|
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 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 03:10 Plansix wrote: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.
But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time.
|
Tax policy center report on the Trump Tax Cuts are out. If you thought the Bush2 tax cuts were slanted towards the wealthy, you aint seen nothing yet.
Charts:
+ Show Spoiler +
Michael Douglas adroitly explains the difference between who the Bush2 tax cuts were aimed at, versus who the Trump tax cuts are aimed at:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On September 30 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 03:10 Plansix wrote: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. But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time.
I mean a similar thing happened with books. They were expensive and not easy to duplicate so people presumed anything in a book must have value and substance otherwise it never would have been a book. Then printing got easier and people became more aware of how something being printed didn't mean it had value. But there were (hell, are) people that still presume "if it looks legit (and agrees with me ) it's legit".
On that note, plenty of people noticed Blacktivist was askew, but I haven't seen any message posted by them that wasn't just repeating (sometimes poorly phrased) something that's been said for years (and was true).
Kind of reminds me of when the Russians did basically the same thing with segregation. They weren't using propaganda per say, they were just pointing out the US was shit when it came to how it treated it's black citizens and no one today denies it despite vociferous denials at the time.
EDIT: I'd just like to point out what we're finding about Russia isn't new in substance, just new in style. What's particularly alarming for many in government is that these types of ops used to be prohibitively expensive for most countries. With the internet and social media they can infiltrate groups across the globe for pennies on the dollar of what we have to pay to infiltrate their groups.
|
On September 30 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 03:10 Plansix wrote: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. But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time.
Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things.
These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough.
|
On September 30 2017 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +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?
By falling victim to emotional manipulation, they spread extremist views, became more combative and just generally deteriorated into a state which is less capable of influencing change.
|
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. On September 30 2017 01:32 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 01:29 KwarK wrote:On September 30 2017 01:22 Mohdoo wrote:On September 30 2017 01:00 Plansix wrote: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. Wait, you are calling BLM weak for believing the Russian misinformation efforts? The Russian goal is to drive division and your hot take is that it’s groups like BLM fault for buying into the division? Are you not just buying into the division by blaming everyone but the people who are lying? 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. Honestly it sounds an awful lot like you're doing exactly what you're accusing them of, and with no more basis to it. You have preconceived notions about BLM and then an article shows up on the internet that appears to validate your beliefs and so you launch into this tirade, completely absent of facts. Read your own posts again as if they were written by another and ask yourself "where is this coming from?" Is there really a mass popular movement that is demanding a flat tax on white people? What evidence is there for the existence of that movement? How representative are the spokespeople of the beliefs of the people as a whole? Is their real size and influence proportionate to that portrayed in the media? What actual data do you have to respond to any of that. You read an article on the internet and it convinced you that a group is nothing but weak willed individuals who have been manipulated and exploited into feeling a sense of outrage and anger towards another group. And so you immediately posted your gut reaction, outrage and anger towards that group. I'm not talking about the movements as a whole. I am talking about the fringe parts of these groups that have been visibly empowered by this sort of thing. I would say that I generally sympathize and support "BLM". But it has its share of extremist bullshit and I have definitely noticed an increase in the fringe part of their movement in the past year. I am not making any claim to NOT being nasty, condescending and divisive. I fully embrace my inclination to verbally spit on these fringe groups.
I really didn't think these things were all that visible to people that generally support BLM. Specifically, that you can see they have been visibly empowered by this sort of thing ("able to rile them up and make them even more angry," "how gullible and longing for connection these fringe bags of shit tend to be.") Lesson learned.
|
On September 30 2017 04:32 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote: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? By falling victim to emotional manipulation, they spread extremist views, became more combative and just generally deteriorated into a state which is less capable of influencing change.
What "extremist views" were pushed by blacktivist that emotionally manipulated people?
|
On September 30 2017 04:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 03:10 Plansix wrote: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. But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time. Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things. These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough.
So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse.
|
On September 30 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 03:10 Plansix wrote: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. But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time.
Well, yes, but the point is that it's an entirely opt-in mobile browsing design choice.
Google said "Mobile browsing sucks because of all the stuff phones have to load, here's a template to cut out the fat". Websites (including news sites) said "This is a good idea, faster loading means more browsing means more views and ad hits, I'll use this".
And then they did. But a lot of people didn't realize that the "fat" is what makes a professional site look more professional than an amateur one.
