|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On January 07 2018 19:52 a_flayer wrote:
What's a troll and an extremist, anyway? I've been banned from here on occasion, does that make me a troll? I've spoken positively about the use of guillotines on the elite. Does that make me an extremist? Do you want to stop people who think like me from posting on social media? What if I host a website of my own where I spread these ideas? Do you want to stop me from doing that?
If you're serious about decapitating people instead of just meme-ing then yes, you're an extremist. And if you'd advocate violence on social media then yes that should be removed.
Should the German publication that reported on the never-actually-happened-rape of that Russian-German teenager receive penalties for believing her at her word? Or should she be punished for lying? How did the German publication phrase the headline/article. Did they say "Girl claims..." or did they say "Girl was raped" - excluding the possibility of being wrong or dealing with a lying teenager? Would it even matter, considering people will just assume that it actually happened anyway, regardless of any nuance in the phrasing.
I don't remember about this specific case but when German newspapers publish false information they are obligated to offer a full page redaction and correction, it certainly doesn't erase the consequences of the statement but it sets an incentive to avoid shitty reporting in the first place.
corporation deems might to be fake news or things that the corporation thinks might get them into trouble with the new laws that put such a responsibility on them?
So we'll let Facebook and Twitter draw the line?
I find it a little funny that you, wanting to chop the head off the bourgeoisie off, is shocked by the demand that companies should exercise some responsibility.
And yes, social media is relatively new and we don't have all the answers. We'll have to create laws and see what the result is. If Facebook, Twitter et. al. comply with these laws in a sensible way that'll be good. If these laws don't work, we'll need to change them. This is only the first political response to a new media landscape.
What happened within the structure of laws and such around radio and books when easily accessible radio transmissions and relatively easy publication of books became available in the past?
The result of the printing press was a giant religious schism that turned everybody into zealots and led to a few wars that basically killed about a third of Europe's population. I'm no conservative but I'd be very happy to have social change without destroying every institution because we don't have a grip on our media any more
If we're going to draw any historical lesson from changes in availability of information, then that it can as easily be used for murder and violence as it can be used for education and improvement of our condition. That is exactly why we ought to tread a little carefully.
|
On January 07 2018 19:52 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +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. And if you try to silence them, they will find other ways to get their message out. That's just self-preservation (keeping the idea alive). Like all those people who were refused at or left MSNBC, CNN, Fox, NYT, etc, and ended up on RT. What's a troll and an extremist, anyway? I've been banned from here on occasion, does that make me a troll? I've spoken positively about the use of guillotines on the elite. Does that make me an extremist?
Just a French
|
Just read another article by a so-called "leftliberal" newspaper trying to sell me that the world is 233 billion in debt. And here we are talking about social media fake news, while the mainstream media is pretending that we somehow live in a magic world in which we make magic contracts with the future and not with people, who hold all that money "the world" owes.
User was warned for this post
|
On January 08 2018 08:58 Big J wrote:
Just read another article by a so-called "leftliberal" newspaper trying to sell me that the world is 233 billion in debt. And here we are talking about social media fake news, while the mainstream media is pretending that we somehow live in a magic world in which we make magic contracts with the future and not with people, who hold all that money "the world" owes.
I read this 4 or 5 different times trying to understand the post but didn't get it. The world owes 233 billion what to whom?
|
|
|
On January 08 2018 23:00 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2018 08:58 Big J wrote:
Just read another article by a so-called "leftliberal" newspaper trying to sell me that the world is 233 billion in debt. And here we are talking about social media fake news, while the mainstream media is pretending that we somehow live in a magic world in which we make magic contracts with the future and not with people, who hold all that money "the world" owes. I read this 4 or 5 different times trying to understand the post but didn't get it. The world owes 233 billion what to whom?
Sorry for my English, I meant trillion US-$.
|
On January 08 2018 23:00 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2018 08:58 Big J wrote:
Just read another article by a so-called "leftliberal" newspaper trying to sell me that the world is 233 billion in debt. And here we are talking about social media fake news, while the mainstream media is pretending that we somehow live in a magic world in which we make magic contracts with the future and not with people, who hold all that money "the world" owes. I read this 4 or 5 different times trying to understand the post but didn't get it. The world owes 233 billion what to whom?
