions themselves, they assume google knows everything and will tell you. What they forget is that what google does is search - so most of the time *what* you're searching *for* **doesn't exist**. 99% of the time someone says "just google it", the results are old forum posts where someone says "just google it".
 StackOverflow was building the reference. 
 You know, the point of the internet? the information that we're all now connected to? The google *results*?
 
 But *every. single. time.* someone brings up stack overflow, people come out of the woodwork to tell on themselves.
 
-It has a reputation for gatekeeping, because it's meritocratic. People complain about needing points to act, but the fact that they don't understand why you need points on stackoverflow does not inspire confidence that they understand whatever else they intend to contribute to the record. People who refuse to assimilate but insist the world should bend to them cannot understand this.
+It has a reputation for gatekeeping, because it's meritocratic. People complain about needing points to act, but the fact that they don't understand why you need points on stackoverflow does not inspire confidence that they understand whatever they intend to contribute to it. People who refuse to assimilate but insist the world should bend to them cannot understand this.
 It has a reputation for being toxic... with people who expect their authority to be axiomatic. 
 
 To these, it's not about writing the record. It's about building their self-image, relegating any external effects to at most an afterthought.
 
 StackOverflow is building something. Something to be referenced. That concept is lost on people whose only metric is number of eyeballs watching ads - observe this dogshit take.
-A smarter person would understand, less new questions means the project is *achieving* its goal. However...
+A smarter person would understand, less new questions means the project is *finishing* its goal. However...
-Again, the AI-faithful have no concept of concepts. StackOverflow is *correct*, because it *understands concepts*. But for this so-called engineer, that's inconceivable. It chatGPT writes more words on the subject, "looks good enough to me".
+Again, the AI-faithful have no concept of concepts. StackOverflow is *correct*, because users *understand concepts*. But for this so-called engineer, that's inconceivable. It chatGPT writes more words on the subject, "looks good enough to me".
 notice 2 more points: one, he does not understand the concept of sharing information. He only measures the practice of asking and answering. stackoverflow questions get marked as duplicate, frequently. Because the question has already been asked, and answered. 2, he imagines moderators as a cabal of gatekeepers stifling him, when it's the community at large that rejects him.
 I don't know why he says "sadly". he doesn't want reference to learn from, he wants a sycophant to save him from learning. 
 The way he thinks of stack overflow is like if he went to wikipedia, but only talk pages, where he asked about the information in the regular article.
 
 
-Wenger (via Rugnetta) presents a fascinating (albeit generous) idea. The way people work is to have a practice, then form a social tribe tangentially related to that practice...
+Wenger (via Rugnetta) presents a fascinating (albeit generous) idea. The way people work is to have a practice, then form a social tribe related to that practice.
 
 But what happens when there is no practice?
 
-StackOverflow is about the development of software. But for imbeciles, development isn't real; it's a space where developers hang out.
+StackOverflow is about the development of software. But for imbeciles, development isn't real; so it's a space where developers hang out.
 Bluetooth headsets aren't viewed as a better solution to voice communication, they're a fashion accessory that signifies lifestyle.
-e-mail isn't thought of as "a way to send text between machines", it's treated as "an official communication channel where your boss yells at you".
+e-mail isn't thought of as "a way to send text between machines", it's treated as "an official communication channel where your boss *talks at* you".
 the fediverse allows you to free yourself and your social circle from the platform they happen to use - so it's incomprehensible to people who seek to build fame on a platform.
 
 Now, those who own the technology you use find themselves with leverage over you, for free.
@@ -125,7 +126,7 @@ TikTok has the reputation of being "the place where memes happen". That was deri
 the comparative ease of going viral was because of manual intervention by bytedance. They *crafted* exactly the community they wanted. 
 And it was easy - they manually add "heat" to videos. 
 So of course people took to tiktok. rather than youtube promoting some decrepit talk-show skeletons disguising their financial investment in the abysmal status quo as frosty-cold political takes, TikTok entices you by putting good-looking women up front... all you have to do is mute whatever terrible music they're dancing to. 
-Its technology is actively trash. it's built on unapologetically, actively manipulating what you see. And its owned by a company with a history of doing so.
+Its technology is actively trash. it's built on unapologetically, actively manipulating what you know about. And its owned by a company with a history of doing so.
 
 whenever someone self-censors with algospeak, they have given away their voice to their corporate overlord. If you indulge that sort of person, you give your attention to their corporate overlord, who in turn decides what they will allow you to see.
 I know, arguing "Censorship is Bad, Actually" is an uphill battle, for some reason. so let me leave you with some quick examples.
@@ -139,29 +140,30 @@ and then a person can have a comment right under them saying "that's not what wo
 
