Not sure if this is the right section for this post, might be better off somewhere else.

But a sentiment I've seen more and more frequently online is the idea that there's a pretty simple "razor" (like Occum's razor, or Halon's) that if a billionaire or huge corporation is telling me something is bad or will hurt people, it's usually a sign that the opposite is true. Or if a billionaire goes on the news and says that this new law is good for the poors and people should support it, it's a good sign to go out and vote against it.

Do we have a catchy name for it yet? I was thinking maybe "The Bezo's inversion" or something similar.

Edit: Shout out to /u/Rosco for expressing my intentions from this post better than I could have. The discussion in this thread didn't really go the direction I was expecting and that's probably on me for how I structured the original post.

I read this as more of a fun catharsis. We're in a society that is getting disproportionately out of whack. Wealth inequality is at a pretty untenable level, the average person is having a hard time getting by, and those with extreme wealth are actively trying to change our media, regulatory, labor, political landscapes to their benefit. I think a big of off gassing is warranted and this seems like a fun to way to engage with it. Obviously it's not actually going to function as a law, like I agree with Tom Steyer's stance on the Environment. But, on the flip side I came across the voter guide in the Palo Alto Daily in 2020 and it was literally the exact opposite - on every single proposition - than what I was planning to vote for. So it also kind of works? Regardless, it's harmless fun.

I've had a thought bouncing in my head today and I want to give it some air and let you folks at it to see where it takes on water.

The theory is that there's a contradiction, or misalignment maybe, between how most people feel about the philosophical concept of free will and how time travel and time loops are portrayed in media. Here's the premises I've landed on to arrive at that:

(1) The vast majority of people believe in some form of free will. (Fairly non contentious, I hope. A lot of resources back this up.)

(2) For free will to exist, if a person is repeatedly prompted to make some sort of decision under the exact same circumstances (time, place, people, etc) there must be a non-zero amount of times that they will arrive at a decision different from their initial one. For example... lets suppose you walk into the room and ask me what I want for dinner. I chew on some options for a moment then decide "chicken and rice". Then my memory is wiped and we repeat this over and over. After a few repeats of this I end up settling on a steak burrito instead. This is the only way free will could work imo because the opposite result, if given the same input you always arrive at the same output, is no different than determinism. Plus it implies, much like the time loop/travel media show, that from the start of the day we can know exactly where we will end up at the end if nothing is changed- which leaves no wiggle room for free will.

(3) The people in time travel / time loop media who are not your faithful protagonist or otherwise aware of the time based shenanigans going on always do the exact same thing every time (at least, in the ones I've seen). It's only the ones who are aware of how events have already unfolded who can make new decisions, everyone and everything else plays out the same.

Thus, virtually all media portray time travel/loops in a way that doesn't jive with how the vast majority of people perceive free will.

So, what do you think- Do you agree with the conclusion? Do you disagree on the definition of free will? Should I have gone with my alternate title? (12 Deterministic Monkeys starring Bruce Free Willis)