It's trillions, to itself. It takes a trumpesque approach to knowledge to connect a concept that you don't understand to fake news though.
|
You can probably cobble together a couple of trillions by comparing the market price for a company like Apple with its assets. It is a design company with many store fronts. Those stores and other actual assets likely being worth ~1/15 of what the company is valued at. (Did not do the actual numbers.)
If you then do a comparison like that I could understand where the logic is coming from. When a brand is worth more than its combined assets. Making company value twice its assets.
Or maybe calculating the entire worth of all assets globally and compare with how money there is. Likely to be much more money?
|
The telegraph is considered a mouthpiece of the liberal left by Big J? Lol.
|
And this is what happens if you complain about an article without posting a link to it. No one has any idea what you are talking about, and no one can respond reasonably.
In general, start at the assumption that other people don't know what you are talking about, and especially don't agree with your statement from the getgo. That makes communication easier.
|
Not going to post an article that is just a megaphone of the banking lobby (and rather explicitely stating so), sorry. If I should advertise for them, they have to pay me the same kind of money they pay that newspaper to place it so prominently. I'm not some kind of socialist who does stuff for free if I believe it is working against my interests, sorry.
|
Even if your refusal to post the article is justified, you aren't exactly persuasively advocating for the viewpoint that ostensibly inspired the original post in the first place.
|
On January 09 2018 03:34 Big J wrote:
Not going to post an article that is just a megaphone of the banking lobby (and rather explicitely stating so), sorry. If I should advertise for them, they have to pay me the same kind of money they pay that newspaper to place it so prominently. I'm not some kind of socialist who does stuff for free if I believe it is working against my interests, sorry.
It’s hard to see your opposition to an argument from an article if you don’t post the article. It’s like saying something is fake news without bothering to point out what or why.
|
On January 09 2018 05:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2018 03:34 Big J wrote:
Not going to post an article that is just a megaphone of the banking lobby (and rather explicitely stating so), sorry. If I should advertise for them, they have to pay me the same kind of money they pay that newspaper to place it so prominently. I'm not some kind of socialist who does stuff for free if I believe it is working against my interests, sorry. It’s hard to see your opposition to an argument from an article if you don’t post the article. It’s like saying something is fake news without bothering to point out what or why.
On January 08 2018 08:58 Big J wrote:
Just read another article by a so-called "leftliberal" newspaper trying to sell me that the world is 233 billion in debt. And here we are talking about social media fake news, while the mainstream media is pretending that we somehow live in a magic world in which we make magic contracts with the future and not with people, who hold all that money "the world" owes.
His post is quite clear, he mocks the fact that whoever wrote the article forgot to mention the real persons or organizations behind those sums. The journalist was delicate enough not to remind us that his boss—whoever owns the newspapers—probably holds some of this debt.
|
I don't really understand the argument. Debt isn't real because the telegraph is owned by a shadowy cabal of bankers?
You can have whatever opinion you want on public spending policy but that is a little bit out there
|
On January 09 2018 06:40 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2018 05:42 Danglars wrote:On January 09 2018 03:34 Big J wrote:
Not going to post an article that is just a megaphone of the banking lobby (and rather explicitely stating so), sorry. If I should advertise for them, they have to pay me the same kind of money they pay that newspaper to place it so prominently. I'm not some kind of socialist who does stuff for free if I believe it is working against my interests, sorry. It’s hard to see your opposition to an argument from an article if you don’t post the article. It’s like saying something is fake news without bothering to point out what or why. Show nested quote +On January 08 2018 08:58 Big J wrote:
Just read another article by a so-called "leftliberal" newspaper trying to sell me that the world is 233 billion in debt. And here we are talking about social media fake news, while the mainstream media is pretending that we somehow live in a magic world in which we make magic contracts with the future and not with people, who hold all that money "the world" owes. His post is quite clear, he mocks the fact that whoever wrote the article forgot to mention the real persons or organizations behind those sums. The journalist was delicate enough not to remind us that his boss—whoever owns the newspapers—probably holds some of this debt.
He mocks something. It is not 100% certain if what you write is indeed what he mocks, and even if it is, it is not clear whether what he mocks actually happens in any article, or if he just made it up/misread something, since no article was posted. This means that people who might disagree with the statement have no actual way of attacking it, simply because they have to guess what the statement is, and what article it refers to. That does not lead to good discourse.
