|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 18 2017 02:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2017 02:17 IgnE wrote:On March 18 2017 02:06 Plansix wrote:On March 18 2017 02:02 IgnE wrote:
ok legalord we found a person who was surprised that the nsa was collecting everything sent through and located on the internet when snowden dropped his leaks. plansix the last holdout to cynicism Mass data collection is not targeted spying on an individual at the request of an allied nation. so you think that these nations collect and store vast quantities of data and then don't look at it and don't engage in mutual trading with each other about the other's citizens? even though this sharing has already been noted by representatives and lawyers as legal information gathering? My post said I fully expected it and I was not surprised there was an agreement in place. Don't confuse me with the tech loving members of the internet. I've always expressed reservations about how the internet works, level of anonymity is provides and the legal protections websites/services have. I measure those against my reservations about the CIA and NSA.
The most likely scenario is that Trump got the idea that he was being surveilled from Breitbart, who themselves had no source to back up the shit they publish. So despite crying "GHCQ", I'm still confident that it didn't happen.
That being said, there is actually a faint possibility that somebody in the Obama administration put in a request to the GHCQ to monitor Trump or his campaign for some reason or another. It's extremely unlikely that anybody put in a physical wiretap or planted a bug. However anybody that doesn't have a security-hardened computer/laptop/smartphone/tablet could easily have had its camera and microphone co-opted without leaving any evidence.
|
|
|
United States44189 Posts
On March 18 2017 02:41 Plansix wrote:
Just wait until those self driving cars take off and we live in the true robo-cop future that we thought was satire. Except weirdly less capable.
Imagine a modern day Terminator remake. They send the Terminator back to the present day and he simply has the cell phone network ping the always on gps locator everyone carries. He then reroutes a military drone to your location and done.
We've actually passed the point where we can run and hide from robot assassins. That's no longer really an option.
|
On March 18 2017 02:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2017 02:41 Plansix wrote:
Just wait until those self driving cars take off and we live in the true robo-cop future that we thought was satire. Except weirdly less capable. Imagine a modern day Terminator remake. They send the Terminator back to the present day and he simply has the cell phone network ping the always on gps locator everyone carries. He then reroutes a military drone to your location and done. We've actually passed the point where we can run and hide from robot assassins. That's no longer really an option.
The premise of Terminator is that some other guy from the future comes back to protect the Connors, so the first thing Kyle Reese would do is take any of your smart-electronics and throw them in the neighbor's freezer.
There's nothing original about that though. Cyberpunk fiction has been dealing with these kinds of scenarios since the 1980s.
On a meta-level, even cyberpunk isn't that original in the grand scheme of things. Go back to pre-World War I literature and you'll find some novels about aristocrats who use airplanes to drop explosives on dissidents and protestors. I'm sure there were worries in even those times that new technology would permanently neuter democracy. But it wasn't true back then and it's still not true now.
|
Brave New World is the real thing we need to be afraid of. Unlimited information of questionable quality created by god knows who blanketing the population. That is the real threat to democracy. Removing the average person’s ability to make an informed decision because they can’t trust any information they receive.
|
yeah, I'd roughly agree to that. The biggest problem in today's society is people who believe fake news or intensely biased propaganda over facts and rational analyses.
But that's a problem that mankind's been facing since basically forever. How do you get plebs to stand up and fight for justice, without resorting to a Leninist vanguard?
|
Hold all our media providers to the same standards is a good place to start. The internet had some protections put in place back in the 1990s to assure new websites and server providers wouldn’t be sued for stuff posted on them. That law still exists and applies to facebook and youtube. We could stand to update it to remove some of that protection from liability. Get them on the same level as a cable network or newspaper.
|
So now Breitbart and Drudge are held to the same standard as FOX and National Enquirer, how is that an improvement?
|
The Whitehouse last linked to this article as being supportive of the budget they proposed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/03/16/trumps-budget-makes-perfect-sense-and-will-fix-america-and-i-will-tell-you-why/?utm_term=.5d983166958b
It contains lines like This budget will make America a lean, mean fighting machine with bulging, rippling muscles and not an ounce of fat. America has been weak and soft for too long. BUT HOW WILL I SURVIVE ON THIS BUDGET? you may be wondering. I AM A HUMAN CHILD, NOT A COSTLY FIGHTER JET. You may not survive, but that is because you are SOFT and WEAK, something this budget is designed to eliminate.
