Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[MuadDib]

Some of my musings on the Liver King post:
Notice the connection between pollution of the information ecosystem and massive profits. Contemplate why the two go together. How are they connected? Why does polluting the information ecosystem generate so much profit?

At first glance, it seems absurd how a falsehood can outearn accuracy when accuracy is what keeps societies, markets and science running. Digital platforms, advertising markets and human psychology are all wired in ways that let “dirty” information such rumour, hype, outrage, half-truth circulate more cheaply, rapidly and “stickily” than well sourced facts. Profit flows to the polluter as "truth" has structural disadvantages.

Truth here is pragmatic rather than metaphysical: a claim is “true” when it corresponds to observable reality and survives a good faith process of public checking (peer review, investigative reporting, replication, etc.). That process is resource intensive. (Slow editors, lab equipment, legal review, travel, cross-checking, as well as general education) Long-term damages are often offloaded onto others.

Informational health is the net capacity of a community to model reality accurately enough to make sound decisions and draw valid conclusions and extrapolate from the available information. A healthy ecosystem fosters feedback loops (critique, correction, transparency) that keep collective models aligned with the "real" world.

Short term, it is profitable for the polluter to bypass the friction of truth and hijack more primitive urges; however, long-term costs are severe, as over a long horizon, healthy information ecosystems do support higher aggregate wealth (functioning markets, public health, stable democracies, etc.).

Truth’s handicap is not inherent dullness; it is systemic mispricing. Digital markets currently treat attention as gold and veracity as sand. Until the external costs of polluted information are factored onto the polluter’s balance sheet, or until platforms and audiences reward epistemic hygiene, dirty content will continue to generate private fortunes while the collective bears the cost.

The question, then, is no longer why pollution pays, but whether we’re willing to pay the higher up front costs of a cleaner public sphere, or keep paying the hidden, compounded costs of letting the filth flow. Polluting the information ecosystem is NOT profitable in the end.

[Leo Gura]

@MuadDib Good.

30 minutes ago, MuadDib said:

Polluting the information ecosystem is NOT profitable in the end

Not profitable for who?

You're overlooking the relativity of the profit. It's very profitable for certain people at the expense of the collective. Just like chemical pollution.

Chemical pollution is profitable. Which is why it exists. But profit is relative to a who.

Edited June 24 by Leo Gura

[MuadDib]

I'm not overlooking the relativity of profit, as stated:
 

41 minutes ago, MuadDib said:

Short term, it is profitable for the polluter

You are overlooking the relativity of the definition of profit. 
The Liver King's millions aren't going to be worth much when the net effect of eroded public trust, international business relations, and a corroded political climate results in his ice lake and local bank being nuked by Iran. Loosely speaking, that's a loss.

[RendHeaven]

1 hour ago, MuadDib said:

The question, then, is no longer why pollution pays, but whether we’re willing to pay the higher up front costs of a cleaner public sphere

The answer is no.

They would rather sink the ship because they know they have first access to lifeboats.

17 minutes ago, MuadDib said:

The Liver King's millions aren't going to be worth much when the net effect of eroded public trust, international business relations, and a corroded political climate results in his ice lake and local bank being nuked by Iran. Loosely speaking, that's a loss.

They'll find a way to survive. And we won't. And they know that. So this trajectory will continue.

[ZhenZhenZhen]

Corruption is a low-hanging fruit

[Starlight321]

What I wrote down from my contemplation is mainly that it is very profitable for the audiance and the person who promotes it as well as the platform and advertisers because it panders to the biases of shallow , underdeveloped low conscious people who are often too lazy to put in the effort emotional and cognitiv to understand the real relationships of the subject and seeing that you're probable so wrong that you'd habe to create a basis of knowledge from scratch.

It sells unattainable pipe dreams while leaving out the real causes for the results which might include genetics, upbringing, socioeconomical matrix, manipulation and lying.

Other factors that play into it are that many people are low iq and/or uneducated so that they cannot differentiate between a scientist talking mumbo jumbo and  a crack pot spitballing scientific sounding words. 

Moreover people don't think about the things they hear or question it especially if it confirms their biases and because they love their phantasies and hate deconstruction of them. It also caters to the feeling of knowing stuff and the fear if one doesn't know.

It helps avoiding facing core issues like insecurity and traumas and deying their existance.

Also the growing distrust of mainstream media and trust of alternativ media plays into it.

For the streamer it is profitable because he can milk his audiance, reinforces his own phantasies of greatness and feeding his ego and ego needs. Especially our hype culture and the structure of social media plays into that where new exiting and shallow things are promoted while hindering access to more accurate and dry solutions, addicting the mind in the process.

It is profitible for the advertisors because they get eyeballs and find a pool of shallow, low developed target audiance whe is eager to buy stuff.

