|
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 February 16 2018 06:55 Jockmcplop wrote:
There's a 'second shooter' rumour going around on infowars too. If ever I wanted Anonymous to hit a website it would be now.
The kind of societal damage infowars and the like are doing is not going to be easy to fix. This whole situation is just so sad. The internet is such a double edged blade. So much amazing progress, but some truly devastating social destruction.
|
On February 16 2018 07:12 Logo wrote:Since free speech is cropping up again (Infowars), I thought this article from Techdirt did a good job of laying out kind of where we are at in regards to free speech and the modern world. It also has the advantage of being from a strongly pro-free speech source, but with that actually meaning something rather than someone looking for an excuse to dunk on liberals. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180124/11124039076/censorship-weaponizing-free-speech-rethinking-how-marketplace-ideas-works.shtmlShow nested quote +
It should be no surprise that I'm an unabashed supporter of free speech. Usually essays that start that way are then followed with a "but..." and that "but..." undermines everything in that opening sentence. This is not such an essay. However, I am going to talk about some interesting challenges that have been facing our concepts of free speech over the past few years -- often in regards to how free speech and the internet interact. Back in 2015, at our Copia Summit we had a panel that tried to lay out some of these challenges, which acknowledged that our traditional concepts of free speech don't fully work in the internet age.
[...]
In the past couple of months, two very interesting pieces have been written on this that are pushing my thinking much further as well. The first is a Yale Law Journal piece by Nabiha Syed entitled Real Talk About Fake News: Towards a Better Theory for Platform Governance. Next week, we'll have Syed on our podcast to talk about this paper, but in it she points out that there are limitations and problems with the idea of the "marketplace of ideas" working the way many of us have assumed it should work. She also notes that other frameworks for thinking about free speech appear to have similar deficiencies when we are in an online world. In particular, the nature of the internet -- in which the scale and speed and ability to amplify a message are so incredibly different than basically at any other time in history -- is that it enables a sort of "weaponizing" of these concepts.
That is, those who wish to abuse the concept of the marketplace of ideas by aggressively pushing misleading or deliberately misguided concepts are able to do so in a manner that short-circuits our concept of the marketplace of ideas -- all while claiming to support it.
The second piece, which is absolutely worth reading and thinking about carefully, is Zeynep Tufekci's Wired piece entitled It's the (Democracy-Poisoning) Golden Age of Free Speech. I was worried -- from the title -- that this might be the standard rant I've been reading about free speech somehow being "dangerous" that has become tragically popular over the past few years. But (and this is not surprising, given Tufekci's previous careful consideration of these issues for years) it's a truly thought provoking piece, in some ways building upon the framework that Syed laid out in her piece, noting how some factions are, in effect, weaponizing the very concept of the "marketplace of ideas" to insist they support it, while undermining the very premise behind it (that "good" speech outweighs the bad).
In particular, she notes that while the previous scarcity was the ability to amplify speech, the current scarcity is attention -- and thus, the ability to flood the zone with bad/wrong/dangerous speech can literally act as a denial of service on the supposedly corrective "good speech." She notes that the way censorship used to work was by stifling the message. Traditional censorship is blocking the ability to get the message out. But modern censorship actually leverages the platforms of free speech to drown out other messages.
Anyways has some points that really stuck with me, mainly how the scarcity has changed from the ability to amplify speech to the limitations from attention and what that means for something we consider the "marketplace of ideas".
It should be no surprise that the very tactics folks like Jones and others use were perfected and employed by authoritarian states like the USSR, Nazi Germany and the hashish Chinese regimes. But it was all propaganda and it blanked the country in false information. Entering every home through radio and TV.
But the author above points out that that tactic would never work for any group but the State, because no one had the means to broadcast that propaganda and lies to that degree. And any of the vectors they could do that were regulated by the State to prevent it. Until the modern internet of Facebook, google, twitter and the smart phone. Now folks like Jones can reach an unlimited number of people at no cost to him, on a service that does not care what lies he pumps out. It is the propagandist wet dream.
|
On February 16 2018 06:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:
So infowars of course spread a bunch of false information about the shooter. He's a democrat, antifa, etc, etc, all the usual stuff. Along with a supposed photo of him wearing a communist shirt....except that's not him it's just some random guy. People are reaching out to that kid who's photo they falsely spread and gathering evidence in an effort to bring a lawsuit against infowars. Hopefully they get turned into gawker.