The State Department, by 29 percent: Right now, all the State Department’s many qualified employees do is sit around being sad that they are never consulted about anything. This is, frankly, depressing, and it is best to put them out of their misery. Besides, they are only trained in Soft Diplomacy, like a woman would do, and NOBODY wants that. Only HARD POWER now that we have a man in charge who thought the name Rex Tillerson was not manly enough and rechristened himself Wayne Tracker. With the money we will save on these sad public servants, we will be able to buy lots of GUNS and F-35s and other cool things that go BOOM and POW and PEW PEW PEW.
[‘Wayne Tracker: Legends of the Caped Crusader’]
Environmental Protection Agency: We absolutely do not need this. Clean rivers and breathable air are making us SOFT and letting the Chinese and the Russians get the jump on us. We must go back to the America that was great, when the air was full of coal and danger and the way you could tell if the air was breathable was by carrying a canary around with you at all times, perched on your leathery, coal-dust-covered finger. Furthermore, we will cut funding to Superfund cleanup in the EPA because the only thing manlier than clean water is DIRTY water.
Agriculture Department: NO MORE OF THIS NAMBY-PAMBY “GATHERING” NONSENSE. We will be HUNTERS again. This is also why we are cutting the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children: Let them FIGHT for their meat or have NONE.
Commerce Department: This will lose its funding to prepare people for coastal disasters, because in the future we will all be so strong that we can stare down the sea and make it recede by flexing our bulging muscles.
Labor Department: There will be no LABOR in the future. Labor is what women do, I think. All fetuses will burst out of wombs brandishing an Uzi on each arm. (Also, we will cut the funding to the people who would have explained that this is not how birth or labor works.)
We are decreasing funding to the National Institutes of Health because in the future we will cure disease by punching it, or, if that fails, sending drones after it. Also, we will buy more planes and guns to shoot airborne viruses out of the sky.
Affordable housing is a luxury and we are going to get rid of it. Donald Trump does not live in affordable housing and neither should you.
|
From where did you see the White House link it?
|
One thing I'd like to do/have on the budget:
have, for each agency (and various subdivisions thereof), two lists, what you'd cut if you had less money; and what you'd add if you had more money. and of course making sure those are accurate and well chosen (no putting your most popular program as the one you'd cut)
So that it's possible to see whether you can locally optimize things by comparing what happens if you take out of one area to put in another.
I don't know to what extent information on estimated marginal utility is put into existing gov documents somewhere (it's the kind of thing there might well be, but is so boring only policy wonks would know about it, because noone else wants to read it).
another thing I'd do as president is ask congress if they also want me to submit a budget that would involve no deficit.
|
|
|
Well that's pretty damn funny.
|
On March 18 2017 03:06 LightSpectra wrote:
So now Breitbart and Drudge are held to the same standard as FOX and National Enquirer, how is that an improvement?
I don’t believe the law I was talking about protects either of those. They have staff that post stories to their site(I’m not sure, but I don’t think drudge is user driven). Facebook, youtube and reddit are the sites it protects. They are immune to any liability created by someone posting purposely deceptive claims to their site, even if they profit from those claims. They can profit from the “Fake News” that knowingly posts false claims through ad sharing, but never face a legal claim for not putting in any effort to stop this stuff. The same applies to death threats or other acts of harassment. As long as they have a system in place, people have to go after the posters themselves. Even if we don’t know the posters name, which the website doesn’t’ have to provide and normally doesn’t collect(facebook being the exception).
I would prefer all media companies be held to similar standards, and that includes facebook, youtube and reddit. Not exactly the same, but similar.
|
Trump didn't shake hands with Merkel and looked like a whipped dog during the press conference, barely even looking at her. She looked pleased with herself in the pics I've seen. Didn't go so well for Trump, eh? Really showing your strength Donald; afraid to look a little woman on the eyes.
|
On March 18 2017 03:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2017 03:06 LightSpectra wrote:
So now Breitbart and Drudge are held to the same standard as FOX and National Enquirer, how is that an improvement? I don’t believe the law I was talking about protects either of those. They have staff that post stories to their site(I’m not sure, but I don’t think drudge is user driven). Facebook, youtube and reddit are the sites it protects. They are immune to any liability created by someone posting purposely deceptive claims to their site, even if they profit from those claims. They can profit from the “Fake News” that knowingly posts false claims through ad sharing, but never face a legal claim for not putting in any effort to stop this stuff. The same applies to death threats or other acts of harassment. As long as they have a system in place, people have to go after the posters themselves. Even if we don’t know the posters name, which the website doesn’t’ have to provide and normally doesn’t collect(facebook being the exception). I would prefer all media companies be held to similar standards, and that includes facebook, youtube and reddit. Not exactly the same, but similar.
