|
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 September 30 2017 02:42 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 02:39 Mohdoo wrote:On September 30 2017 02:34 zlefin wrote:On September 30 2017 02:25 Mohdoo wrote:On September 30 2017 02:20 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On September 30 2017 02:06 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 02:00 Mohdoo wrote:On September 30 2017 01:55 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 01:22 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
I am certainly being critical here. But what I am criticizing is the idea that a lot of these young, weak individuals were looking for meaning and a way to finally feel empowered. They saw radical, divisive, extreme perspectives being tweeted and retweeted. They see 20K retweets and, being pitiful individuals, felt like these perspectives must have some sort of truth or validity. They look at things like demanding reparations as a flat tax on white people and say "Ya know what, looking at how many people also feel this way, and seeing how weak I feel right now, they just might be right". THAT is what I am criticizing: The weakness of the individual. They should have realized this is extremist nonsense and moved on. I fault the individual for being shitty and being susceptible to this type of thinking.
We all know how these types of things work. It is the same way Trump legitimized what I would call barely-not-white-supremacy. A ton of people now think his perspectives are justifiable and that they will eventually empower lower-class whites. In many ways, Russia is just riling up people the same way Trump did. My point is that the type of person who is vulnerable to thinking viewpoints are legitimate or ethical because of the appearance of widespread appeal, are shitty people and I am very upset with them. I hate that their weakness brings my country down.
Mohdoo: I know you aren’t a bad dude, which is why I brought it up. A number of your posts have focused on “weakness” with an extremely negative tone. That people who are manipulated and tricked are almost worse that the bad actors that are trying to trick them. That their weakness is something we should shun and be ashamed of. I’ve worked in some less than forgiving areas of law, including eviction and probation. I understand that frustration with people who do this stuff and that they should just get their life together. Personally, I think you should really push back against those feelings and views. It’s a bad way to view people and the world. Save the blame for people who are actively trying to lie and deceive, rather than lay it on the people who are deceived. On September 30 2017 01:52 Mohdoo wrote:
Person A is looking for any possible way to feel empowered. They exercise extremely poor critical thinking and skepticism as they read about ridiculous nonsense. Person A is no different than the guy who tried to shoot up a pizza shop after hearing Clinton was keeping kids in the basement. Being convinced by obvious lies and letting these obvious lies influence your core philosophies is the making of a very low tier individual. Honestly, isn’t this you? Right now? In this thread? Because you seem to be looking for ways to feel superior to those who were deceived. Some people are just nasty and condescending without feeling emo. This is more so the kinda thing where parents get more mad at their own kids than someone else's kids. Racial justice (BLM) and Antifa'esque struggles are very dear to me and I have always been on the more extreme side of things until the past few years. I consider them among the most important fights of our time. But these bags of trash hurt the cause. They lessen the impact of legitimate, intelligent, helpful people. Then get mad at twitter, facebook and the companies that provided these services that started driving the news, but didn’t check to make sure it was the real people driving the discussion. Or the broadcast media for being so quick to empower twitter as a source of news, without much critical review. There is a lot of blame to go around. Don’t go for the easy self gratification of saying “this wouldn’t have happened if you people were not so easily tricked.” It’s lazy. Yeah, you're totally right. I address that in my edit above. I just want the left to be as effective as the right and seeing things like this make me flip tables. I know so many people who buy into the worst parts of liberal media and I tell them to just get off facebook and twitter for politics. But I do it in person to people I know. My anger is for these tech companies that have been happy to rake in billions, but clearly have no idea who using their service for what. Especially twitter, who has been hearing these same complains since 2014 and has done nothing. And congress, who should have seen all this shit coming. People have been reporting on Russian troll farms for years. Your position is definitely the more ethical and correct one to take. I just get so sad seeing "one of my own" turning against the pack. In Twitter/FB's defense, I think we are still learning about what I consider somewhat of a "next level of consciousness" that is being created by the internet and interconnectedness. This has all moved so fast that I really can imagine FB/Twitter assuming this stuff would not be nearly as effective or powerful. How they handle this moving forward will dictate how I view them. Not looking great so far. what exactly would oyu like them to do? In my eyes, large social networks have become crucial components of human connection and exchange of ideas. It has changed basically every component of how humans connect. To me, this essentially translates to them being components of our brains. Similar to how the banking industry has very specific regulations, so too should social media platforms. I don't really know what that looks like, but the fact is that social media has direct, huge impacts on society. They can't just be left alone to do whatever makes them the most money. You could almost argue social media running wild is just as bad as healthcare running wild. I feel like the role of social media in the US has developed so rapidly, yet under our noses, that we aren't even realizing how different the world was 10 years ago. that is not an actionable proposal, nor is it really one that comes down to what the companies should do, but rather what government should do. do you have any actionable proposals? this reminds me of one of the big flaws in the occupy wallstreet protests: many were against the banks in some braod sense, but had no actionable proposals to actually fix anything.