The media platform profits from it because its all designed to keep the viewer as long as possible behind the display and make money with the adds while polluting his mind.

What I noticed on a deeper level is how every mind must fit in its niche to work for all of it.

After reading the prior comments I add that it's also not profitable in the sense that it pollutes the knowledge ecosystem which makes our society more stupid and often hateful and it becomes harder to discern truth from falsehood. The polltion of our minds and the deeds originating from it are also destructive and promote selfishness

Truth is nessesary for real solutions like facing your real motives for wanting to be pumped up or for the mechanics of getting a mate, skills or how reality really works in general.

Have I missed other aspects?

Edited June 24 by Starlight321

[JTL]

On 17.6.2025 at 11:38 PM, Leo Gura said:

Ralston got into martial arts because he was bullied and insecure.

He was conscious enough to see that and he retired from fighting pretty young.

@Leo Gura but, would you say that a bully victim or a marginalized community standing up for themself e.g selfdefense. or in more general terms standing up to bully is uncounscious? just want to know. For context watched a great documentary series https://www.channel4.com/programmes/defiance-fighting-the-far-right it free to watch  

Edited June 24 by JTL

[Puer Aeternus]

1 hour ago, JTL said:

but, would you say that a bully victim or a marginalized community standing up for themself e.g selfdefense. or in more general terms standing up to bully is uncounscious? just want to know. 

Perhaps it's unconscious but it's the more productive action.

You won't become conscious if people are stepping all over you, exploiting you, playing with your emotions. Self-defense can be necessary for securing boundaries. Then you can transcend it more later.

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, JTL said:

or in more general terms standing up to bully is uncounscious?

No, that is valid. Physical security is valid.

The issue is that this victim complex never gets resolved but turns into a lifetime insecurity and fetish for proving ones manhood. That's the unconscious bit. This drive to prove you got a big swinging dick. That's what I see in a lot of UFC fans. It goes way beyond physical security into ego, overcompensation, and immature toxic masculinity.

Look at Conor McGregor. What do his antics have to do with physical security and standing up to bullies? He is the bully. And note, he is the most popular UFC fighter for that reason.

Edited June 24 by Leo Gura

[CARDOZZO]

Be aware of illusions. 

Whatever they are. As Deleuze said:

 

[Leo Gura]

On 6/21/2025 at 8:47 AM, AION said:

Now if Leo is serious about truth he should put his book on the book list. It is called the value of others.

I will check out his book.

Thanks for the suggestion.

[Husseinisdoingfine]

Is it this book?

[Oppositionless]

I don't think Leo is necessarily wrong in his critique of religion , but I do think there are some really sharp religious folk out there who understand God well. Enlightenment can happen at any level of spiral dynamics. Just because people like Rumi and old school Zen masters were at blue and religous, doesn't mean they don't understand God.

Edited June 25 by Oppositionless

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Oppositionless said:

Just because people like Rumi and Zen masters were at blue and religous

You're talking about mystics, not religion.

[Daniel Balan]

Hi Leo! Religious people notion of God is not the same as your notion of God! Religious people litteraly believe God is a bearded, wrathful old man that lives in the clouds, has a bearded son that died and revived himself, then levitated all the way to the same clouds where his father lives, and a pigeon that has has mystical powers! This is what God means for Christians, so allow me to correct your blog post, what I described here is human and pigeon worship, not God! This religion is a circus created to maximize survival and dominate over others who don't follow this cult! This has nothing to do with your notion of God!

Edited June 25 by Daniel Balan

[Nemra]

To say religious people got it right is too generous—they cannot understand that belief is not direct.

[Leo Gura]

41 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

Hi Leo! Religious people notion of God is not the same as your notion of God! Religious people litteraly believe God is a bearded, wrathful old man that lives in the clouds, has a bearded son that died and revived himself, then levitated all the way to the same clouds where his father lives, and a pigeon that has has mystical powers! This is what God means for Christians, so allow me to correct your blog post, what I described here is human and pigeon worship, not God! This religion is a circus created to maximize survival and dominate over others who don't follow this cult! This has nothing to do with your notion of God!

Be careful. You are getting stuck with these narrow lines of thinking.

You want to be more nuanced, less emotional, and less stereotypical with your thinking.

Not all religious people are so cartoonishly stupid.

And there is certainly a connection between the God of religion and the God of Awakening. These cannot be unrelated things since humans did not invent God.

Edited June 25 by Leo Gura

[samijiben]

Goddamn! Oh, how I appreciate the quality and class of that writing! I am going to SLOBBER THAT SHIT UP!

 

[LoneWonderer]

Day 1 Leo's Book comes out

[MuadDib]

"Science has a 400 year history of being wrong about everything" - me in 10th grade.