On September 30 2017 04:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 04:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 03:10 Plansix wrote: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. But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time. Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things. These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough. So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse.
The entire point was benefit to the end user. 4 second load times instead of 20, which did lead to users going to more news articles on their phones.
|
On September 30 2017 04:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 04:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 03:10 Plansix wrote: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. But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time. Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things. These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough. So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse.
Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product.
|
Bootstrap honestly have great UI with simple navigation pattern.
But I would even say that customized UI actually loads up faster than Bootstrap but Bootstrap's reliability have been tried and tested.
|
On September 30 2017 04:43 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 04:37 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 03:10 Plansix wrote: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. But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time. Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things. These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough. So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse. Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product.
I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos.
So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones.
|
On September 30 2017 04:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 04:43 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:37 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 03:10 Plansix wrote: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. But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time. Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things. These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough. So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse. Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product. I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos. So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones.
Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved?
|
On September 30 2017 04:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 04:51 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:43 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:37 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 03:10 Plansix wrote: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. But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time. Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things. These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough. So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse. Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product. I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos. So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones. Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved?
Web developers should consider if their tools can be used to deceive the end user as part of the quality of their product. If Info Wars can be mistaken for “quality, main stream news site”, it should be considered a design flaw. Be response for the thinks they make, rather than just saying “we made it open source, we can’t control how people use it.”
|
On September 30 2017 04:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 01:32 Mohdoo wrote:On September 30 2017 01:29 KwarK wrote:On September 30 2017 01:22 Mohdoo wrote:On September 30 2017 01:00 Plansix wrote: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. Wait, you are calling BLM weak for believing the Russian misinformation efforts? The Russian goal is to drive division and your hot take is that it’s groups like BLM fault for buying into the division? Are you not just buying into the division by blaming everyone but the people who are lying? 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. Honestly it sounds an awful lot like you're doing exactly what you're accusing them of, and with no more basis to it. You have preconceived notions about BLM and then an article shows up on the internet that appears to validate your beliefs and so you launch into this tirade, completely absent of facts. Read your own posts again as if they were written by another and ask yourself "where is this coming from?" Is there really a mass popular movement that is demanding a flat tax on white people? What evidence is there for the existence of that movement? How representative are the spokespeople of the beliefs of the people as a whole? Is their real size and influence proportionate to that portrayed in the media? What actual data do you have to respond to any of that. You read an article on the internet and it convinced you that a group is nothing but weak willed individuals who have been manipulated and exploited into feeling a sense of outrage and anger towards another group. And so you immediately posted your gut reaction, outrage and anger towards that group. I'm not talking about the movements as a whole. I am talking about the fringe parts of these groups that have been visibly empowered by this sort of thing. I would say that I generally sympathize and support "BLM". But it has its share of extremist bullshit and I have definitely noticed an increase in the fringe part of their movement in the past year. I am not making any claim to NOT being nasty, condescending and divisive. I fully embrace my inclination to verbally spit on these fringe groups. I really didn't think these things were all that visible to people that generally support BLM. Specifically, that you can see they have been visibly empowered by this sort of thing ("able to rile them up and make them even more angry," "how gullible and longing for connection these fringe bags of shit tend to be.") Lesson learned.
I've got a shit load of liberal friends and some of them are a lot more liberal than others. Since I happen to be rather political, the idea of politics comes up sometimes. Not really sure what to say other than after 10 years of talking to the same people, the spike in crazy shit (especially BLM related stuff) noticeably went through the roof for certain people. These same people would post wild, crazy shit about Clinton and whatnot. I am saying that I have seen these transformations first hand through friends sharing stuff from CapitalismSucksFEELTHEBERN.ru and other bullshit like that. And while sure, they were always the ones going a little overboard generally speaking, the passion that was clearly inspired in them by finding these weird echo-chambers that were actually seeded by bots and fake bullshit was really shocking. I would say I have 3 friends who have essentially been ruined by the 2016 election.