That would be oh so sweet, here's to hoping it pans out.
|
On February 16 2018 07:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 07:12 Logo wrote:Since free speech is cropping up again (Infowars), I thought this article from Techdirt did a good job of laying out kind of where we are at in regards to free speech and the modern world. It also has the advantage of being from a strongly pro-free speech source, but with that actually meaning something rather than someone looking for an excuse to dunk on liberals. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180124/11124039076/censorship-weaponizing-free-speech-rethinking-how-marketplace-ideas-works.shtml
It should be no surprise that I'm an unabashed supporter of free speech. Usually essays that start that way are then followed with a "but..." and that "but..." undermines everything in that opening sentence. This is not such an essay. However, I am going to talk about some interesting challenges that have been facing our concepts of free speech over the past few years -- often in regards to how free speech and the internet interact. Back in 2015, at our Copia Summit we had a panel that tried to lay out some of these challenges, which acknowledged that our traditional concepts of free speech don't fully work in the internet age.
[...]
In the past couple of months, two very interesting pieces have been written on this that are pushing my thinking much further as well. The first is a Yale Law Journal piece by Nabiha Syed entitled Real Talk About Fake News: Towards a Better Theory for Platform Governance. Next week, we'll have Syed on our podcast to talk about this paper, but in it she points out that there are limitations and problems with the idea of the "marketplace of ideas" working the way many of us have assumed it should work. She also notes that other frameworks for thinking about free speech appear to have similar deficiencies when we are in an online world. In particular, the nature of the internet -- in which the scale and speed and ability to amplify a message are so incredibly different than basically at any other time in history -- is that it enables a sort of "weaponizing" of these concepts.
That is, those who wish to abuse the concept of the marketplace of ideas by aggressively pushing misleading or deliberately misguided concepts are able to do so in a manner that short-circuits our concept of the marketplace of ideas -- all while claiming to support it.
The second piece, which is absolutely worth reading and thinking about carefully, is Zeynep Tufekci's Wired piece entitled It's the (Democracy-Poisoning) Golden Age of Free Speech. I was worried -- from the title -- that this might be the standard rant I've been reading about free speech somehow being "dangerous" that has become tragically popular over the past few years. But (and this is not surprising, given Tufekci's previous careful consideration of these issues for years) it's a truly thought provoking piece, in some ways building upon the framework that Syed laid out in her piece, noting how some factions are, in effect, weaponizing the very concept of the "marketplace of ideas" to insist they support it, while undermining the very premise behind it (that "good" speech outweighs the bad).
In particular, she notes that while the previous scarcity was the ability to amplify speech, the current scarcity is attention -- and thus, the ability to flood the zone with bad/wrong/dangerous speech can literally act as a denial of service on the supposedly corrective "good speech." She notes that the way censorship used to work was by stifling the message. Traditional censorship is blocking the ability to get the message out. But modern censorship actually leverages the platforms of free speech to drown out other messages.
Anyways has some points that really stuck with me, mainly how the scarcity has changed from the ability to amplify speech to the limitations from attention and what that means for something we consider the "marketplace of ideas". It should be no surprise that the very tactics folks like Jones and others use were perfected and employed by authoritarian states like the USSR, Nazi Germany and the hashish Chinese regimes. But it was all propaganda and it blanked the country in false information. Entering every home through radio and TV. But the author above points out that that tactic would never work for any group but the State, because no one had the means to broadcast that propaganda and lies to that degree. And any of the vectors they could do that were regulated by the State to prevent it. Until the modern internet of Facebook, google, twitter and the smart phone. Now folks like Jones can reach an unlimited number of people at no cost to him, on a service that does not care what lies he pumps out. It is the propagandist wet dream.
This is absolutely a big part of the equation. We've been monkeys confined to little tribes for our entire existence. You know your village, your family, your community, but people never interacted with all that many other people. Your influence never went very far, you didn't have to know much. Now boom, suddenly everyone can reach everyone else, people have a megaphone that no one could have ever imagined. Humans were never meant to deal with this stuff and it can have god awful effects. Completely innocent people can have their lives ruined totally and instantaneously, someone that does one silly thing that goes viral can have their entire life ruined, unscrupulous psychopaths can broadcast insanity to idiots and have it lapped up.
|
The US politics decries socialism while ignoring the biggest socialist safety net, the military industrial complex...
The US is to spend billions of dollars upgrading 150 nuclear bombs positioned in Europe, although the weapons may be useless as a deterrent and a potentially catastrophic security liability, according to a new report by arms experts.
A third of the B61 bombs in Europe under joint US and Nato control are thought to be kept at Incirlik base in Turkey, 70 miles from the Syrian border, which has been the subject of serious concerns.