I am not quite arrogant enough to think I am in any way qualified to say what these companies should do. I suppose my proposal is for government to recognize that social media is such a unique and powerful industry that it needs some regulations that would be pretty appalling in any other context. As an example, Pizzagate would never have happened in my idealized post-regulation world.
|
Well, ultimately this is an actual censorship discussion (and not some faux xDaunt college outrage censorship).
Because several nations do handle social media content, but it's not a flattering group to be a part of. And most of those don't regulate Facebook or Twitter, because that leaves the censorship and content control to a corporation. They use government sponsored alternatives to directly monitor and filter everything.
|
On September 30 2017 02:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 02:42 zlefin wrote:On September 30 2017 02:39 Mohdoo wrote:On September 30 2017 02:34 zlefin wrote:On September 30 2017 02:25 Mohdoo wrote:On September 30 2017 02:20 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On September 30 2017 02:06 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 02:00 Mohdoo wrote:On September 30 2017 01:55 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Mohdoo: I know you aren’t a bad dude, which is why I brought it up. A number of your posts have focused on “weakness” with an extremely negative tone. That people who are manipulated and tricked are almost worse that the bad actors that are trying to trick them. That their weakness is something we should shun and be ashamed of.
I’ve worked in some less than forgiving areas of law, including eviction and probation. I understand that frustration with people who do this stuff and that they should just get their life together. Personally, I think you should really push back against those feelings and views. It’s a bad way to view people and the world. Save the blame for people who are actively trying to lie and deceive, rather than lay it on the people who are deceived.
[quote]
Honestly, isn’t this you? Right now? In this thread? Because you seem to be looking for ways to feel superior to those who were deceived.
Some people are just nasty and condescending without feeling emo. This is more so the kinda thing where parents get more mad at their own kids than someone else's kids. Racial justice (BLM) and Antifa'esque struggles are very dear to me and I have always been on the more extreme side of things until the past few years. I consider them among the most important fights of our time. But these bags of trash hurt the cause. They lessen the impact of legitimate, intelligent, helpful people. Then get mad at twitter, facebook and the companies that provided these services that started driving the news, but didn’t check to make sure it was the real people driving the discussion. Or the broadcast media for being so quick to empower twitter as a source of news, without much critical review. There is a lot of blame to go around. Don’t go for the easy self gratification of saying “this wouldn’t have happened if you people were not so easily tricked.” It’s lazy. Yeah, you're totally right. I address that in my edit above. I just want the left to be as effective as the right and seeing things like this make me flip tables. I know so many people who buy into the worst parts of liberal media and I tell them to just get off facebook and twitter for politics. But I do it in person to people I know. My anger is for these tech companies that have been happy to rake in billions, but clearly have no idea who using their service for what. Especially twitter, who has been hearing these same complains since 2014 and has done nothing. And congress, who should have seen all this shit coming. People have been reporting on Russian troll farms for years. Your position is definitely the more ethical and correct one to take. I just get so sad seeing "one of my own" turning against the pack. In Twitter/FB's defense, I think we are still learning about what I consider somewhat of a "next level of consciousness" that is being created by the internet and interconnectedness. This has all moved so fast that I really can imagine FB/Twitter assuming this stuff would not be nearly as effective or powerful. How they handle this moving forward will dictate how I view them. Not looking great so far. what exactly would oyu like them to do? In my eyes, large social networks have become crucial components of human connection and exchange of ideas. It has changed basically every component of how humans connect. To me, this essentially translates to them being components of our brains. Similar to how the banking industry has very specific regulations, so too should social media platforms. I don't really know what that looks like, but the fact is that social media has direct, huge impacts on society. They can't just be left alone to do whatever makes them the most money. You could almost argue social media running wild is just as bad as healthcare running wild. I feel like the role of social media in the US has developed so rapidly, yet under our noses, that we aren't even realizing how different the world was 10 years ago. that is not an actionable proposal, nor is it really one that comes down to what the companies should do, but rather what government should do. do you have any actionable proposals? this reminds me of one of the big flaws in the occupy wallstreet protests: many were against the banks in some braod sense, but had no actionable proposals to actually fix anything. I am not quite arrogant enough to think I am in any way qualified to say what these companies should do. I suppose my proposal is for government to recognize that social media is such a unique and powerful industry that it needs some regulations that would be pretty appalling in any other context. As an example, Pizzagate would never have happened in my idealized post-regulation world.