So it sounds like this is a proposal exclusively to combat fake news, not to combat extremely biased, partisan propaganda. I'd say the latter is a bigger problem than the former, although admittedly that's just my perception.
|
On March 18 2017 03:42 On_Slaught wrote:
Trump didn't shake hands with Merkel and looked like a whipped dog during the press conference, barely even looking at her. She looked pleased with herself in the pics I've seen. Didn't go so well for Trump, eh? Really showing your strength Donald; afraid to look a little woman on the eyes.
Baseless, out of my ass interpretation: Merkel's team has concluded the proper way to handle Trump is with mild disrespect and to openly not take any of his bluster or "I will burn the house down" rhetoric even remotely seriously.
|
On March 18 2017 03:50 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2017 03:40 Plansix wrote:On March 18 2017 03:06 LightSpectra wrote:
So now Breitbart and Drudge are held to the same standard as FOX and National Enquirer, how is that an improvement? I don’t believe the law I was talking about protects either of those. They have staff that post stories to their site(I’m not sure, but I don’t think drudge is user driven). Facebook, youtube and reddit are the sites it protects. They are immune to any liability created by someone posting purposely deceptive claims to their site, even if they profit from those claims. They can profit from the “Fake News” that knowingly posts false claims through ad sharing, but never face a legal claim for not putting in any effort to stop this stuff. The same applies to death threats or other acts of harassment. As long as they have a system in place, people have to go after the posters themselves. Even if we don’t know the posters name, which the website doesn’t’ have to provide and normally doesn’t collect(facebook being the exception). I would prefer all media companies be held to similar standards, and that includes facebook, youtube and reddit. Not exactly the same, but similar. So it sounds like this is a proposal exclusively to combat fake news, not to combat extremely biased, partisan propaganda. I'd say the latter is a bigger problem than the former, although admittedly that's just my perception.
I'd agree the latter is a bigger problem, but it's also less tractable; it's far easier to get sufficient social consensus to go after truly fake news, than it is to go after the highly biased stuff. so in terms of benefit vs effort to implement it's probably best to start on the former.
|
On March 18 2017 03:50 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2017 03:40 Plansix wrote:On March 18 2017 03:06 LightSpectra wrote:
So now Breitbart and Drudge are held to the same standard as FOX and National Enquirer, how is that an improvement? I don’t believe the law I was talking about protects either of those. They have staff that post stories to their site(I’m not sure, but I don’t think drudge is user driven). Facebook, youtube and reddit are the sites it protects. They are immune to any liability created by someone posting purposely deceptive claims to their site, even if they profit from those claims. They can profit from the “Fake News” that knowingly posts false claims through ad sharing, but never face a legal claim for not putting in any effort to stop this stuff. The same applies to death threats or other acts of harassment. As long as they have a system in place, people have to go after the posters themselves. Even if we don’t know the posters name, which the website doesn’t’ have to provide and normally doesn’t collect(facebook being the exception). I would prefer all media companies be held to similar standards, and that includes facebook, youtube and reddit. Not exactly the same, but similar. So it sounds like this is a proposal exclusively to combat fake news, not to combat extremely biased, partisan propaganda. I'd say the latter is a bigger problem than the former, although admittedly that's just my perception.
It is to combat the laissez faire relationship that the internet’s largest companies have with the information they provide. I only ask that youtube be held to the a similar standard as the shitty public television channel I interned at in highschool. That Facebook maybe think twice before letter software be their editor for everyone because it frees them of responsibility for what people see.
|
I'm not saying that wouldn't help, I just don't think that addresses the core of the issue. A country that relies on information from FOX or Russia Today or Daily Mail is going to be in very, very bad straits, regardless of how much fake news they're being exposed to on social media.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