|
On September 30 2017 05:11 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 04:35 Danglars wrote: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. On September 30 2017 01:32 Mohdoo wrote:On September 30 2017 01:29 KwarK wrote:On September 30 2017 01:22 Mohdoo wrote:On September 30 2017 01:00 Plansix wrote: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. Wait, you are calling BLM weak for believing the Russian misinformation efforts? The Russian goal is to drive division and your hot take is that it’s groups like BLM fault for buying into the division? Are you not just buying into the division by blaming everyone but the people who are lying? 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. Honestly it sounds an awful lot like you're doing exactly what you're accusing them of, and with no more basis to it. You have preconceived notions about BLM and then an article shows up on the internet that appears to validate your beliefs and so you launch into this tirade, completely absent of facts. Read your own posts again as if they were written by another and ask yourself "where is this coming from?" Is there really a mass popular movement that is demanding a flat tax on white people? What evidence is there for the existence of that movement? How representative are the spokespeople of the beliefs of the people as a whole? Is their real size and influence proportionate to that portrayed in the media? What actual data do you have to respond to any of that. You read an article on the internet and it convinced you that a group is nothing but weak willed individuals who have been manipulated and exploited into feeling a sense of outrage and anger towards another group. And so you immediately posted your gut reaction, outrage and anger towards that group. I'm not talking about the movements as a whole. I am talking about the fringe parts of these groups that have been visibly empowered by this sort of thing. I would say that I generally sympathize and support "BLM". But it has its share of extremist bullshit and I have definitely noticed an increase in the fringe part of their movement in the past year. I am not making any claim to NOT being nasty, condescending and divisive. I fully embrace my inclination to verbally spit on these fringe groups. I really didn't think these things were all that visible to people that generally support BLM. Specifically, that you can see they have been visibly empowered by this sort of thing ("able to rile them up and make them even more angry," "how gullible and longing for connection these fringe bags of shit tend to be.") Lesson learned. I've got a shit load of liberal friends and some of them are a lot more liberal than others. Since I happen to be rather political, the idea of politics comes up sometimes. Not really sure what to say other than after 10 years of talking to the same people, the spike in crazy shit (especially BLM related stuff) noticeably went through the roof for certain people. These same people would post wild, crazy shit about Clinton and whatnot. I am saying that I have seen these transformations first hand through friends sharing stuff from CapitalismSucksFEELTHEBERN.ru and other bullshit like that. And while sure, they were always the ones going a little overboard generally speaking, the passion that was clearly inspired in them by finding these weird echo-chambers that were actually seeded by bots and fake bullshit was really shocking. I would say I have 3 friends who have essentially been ruined by the 2016 election.
Did you have any examples of extremist views pushed by Blacktivist that emotionally manipulated people?
Is/Was CapitalismSucksFEELTHEBERN.ru a thing? Or is it a rhetorical device to describe unnamed sources?
|
On September 30 2017 05:11 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 04:35 Danglars wrote: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. On September 30 2017 01:32 Mohdoo wrote:On September 30 2017 01:29 KwarK wrote:On September 30 2017 01:22 Mohdoo wrote:On September 30 2017 01:00 Plansix wrote: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. Wait, you are calling BLM weak for believing the Russian misinformation efforts? The Russian goal is to drive division and your hot take is that it’s groups like BLM fault for buying into the division? Are you not just buying into the division by blaming everyone but the people who are lying? 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. Honestly it sounds an awful lot like you're doing exactly what you're accusing them of, and with no more basis to it. You have preconceived notions about BLM and then an article shows up on the internet that appears to validate your beliefs and so you launch into this tirade, completely absent of facts. Read your own posts again as if they were written by another and ask yourself "where is this coming from?" Is there really a mass popular movement that is demanding a flat tax on white people? What evidence is there for the existence of that movement? How representative are the spokespeople of the beliefs of the people as a whole? Is their real size and influence proportionate to that portrayed in the media? What actual data do you have to respond to any of that. You read an article on the internet and it convinced you that a group is nothing but weak willed individuals who have been manipulated and exploited into feeling a sense of outrage and anger towards another group. And so you immediately posted your gut reaction, outrage and anger towards that group. I'm not talking about the movements as a whole. I am talking about the fringe parts of these groups that have been visibly empowered by this sort of thing. I would say that I generally sympathize and support "BLM". But it has its share of extremist bullshit and I have definitely noticed an increase in the fringe part of their movement in the past year. I am not making any claim to NOT being nasty, condescending and divisive. I fully embrace my inclination to verbally spit on these fringe groups. I really didn't think these things were all that visible to people that generally support BLM. Specifically, that you can see they have been visibly empowered by this sort of thing ("able to rile them up and make them even more angry," "how gullible and longing for connection these fringe bags of shit tend to be.") Lesson learned. I've got a shit load of liberal friends and some of them are a lot more liberal than others. Since I happen to be rather political, the idea of politics comes up sometimes. Not really sure what to say other than after 10 years of talking to the same people, the spike in crazy shit (especially BLM related stuff) noticeably went through the roof for certain people. These same people would post wild, crazy shit about Clinton and whatnot. I am saying that I have seen these transformations first hand through friends sharing stuff from CapitalismSucksFEELTHEBERN.ru and other bullshit like that. And while sure, they were always the ones going a little overboard generally speaking, the passion that was clearly inspired in them by finding these weird echo-chambers that were actually seeded by bots and fake bullshit was really shocking. I would say I have 3 friends who have essentially been ruined by the 2016 election.