you yourself may not be qualified; but is there someone you support who is, and what do they say?
is there any way to do this without changing the 1st amendment?
it sounds like your idealized world may be just that, idealized, and not something that's possible in reality.
some form of regulation might be good; but the devil's always in the details, what regulations, how will they be enforced? what if the government misuses them? the current government is clearly too incompetent to create such regulations. if you're asking for sensible, thoughtful, sound, and responsible government action, then you're asking for the impossible.
|
On September 30 2017 02:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Well, ultimately this is an actual censorship discussion (and not some faux xDaunt college outrage censorship).
Because several nations do handle social media content, but it's not a flattering group to be a part of. And most of those don't regulate Facebook or Twitter, because that leaves the censorship and content control to a corporation. They use government sponsored alternatives to directly monitor and filter everything.
I see issues like Pizzagate as more akin to issues like yelling "fire" in a movie theatre. Pizza gate, clinton pedo rings and other similar things are assaults on society. There needs to be some sort of way to distinguish between that and criticizing the government. But like I said, I don't have a fucking clue. I am just saying that some group somewhere ought to be able to iron out a method of preventing future pizzgates.
|
On September 30 2017 02:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Well, ultimately this is an actual censorship discussion (and not some faux xDaunt college outrage censorship).
Because several nations do handle social media content, but it's not a flattering group to be a part of. And most of those regulate Facebook or Twitter, because that leaves the censorship and content control to a corporation. They use government sponsored alternatives to directly monitor and filter everything.
The key part is to make it in the company’s best interest to moderate their platform in a reasonable manner. Right now it is in their best interest to not moderate their platform at all and simply leave surfacing things to their users. And because of that, it is easy to game the system. Just reverse that dynamic and it will go a long way solving the problem. Being more critical of who is posting news articles to their site would go a long way. There were articles about who Facebook’s auto formatting was turning the most poorly made bullshit news site to a CNN quality product. That seems like something they could look at and maybe adjust or turn off.
There also needs to be an acknowledgment that there is no market solution for manipulation by state actors. That can only do be done through active moderation and preventing them from abusing the service to deceive users. A for profit company cannot rely on market forces to tamp down on content created by state funded actors. State actors have no bottom line.
|
On September 30 2017 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 02:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Well, ultimately this is an actual censorship discussion (and not some faux xDaunt college outrage censorship).
Because several nations do handle social media content, but it's not a flattering group to be a part of. And most of those don't regulate Facebook or Twitter, because that leaves the censorship and content control to a corporation. They use government sponsored alternatives to directly monitor and filter everything. I see issues like Pizzagate as more akin to issues like yelling "fire" in a movie theatre. Pizza gate, clinton pedo rings and other similar things are assaults on society. There needs to be some sort of way to distinguish between that and criticizing the government. But like I said, I don't have a fucking clue. I am just saying that some group somewhere ought to be able to iron out a method of preventing future pizzgates.
Here's the problem: You can't even stop people from yelling "fire" into a movie theatre. You can punish them after the fact, but the panic and the chaos from the action still happened.
Likewise, you can't stop Pizzagate because essentially it involves people lying on the internet and people believing those lies. Plansix likes to say that news agencies work under such a better standard than the internet, but a Presidential candidate can lie to an entire nation on their network and they can't even run a correction in real time, let alone stop the lie from being broadcast.
There are definite improvements that can be made to internet communication. Laws and jurisdictions need to be updated so that warrants and requests are smoother when the target's location is unknown, for example. But the nature of communication, electronic and digital or otherwise, is that people can lie and people can fall for it.
(On that note, anyone here still wait half an hour after eating before swimming?)
|
Speaking about his relationship with Trump to Pod Save America host Jon Favreau, Schumer said the president appreciated his straight-talking New York candor.
Schumer said he told Trump that in order to regain some trust amongst Democrats, he would have to make concessions, with Schumer proposing health care and immigration as possibilities for wiggle room.
“On Dreamers, he said, you know, that he understood that they didn’t come in through any fault of their own, that they’re good Americans, good kids,” Schumer recalled.
“And then he said he wants the wall in return. And we said “No. No wall, Mr. President.’ And he tried that for about 15 minutes, but he’s not going to push me around verbally or any other way.”
“And he finally said, “OK, we won’t do the wall. We’ll do some other kind of border security,” Schumer said.