The threat to the base posed by Islamic State militants was considered serious enough in March 2016 to evacuate the families of military officers.
During a coup attempt four months later, Turkish authorities locked down the base and cut its electricity. The Turkish commanding officer at Incirlik was arrested for his alleged role in the plot.
A report on the future of the B61 bombs by arms control advocacy group the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) , and made available to the Guardian, said the 2016 events “shows just how quickly assumptions about the safety and security of US nuclear weapons stored abroad can change.”
Since then US-Turkish relations have soured further, largely over Washington’s support for Kurd forces in Syria. The national security adviser, HR McMaster, and secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, have both made trips to Turkey this week to try to heal the rift.
There have been reports that the bombs have been quietly moved out because of safety concerns, but that has not been confirmed.
The remaining B61 bombs are stored at five other locations in four countries: Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, according to the Federation of American Scientists, which tracks the weapons. The NTI report said it “should be assumed that they are targets for terrorism and theft”.
The bombs are the remnants of a much larger cold war nuclear arsenal in Europe, and critics have said they serve no military purpose, as the nuclear deterrent against Russia relies largely on the overwhelming US strategic missile arsenal.
Using the B61s in any conflict would involve an agreement between the US and the host country in consultation with other Nato members.
“It is hard to envision the circumstances under which a US president would initiate nuclear use for the first time in more than 70 years with a Nato [dual-capable aircraft] flown by non-US pilots delivering a US B61 bomb,” said the NTI report, titled Building a Safe, Secure and Credible Nato Nuclear Posture.
Since the cold war, the B61 has played a symbolic role, as reassurance for some Nato members of US commitment to defending Europe. They are also considered potential bargaining chips against Russia’s much greater arsenal of nearly 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons.
However, the NTI report argues they are also serious liabilities, because of the threat of terrorism or accident, and because they could become targets in the early stages of any conflict with Russia.
“Forward-deployed US nuclear weapons in Europe increase the risk of accidents, blunders, or catastrophic terrorism and invite pre-emption. Given these added risks, it is past time to revisit whether these forward-based weapons are essential for military deterrence and political reassurance” the Obama administration’s energy secretary Ernest Moniz and former Democratic senator Sam Nunn, both NTI co-chairmen, argue in the preface to the report.
The Obama administration considered withdrawing the B61s from Europe as part of the president’s nuclear disarmament initiative but the idea lost support as relations with Russia deteriorated. Instead, the administration approved a Pentagon programme to upgrade the bombs over the next decade with a tailfin assembly to make them more accurate.
The plan has been embraced by the Trump administration’s nuclear posture review, despite the fact that the estimated cost of the 460 new model bombs, the B61-12, has doubled in recent years to $10bin, a part of a huge increase of overall defence spending.
Source
|
The Attorney General thinks the appropriate venue to interview with, regarding the Florida shooting, is a website with a "Black Crime" section.
The problem is right-wing "wing-nut" propaganda is their mainstream. It is not by chance that Russian propaganda found its home there. For decades Republicans have become increasingly isolated and delusional, frankly, while the problems they create have expounded into an orange cluster-fuck.
|
On February 16 2018 03:53 Nebuchad wrote:I think I'm going to have a heart attack and die from that surprise.
Was pretty much confirmed when they managed to take yet another white supremacist mass murderer terrorist alive. You know I bet he was just seriously concerned about the slippery slope of erasing history with tarps.
It's not like he was doing something that really endangered cops lives like sitting in his car handing them the ID they requested.
|
|
|
|
|
The "Muslims on rooftops celebrating 9/11" isn't that far from "Russians plan protests on facebook that thousands of people attend"
There were Muslims on rooftops and in the streets celebrating and about 9/11, they were just somewhere else.
It's that you (generic you) think you are immune and it's only the right that falls for this stuff that helps allow it to continue.
EDIT: Just to be clear I still don't think there's evidence the Russian stuff was "so successful". Seems more and more like people are just trying to pin the exacerbation of long standing problems on Russia instead of the fact that we've had these problems for decades and chosen to do nothing about them.
|
GH, I have you as living example of people on the left that fall for bullshit propaganda that tells them exactly what they want to her to keep me on the straight and narrow. You will either tell me about my shortcomings or come here peddling the latest theory on why the CIA is a drug cartel. A cautionary tale.
|
On February 16 2018 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:The "Muslims on rooftops celebrating 9/11" isn't that far from "Russians plan protests on facebook that thousands of people attend" There were Muslims on rooftops and in the streets celebrating and about 9/11, they were just somewhere else. It's that you (generic you) think you are immune and it's only the right that falls for this stuff that helps allow it to continue. EDIT: Just to be clear I still don't think there's evidence the Russian stuff was "so successful". Seems more and more like people are just trying to pin the exacerbation of long standing problems on Russia instead of the fact that we've had these problems for decades and chosen to do nothing about them.
