European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1025

On January 04 2018 18:40 xM(Z wrote:
that alone is more worthy of a tinfoil hat than everything pmh said.
there is no "our" and the "discourse" is you schooling plebs, populists, old geezers, <everyonethat'snotwithus>.

let the fucking trolls run free so you could see the true magnitude of stupid that breed under your watchful eye/gaze/rule; assume responsibility for all of it and only then you'll be allowed to have an opinion on whom and how stupid need to be censured/stopped/educated.

On January 04 2018 18:54 Acrofales wrote:

Fact-free trash should be distinguishable from properly sourced and researched articles. I don't think the former should be censored. But I also think "Clinton colluded with Ben Ghazi to found ISIS (and murder babies in a pizza restaurant)" should come with a disclaimer stating that it's fiction and not news.

On January 04 2018 21:27 pmh wrote:
My post has nothing to do with conspiracys. Goverments ARE trying to gain more control about the information that you see. That is exactly what this law does. I don't draw any further conclusions from this,like an evil plot or whatever.

Misinformation has been around for ages,during wars states use it on an industrial scale and in situations like this it could maybe even be morally justified.
People used to read maybe just one newspaper,their whole image of reality came from their direct surroundings and what that one single newspaper did write. But no newspaper ever tells the "truth" is there even something like "the truth" ? Everything is false and or personal opinion to some degree,an interpretation of facts and a decision on what comes front page and what isn't published at all.
I don't see any way to make a working definition for fake news that doesn't end up in allowing fake news to be spread by the government/certain media corporations and by making it illegal for all other parties. Both sides use face book and troll accounts on social media to steer discussions and public opinion.
I am like 100% sure that both the demorcats and the republicans had people working for them with the sole goal to keep an eye on social media and to upvote positive posts for their party,downvote negative posts for their party and who try to make rebutals to criticism on their party. They would have for sure if social media is really that important right?

Can someone give me an example of a false facebook add or false news article/post that was used by the rusians. There has been so much talk about fake news but can someone just give me one example,one link to a picture of an add,that was used as fake news. I honestly have no real clue what this fake news is supposed to be because that never gets explained to well and personally I don't think I have ever seen it. With so much fake news around it should not be that difficult to come up with an example of something that is threathening the stability of our state.
Don't come with alex jones pls,he has been around for ages and everyone with halve a brain knows that it is nonsense.
Oh and also pls don't mistake me for a rusian agent lol,just because I used the rusian fake news as example in my post. I am not a fan of rusia and I am very happy living in the free west.

On January 05 2018 02:07 Sent. wrote:
Real fake news like pizzagate are a non-issue, people who read them are either memers or flat-earthers. The real danger is in presenting facts in a dishonest way, like reporting that Breivik played CoD and the Iranian kid from Munich played CS:GO. It's not false, but mentoning it in a certain context may reinforce the popular myth that video games make people violent.

I think It's impossible to regulate that second kind of "fake" news, so I'm guessing Macron wants to propose some useless law to score points with easily outraged voters without making any serious changes.

On January 04 2018 21:27 pmh wrote:
My post has nothing to do with conspiracys. Goverments ARE trying to gain more control about the information that you see. That is exactly what this law does. I don't draw any further conclusions from this,like an evil plot or whatever.

Misinformation has been around for ages,during wars states use it on an industrial scale and in situations like this it could maybe even be morally justified.
People used to read maybe just one newspaper,their whole image of reality came from their direct surroundings and what that one single newspaper did write. But no newspaper ever tells the "truth" is there even something like "the truth" ? Everything is false and or personal opinion to some degree,an interpretation of facts and a decision on what comes front page and what isn't published at all.
I don't see any way to make a working definition for fake news that doesn't end up in allowing fake news to be spread by the government/certain media corporations and by making it illegal for all other parties. Both sides use face book and troll accounts on social media to steer discussions and public opinion.
I am like 100% sure that both the demorcats and the republicans had people working for them with the sole goal to keep an eye on social media and to upvote positive posts for their party,downvote negative posts for their party and who try to make rebutals to criticism on their party. They would have for sure if social media is really that important right?

Can someone give me an example of a false facebook add or false news article/post that was used by the rusians. There has been so much talk about fake news but can someone just give me one example,one link to a picture of an add,that was used as fake news. I honestly have no real clue what this fake news is supposed to be because that never gets explained to well and personally I don't think I have ever seen it. With so much fake news around it should not be that difficult to come up with an example of something that is threathening the stability of our state.
Don't come with alex jones pls,he has been around for ages and everyone with halve a brain knows that it is nonsense.
Oh and also pls don't mistake me for a rusian agent lol,just because I used the rusian fake news as example in my post. I am not a fan of rusia and I am very happy living in the free west.