 
 Contrast this with Youtube trying to algorithmically "add context". I *can* think of a case where this is tantalizingly close to being useful: 
-people are constantly asking kyle hill about his hair, and he generally has 2 useful points - 1 is "go to the place where hair experts are" and a second one is "use argan oil". so what's argan oil?
+people are constantly asking kyle hill about his hair, and he generally has 2 useful points - 1 is "go to the place where hair experts are" and a second one is "use argan oil". 
-here's someone who calls herself *Dr* Dray. Youtube adds context - Yes, Dr Dray is a doctor, licensed in the US... but that's it. 
+what's argan oil?
+here's someone who calls herself *Dr* Dray. no relation to the warrior poet, I assume. Youtube adds context - Yes, Dr Dray is a doctor, licensed in the US... but that's it. 
 How much nutritional quakery is perpetrated by doctor phil, who *is* a doctor... of psychology. Not to mention chiropractors! if that little information bar showed me *what* Dr Dray is a doctor *of*, that would be very useful. 
-Check it out, there's a nice link to the texas medical board saying yes, she is a doctor, really.
+Check it out, a nice link to *the texas medical board* affirming her credentials.
 went to her website, she practices in texas, googled the texas medical board, punched in her name, easy. 
 For a platform like youtube, that rigor is hard. And why bother? viewers aren't supposed to click the link, you're just supposed to see that youtube put it there, so you can feel reassured that you can trust that youtube is both telling people the truth, and tolerating unfavorable speech.
 
-Their system isn't great at this. here's Erik doing whole video mocking Haarp conspiracies. the "context" google adds is for climate change. close, but they *have* a card for haarp. leading to an amusing screenshot of a haarp video mocking another haarp video *that has the haarp card*.. given a different card.
+Their system isn't great at this. here's Erik doing a whole video mocking Haarp conspiracies. the "context" google adds is for climate change. close, but they *have* a card for haarp. leading to an amusing screenshot of a haarp video mocking another haarp video *that has the haarp card*.. given a different card.
-Keep the cards in mind. YouTube *also* prevents videos from being posted. There's a great metal remix of kenneth copeland blowing a divine wind - i reposted that, and my account will carry a strike with it forever for "medical misinformation". despite no information, wrong or otherwise, medical or otherwise, being in the video.
+Keep the cards in mind. YouTube *also* prevents videos from being posted. There's a great metal remix of kenneth copeland blowing a divine wind - i reposted that, and my account will carry a mark with it forever for "medical misinformation". despite no information, wrong or otherwise, medical or otherwise, being in the video.
 
 And *that* is why youtubers "voldemorted" the pandemic - it would be suppressed. Meanwhile, 
 The context cards are a way for youtube to demonstrate condemnation of a message, give themselves credit for not censoring, and let viewers believe it's easy to circumvent any censorship efforts, while censoring. 
-Youtubers, of course, obey the rules - it's not their message, it's the platform. The platform owners are people who would easily understand the situation, but they don't plan on that level of intervention, they leave it to an algorithm.
+Youtubers, of course, obey the rules - success is not communicating a communication to their community. what matters is their profitability on the platform. They pass the buck to the algorithm - "we'd love to mention forbidden topics, but The Algorithm won't let us." The platform owners are people who would easily understand the situation, but they don't plan on that level of intervention, they build the platform to run itself - "we'd love to hand-pick what gets suppressed and what gets proliferated, but there's too much - The Algorithm handles it."
 
 
 To post any review on amazon, it has to be approved... by amazon. whenever you post a review on the google play store, it reserves the last word for the app's owner (which is usually a form letter and a link to their FAQ). 
 Remember when Bethesda advertised a canvas bag and delivered a nylon bag? 1st move, they sent an email that effectively said "caveat emptor, bitch.". 2nd move, they blamed material supply.
 
 how many times have we seen a company get called out by an influencer for some reason or another, then they immediately move to fix it... as a 1-off, for that influencer. Mere mortals like you and I?
-we get an algorithm. built into the platform, serving only economic incentives.
+we get an algorithm. built into the platform, serving only economic incentives. The Algorithm will decide.
 
 
-In 1939, the Grapes of Wrath talked about the bank. our monster is the algorithm. Like a capricious dark god, its wrath is unpredictable and its favor is unreliable. Its only directive: 
+In 1939, the Grapes of Wrath talked about the bank. our monster is The Algorithm. Like a capricious dark god, its wrath is unpredictable and its favor is unreliable. Its only directive: 
 sacrifice for the shareholders.