Russia has been successful in as much as no-one can agree about what they are up to, nothing more, nothing less. Anything else is speculation really, but it doesn't matter because that's enough. Putin has long subscribed to the idea of confusing the shit out of your enemy.
Remember the Ukraine stuff where they kept moving their army to the border and then withdrawing it and then moving it to the border and doing exercises.
They are happy as long as no-one knows what they are really up to, and ironically this is about the only strategy that Putin is always open and honest about.
|
On February 16 2018 08:23 Plansix wrote:
GH, I have you as living example of people on the left that fall for bullshit propaganda that tells them exactly what they want to her to keep me on the straight and narrow. You will either tell me about my shortcomings or come here peddling the latest theory on why the CIA is a drug cartel. A cautionary tale.
The CIA is a drug cartel (primarily acting as enforcers though). They work with the DEA and other organizations controlling (to the degree they can) the massive drug supply that has to come into this country in order to feed our massive addictions. No one with any sense thinks they are an honest group with moral intentions when it comes to the drug war.
Instead of lashing out at people/sources for pointing out you falling for propaganda (like Republicans do) try to engage with what it means to have some place like The Hill reinforcing your "mixed memories" with false headlines.
EDIT: or surprise no one and don't, then pretend like it didn't happen.
On February 16 2018 08:24 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:The "Muslims on rooftops celebrating 9/11" isn't that far from "Russians plan protests on facebook that thousands of people attend" There were Muslims on rooftops and in the streets celebrating and about 9/11, they were just somewhere else. It's that you (generic you) think you are immune and it's only the right that falls for this stuff that helps allow it to continue. EDIT: Just to be clear I still don't think there's evidence the Russian stuff was "so successful". Seems more and more like people are just trying to pin the exacerbation of long standing problems on Russia instead of the fact that we've had these problems for decades and chosen to do nothing about them. Russia has been successful in as much as no-one can agree about what they are up to, nothing more, nothing less. Anything else is speculation really, but it doesn't matter because that's enough. Putin has long subscribed to the idea of confusing the shit out of your enemy. Remember the Ukraine stuff where they kept moving their army to the border and then withdrawing it and then moving it to the border and doing exercises. They are happy as long as no-one knows what they are really up to, and ironically this is about the only strategy that Putin is always open and honest about.
I don't find it very confusing at all. They interfered in our election in similar ways to what we have been doing for decades. The new twist is that platforms like twitter and facebook and their ubiquity allowed them to be far more effective for less money.
|
|
|
On February 16 2018 08:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 03:53 Nebuchad wrote:I think I'm going to have a heart attack and die from that surprise. Was pretty much confirmed when they managed to take yet another white supremacist mass murderer terrorist alive. You know I bet he was just seriously concerned about the slippery slope of erasing history with tarps. It's not like he was doing something that really endangered cops lives like sitting in his car handing them the ID they requested.
You really think the ethnic background of a guy that just shot up a school is relevant to how worried about their lives the cops making the arrests were?
|
On February 16 2018 08:37 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 08:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 16 2018 03:53 Nebuchad wrote:I think I'm going to have a heart attack and die from that surprise. Was pretty much confirmed when they managed to take yet another white supremacist mass murderer terrorist alive. You know I bet he was just seriously concerned about the slippery slope of erasing history with tarps. It's not like he was doing something that really endangered cops lives like sitting in his car handing them the ID they requested. You really think the ethnic background of a guy that just shot up a school is relevant to how worried about their lives the cops making the arrests were?
Yes, I do.
|
Paul Manafort is very screwed.
|
I blame Netflix for releasing their Presidency for Dummies handbook.
|
I wonder what Gowdy knows that's making him run far away from the Trump admin. Or is he actually consistent when it comes to security issues? I guess I could give him the slightest of credit if so.
|
On February 16 2018 08:46 ticklishmusic wrote:I wonder what Gowdy knows that's making him run far away from the Trump admin. Or is he actually consistent when it comes to security issues? I guess I could give him the slightest of credit if so.
Gowdy has announced his retirement, so he's not in a position where standing up to Trump will cost him reelection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