Edit:tbh the whole fake news story feels more and more like fake news itself. We are not being presented many facts and examples at all. How much did the rusians supposedly spend on facebook adds during the usa election, a few million? And those few million would have influenced the election in a meaningful way,overshadowing the 100,s of mills spend by democrats and republicans on similar adds?
The thing that is threatening our discourse are imo laws like these because they can in the end silence everything that isn't mainstream. People have to learn to judge for themselves to be critical about news and not accept everything they read as fact no matter what source it is.

On January 04 2018 18:40 xM(Z wrote:
that alone is more worthy of a tinfoil hat than everything pmh said.
there is no "our" and the "discourse" is you schooling plebs, populists, old geezers, <everyonethat'snotwithus>.

On January 04 2018 11:36 pmh wrote:
France starts the war on fake news

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42560688

It was just waiting for this to happen,still surprised that its france that is one of the first to announce a law about it. Other western countries will probably follow as well in the coming 1-2 years.

On January 05 2018 03:05 Nyxisto wrote:


Yes there damn well is. We set rules on what you can say, what you can wear in certain places, how you can conduct yourself, welcome to civil society. If you don't like it, move to a place where those rules don't exist.

The main theme below is the role of British imperial education in the creation of 'appropriate' racial images. A major purpose of this education was to inculcate in the children of the British Empire appropriate attitudes of dominance and deference. There was an education in imperial schools to shape the ruled into patterns of proper subservience and 'legitimate' inferiority, and one in turn to develop in the rulers convictions about the certain benevolence and 'legitimate' superiority of their rule. Imperial education was very much about establishing the presence and absence of confidence in those controlling and those controlled. Once colonial territories were established this process began in classrooms, and arguably more effectively on playing fields. Here imperial confidence, and lack of it, was as often as not a matter of purposeful image construction.

Ashis Nandy writes of two generations of British colonialists: 'initially, bandit kings — rapacious conquerors of the colonies; and latterly, philosopher kings — liberals, modernists, and believers in progress.' [2] This later colonialism, he asserts, colonized minds in addition to bodies, released forces within the colonized societies that altered their cultural priorities for ever, and transformed the concept of the West from a geographical and temporal entity to a psychological reality; with the result that 'the West is now everywhere, within the West and outside; in structures and in minds'. [3] Certainly the European forced his way into the worlds of other peoples with epistemological models, representative symbols, alien forms of knowledge and patterns of action which he defined. In turn, these peoples had to reconstruct their worlds to embrace the fact of white domination and their own powerlessness. [4]

Here the concern is with the second stage of British colonization and with cultural agents and agencies within the framework of formal education which supported, resisted and adapted themselves to image construction in the British imperial culture. A large part of imperial image construction was concerned with the creation of positive and negative stereotypes. These stereotypes existed to manipulate reality in order to reflect imperial values, ambitions and priorities and to promote them as proper, necessary and constructive: imperialism required a carefully crafted image of the colonizer and colonized. Image creation has a crucial place in the dialectics exalting the colonizer and humbling the colonized. The created image was a rationalization without which the presence of the colonizer was inexplicable. [5]

On January 06 2018 20:54 xM(Z wrote:
so you don't realize that when you use our you mean your; or is that irrelevant to you?.
is your way the only way or the best way for a civil society to conduct itself?.

On January 07 2018 08:17 Nyxisto wrote:
@xM(Z

if you think that you could shitpost in ancient Rome or China to your heart's content I have bad news for you. I didn't invent the concept of civil discourse and limitation on expression. I don't know if that makes me a discourse imperialist or not, but spaces are moderated for good reasons, because most people don't want their entire society to turn into the youtube comment section.

Given that we live in an age were over-saturation of news and media is a real problem, and a lot of people feel overwhelmed by the content they consume, the need for ways to filter out the nonsense from insight and fact from fiction is bigger than ever. For this, moderation needs to happen.

There is such a thing as truth or untruth. Not every expression of hierarchy is simply display of power or cenorship, as is the case with British racism in your example. Nobody is automatically validated because they are excluded from a civic platform, they can be marginalized for good reasons.

Today, trolls and extremists are deliberately using freedom of speech and permissive liberal platforms to spread their crap. If you want those platforms to continue to exist you need to draw a line. That's just self-preservation.

On January 07 2018 08:17 Nyxisto wrote:
Today, trolls and extremists are deliberately using freedom of speech and permissive liberal platforms to spread their crap. If you want those platforms to continue to exist you need to draw a line. That's just self-preservation.