PSA is a pretty decent podcast.
|
On September 30 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:
Being more critical of who is posting news articles to their site would go a long way. There were articles about who Facebook’s auto formatting was turning the most poorly made bullshit news site to a CNN quality product. That seems like something they could look at and maybe adjust or turn off.
As far as I know (and I honestly don't know much, because I don't use Facebook at all), but articles aren't even posted directly on Facebook. There are snippets from existing articles that will show up depending on how people link the content (and how the website works with Facebook's API), and users will share those links which will include those snippets. But people don't use Facebook as a news posting medium, they use it as a sharing tool for their own sites.
|
On September 30 2017 03:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:
Being more critical of who is posting news articles to their site would go a long way. There were articles about who Facebook’s auto formatting was turning the most poorly made bullshit news site to a CNN quality product. That seems like something they could look at and maybe adjust or turn off.
As far as I know (and I honestly don't know much, because I don't use Facebook at all), but articles aren't even posted directly on Facebook. There are snippets from existing articles that will show up depending on how people link the content (and how the website works with Facebook's API), and users will share those links which will include those snippets. But people don't use Facebook as a news posting medium, they use it as a sharing tool for their own sites.
Here is the verge article about it from a year ago. I don’t know how much has changed since then, but the systems that google and facebook set up made it harder for the end user to tell “does this website look professional.” Everyone had dealt with this problem when looking for a product review on google and every site looks weirdly similar.
https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/6/13850230/fake-news-sites-google-search-facebook-instant-articles
|
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-did-russia-use-facebook-during-election-trump-clinton-2017-9
A fuller picture of Russia's use of social media to influence the 2016 US election has begun to emerge, weeks after Facebook announced that "inauthentic" accounts most likely operating out of Russia had purchased $100,000 worth of political ads between 2015 and 2016.
A steady stream of leaks most likely coming from Capitol Hill — Facebook said late last week that it would turn over the ads to Congress — have indicated the ads and the accounts that bought them were focused primarily on exploiting divisions over issues like race and immigration.
And as Business Insider has previously reported, the accounts' activity did not stop at posting controversial memes and hashtags — many organized events, rallies, and protests, some of which galvanized dozens of people.
Facebook was not oblivious to the Russians' presence on the platform — The Washington Post reported this week that the company contacted the FBI last June when it noticed that members of a hacking group connected to Russia's military intelligence unit, the GRU, had begun creating fake accounts to amplify stolen emails.
The US intelligence community concluded in January that the social-media operation was part of a larger influence campaign by Russia — and that assessment, according to former intelligence chief James Clapper, "did serve to cast doubt on the legitimacy" of the election outcome.
|
|
|
Of course the VA chief would do that, look at how man veterans the VA has turned away....
|
These people are morons. Tom Price was in congress, he has zero excuses. This thing is also mindboggling. Do they know they can’t just write everything down on the expense sheet? This isn’t the private sector.
|
On September 30 2017 03:42 Plansix wrote:
These people are morons. Tom Price was in congress, he has zero excuses. This thing is also mindboggling. Do they know they can’t just write everything down on the expense sheet? This isn’t the private sector.
They know.
They probably expect it to be found out.
They also expect they will get away with it anyway and no one is going to fire them or demand full payment of all their expenses + penalties.
I expect them to be right.
|
dammit, and shulkin was one of the ones otherwise competent at his job.
edit: actually reading the article it doesn't seem quite as egregious. but still pretty bad optics.
|
On September 30 2017 03:47 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 03:42 Plansix wrote:
These people are morons. Tom Price was in congress, he has zero excuses. This thing is also mindboggling. Do they know they can’t just write everything down on the expense sheet? This isn’t the private sector. They know. They probably expect it to be found out. They also expect they will get away with it anyway and no one is going to fire them or demand full payment of all their expenses + penalties. I expect them to be right.
There is no way they are paying this back and there is no system to make them pay it back. People are learning first hand just how much faith they have to put in their public officials and why the private sector should never be confuses with government.
|
On September 30 2017 00:51 Mohdoo wrote:Reading about Russia's efforts to influence conversations around BLM and Antifa'esque movements is fascinating. Browsing Twitter, it was clear that there was some enormous spike in extremist activism. Sure, a few of my typically dipshit liberal friends were ranting about patriarchy in all the ways they normally do, but 2016 was different. It was this previously fringe, militant perspective that took so much more of a stand. Reading about the fact that Russia did its best to spark that fire, then fan it and help it grow, makes total sense. I also take pleasure in being able to be this condescending regarding BLM. They were such dipshits that a foreign government was able to rile them up and make them even more angry. They were used because their views were divisive and extreme, but also because of how gullible and longing for connection these fringe bags of shit tend to be. People who subscribe to extremist beliefs typically feel like their power has been taken from them and that they are weak to create their own path. They cling on to extremist nonsense because definitive, all-or-nothing, "had enough already" types of thinking gives people resolve. By being unyielding, they start to feel like they are actually powerful or actually making a difference. Because they were weak, they got used. But also, fuck those people for being weak trash. They brought us all down with them because they were weak and shitty.