people hvae always been idiots; they're just not always given an opportunity to demonstrate it.
|
On September 30 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 04:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 04:51 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:43 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:37 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 03:10 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 03:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
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. But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time. Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things. These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough. So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse. Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product. I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos. So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones. Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved? Web developers should consider if their tools can be used to deceive the end user as part of the quality of their product. If Info Wars can be mistaken for “quality, main stream news site”, it should be considered a design flaw. Be response for the thinks they make, rather than just saying “we made it open source, we can’t control how people use it.”
It's a design template. I don't think you understand. If I use AMP, it's because I want my website to look and act a certain way on a mobile device. I'm not sure how that can be misconstrued as something else.
|
On September 30 2017 05:19 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 04:51 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:43 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:37 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote: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. But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time. Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things. These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough. So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse. Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product. I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos. So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones. Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved? Web developers should consider if their tools can be used to deceive the end user as part of the quality of their product. If Info Wars can be mistaken for “quality, main stream news site”, it should be considered a design flaw. Be response for the thinks they make, rather than just saying “we made it open source, we can’t control how people use it.” It's a design template. I don't think you understand. If I use AMP, it's because I want my website to look and act a certain way on a mobile device. I'm not sure how that can be misconstrued as something else.
Dude is just taking pot shot at InfoWars for not agreeing with him, don't mind it.
|
United States42008 Posts
On September 30 2017 05:26 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2017 05:19 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 30 2017 04:51 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:43 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:37 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 30 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2017 04:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
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. But the end user, the reader, loses out because it becomes more challenging to tell the difference between trash and real news. It makes it easier for the people making the articles and increases the reach of companies like Goolge, but leaves the public fending for themselves a market that grows more homogeneous all the time. Companies use standard frameworks because it is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to design and style your website. Front end web devs are not cheap, especially if you want something that works and has an excellent user experience. You need the end user to put more value in appearance for it to be worthwhile for the companies to develop such things. These frameworks that homogenize websites isn't a feature that facebook and google turn on and off like you're thinking. It's as simple as copy pasting a few lines of code from a website that hosts the framework. You probably want to do a bit more than that, but you get 80% of the product with 20% of the work so that is often good enough. So what you are saying is it benefits everyone but the end user? Everyone saves money, but the end user gets a shittier product across the board, where they have to work harder to figure out which websites providing quality information. Infowars looks similar to the Wall Street Journal. Which is great for Info Wars. Not so good for the WJS, an informed public or the national discourse. Sure, but are you willing to wait longer for your news to load? Are you going to pay more money for the company to hire a developer to design and implement a better user experience? For most people, the page loading faster and cheaper is the better product. I subscribe to the NYT and pay for magazines. I have zero problems paying for quality content and reduced ads. The modern internet is a trash pile that is increasingly filled with copy cat information, content farmers and straight up garbage. “News articles” that are simply a copy pasted press release and stock photos. So yeah, bring on 20 second load times and a few more pay walls. Its better than fishing through piles of content farmed shit to fine a good review on a set of blue tooth headphones. Okay...then the NYT should just stop using AMP then. Problem solved? Web developers should consider if their tools can be used to deceive the end user as part of the quality of their product. If Info Wars can be mistaken for “quality, main stream news site”, it should be considered a design flaw. Be response for the thinks they make, rather than just saying “we made it open source, we can’t control how people use it.” It's a design template. I don't think you understand. If I use AMP, it's because I want my website to look and act a certain way on a mobile device. I'm not sure how that can be misconstrued as something else. Dude is just taking pot shot at InfoWars for not agreeing with him, don't mind it.
lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