Edit: This is what I'm referring to http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/28/media/blacktivist-russia-facebook-twitter/index.htmlIf you tell young, weak, misguided shitbags who are looking for an excuse for their misery, all the ways they can feel powerful, they are going to take that bait.
The hell are you talking about?
"Brought us all down"? What on earth do you mean?
|
On September 30 2017 03:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 03:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:
Being more critical of who is posting news articles to their site would go a long way. There were articles about who Facebook’s auto formatting was turning the most poorly made bullshit news site to a CNN quality product. That seems like something they could look at and maybe adjust or turn off.
As far as I know (and I honestly don't know much, because I don't use Facebook at all), but articles aren't even posted directly on Facebook. There are snippets from existing articles that will show up depending on how people link the content (and how the website works with Facebook's API), and users will share those links which will include those snippets. But people don't use Facebook as a news posting medium, they use it as a sharing tool for their own sites. Here is the verge article about it from a year ago. I don’t know how much has changed since then, but the systems that google and facebook set up made it harder for the end user to tell “does this website look professional.” Everyone had dealt with this problem when looking for a product review on google and every site looks weirdly similar. https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/6/13850230/fake-news-sites-google-search-facebook-instant-articles
Okay, this article probably isn't talking about the things you are referring to. At least, I don't think so.
Those are frameworks you can set up on your website to work better with mobile devices (less images, less javascript, etc.). News sites opt-in because it's cheaper than paying a web developer to figure it out themselves, and random conspiracy bloggers do the same for the same reason (I guess, or maybe Wordpress uses it automatically).
Basically why all vBulletin forums look the same-ish, because they're using the same tool that comes with a fairly packaged design.
|
leadership comes from the top. Hard to maintain ethical standards when leadership doesn't care. This is basic buisness management 101. also the ethics lawyers seem to be hilariously incompetent.
|
also heres the explanation on why public high schools can't ban kneeling
https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/09/not-standing-it
But when it comes to the expression of opinions and beliefs—particularly political and religious ideas—schools must grant children a wide berth. Two landmark Supreme Court cases vindicate youngsters’ rights, and they quite clearly protect any Parkway football player who may prefer not to follow his principal’s respect-the-anthem directive tonight.
The first case, decided in 1943, upheld the right of Jehovah’s Witnesses to opt out of a daily flag salute ceremony at school. The students’ request was based on their reading of a line in the Book of Exodus that prohibits paying homage to a graven image, but in West Virginia v Barnette, the Supreme Court painted the matter in far broader terms. Barnette powerfully explains why mandated professions of belief clash with the First Amendment. “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation”, Justice Robert Jackson wrote, “it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion”. Nor can the government “force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein”.
Requiring students to stand respectfully during the singing of the national anthem is to “prescribe what shall be orthodox” during Parkway High football games. It forces young citizens to affirm a particular patriotic message. Officials, whether high or petty, cannot do that. And in 1969, a 7-2 majority in Tinker v Des Moines School Board clarified the rule. The Supreme Court stood up for the rights of middle-school and high-school students who had been suspended for wearing black armbands to school, an expression of their opposition to America's involvement in the Vietnam War. Justice Abe Fortas wrote that a classroom should be a “marketplace of ideas” and that neither students nor teachers “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate”.
The Tinker court sweepingly rejected the schools’ contention that banning armbands was necessary to avert a pedagogical debacle. The students’ expression is “akin to ‘pure speech’”, Justice Fortas wrote. “It does not concern aggressive, disruptive action or even group demonstrations”. An administrator’s general “fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression”. This nearly half-century-old lesson is a startlingly appropriate rebuke to Principal Bates (who asserts without elaboration that any dissent would entail "disruption"), and is even more persuasive applied to the setting of a football field rather than a classroom. There is no reason to think that a few students taking a knee or linking arms could spur a breakdown of civic order under the lights on a field in Louisiana. And Justice Fortas reminds us that even if there is some chance of raucous protests swelling after players defy their principal to call attention to police brutality, racial injustice—and, now, presidential disdain for free expression—“our constitution says we must take this risk”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