I just read an article in an acclaimed maths journal, and boy was that whole piece silly. I have no idea how that shit got peer reviewed. The whole proof was so full of holes, and even if it had worked, it didn't even proof anything that couldn't be simply derived from very basic principles. Typical university maths guys failing at simple basic logic!
I am not gonna post that journal though, don't want to support their shitty maths.
|
On January 09 2018 06:40 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2018 05:42 Danglars wrote:On January 09 2018 03:34 Big J wrote:
Not going to post an article that is just a megaphone of the banking lobby (and rather explicitely stating so), sorry. If I should advertise for them, they have to pay me the same kind of money they pay that newspaper to place it so prominently. I'm not some kind of socialist who does stuff for free if I believe it is working against my interests, sorry. It’s hard to see your opposition to an argument from an article if you don’t post the article. It’s like saying something is fake news without bothering to point out what or why. Show nested quote +On January 08 2018 08:58 Big J wrote:
Just read another article by a so-called "leftliberal" newspaper trying to sell me that the world is 233 billion in debt. And here we are talking about social media fake news, while the mainstream media is pretending that we somehow live in a magic world in which we make magic contracts with the future and not with people, who hold all that money "the world" owes. His post is quite clear, he mocks the fact that whoever wrote the article forgot to mention the real persons or organizations behind those sums. The journalist was delicate enough not to remind us that his boss—whoever owns the newspapers—probably holds some of this debt.
Just read another article by a so-called "leftliberal" newspaper trying to sell me that the world is 233 billion in debt.
Haha look at this stupid article I won't link selling me news I don't believe. Wait, don't look at it, they don't deserve the traffic! But it's like a huge conflict of interest!
It pretty much guarantees the strange mockery is just echo chamber mockery for people that already believes some outlet is a megaphone of the banking lobby. I mean ... I guess that's sufficient if you like the echo chamber?
|
United States44035 Posts
On January 09 2018 01:17 Yurie wrote:
You can probably cobble together a couple of trillions by comparing the market price for a company like Apple with its assets. It is a design company with many store fronts. Those stores and other actual assets likely being worth ~1/15 of what the company is valued at. (Did not do the actual numbers.)
If you then do a comparison like that I could understand where the logic is coming from. When a brand is worth more than its combined assets. Making company value twice its assets.
Or maybe calculating the entire worth of all assets globally and compare with how money there is. Likely to be much more money?
It's not that the brand is worth more than the assets, it's the value on the future revenue stream.
Imagine you had a gold mine that contained $X worth of gold. That would be easy enough to value. Approximately $X, but discounted for the effort involved in getting the gold out of the mine and to the market. You value it based upon the assets contained.
Now imagine you have a goose that lays golden eggs. If you value that based upon the assets contained then you're going to value it at the price of a nice goose dinner, at the highest. The goose has little innate value. However, the goose also represents a future stream of golden eggs. No matter how you dissect the goose you cannot point specifically at these potential golden eggs as a present asset, but clearly they still give value to the goose.
When you value a company you are valuing both the current value of the assets and the projected value of the revenue stream.
|
On January 09 2018 06:40 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2018 05:42 Danglars wrote:On January 09 2018 03:34 Big J wrote:
Not going to post an article that is just a megaphone of the banking lobby (and rather explicitely stating so), sorry. If I should advertise for them, they have to pay me the same kind of money they pay that newspaper to place it so prominently. I'm not some kind of socialist who does stuff for free if I believe it is working against my interests, sorry. It’s hard to see your opposition to an argument from an article if you don’t post the article. It’s like saying something is fake news without bothering to point out what or why. Show nested quote +On January 08 2018 08:58 Big J wrote:
Just read another article by a so-called "leftliberal" newspaper trying to sell me that the world is 233 billion in debt. And here we are talking about social media fake news, while the mainstream media is pretending that we somehow live in a magic world in which we make magic contracts with the future and not with people, who hold all that money "the world" owes. His post is quite clear, he mocks the fact that whoever wrote the article forgot to mention the real persons or organizations behind those sums. The journalist was delicate enough not to remind us that his boss—whoever owns the newspapers—probably holds some of this debt.
Since you apparently also read the article and know what the journalist wrote, why don't you share it instead?
|
On January 09 2018 06:58 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't really understand the argument. Debt isn't real because the telegraph is owned by a shadowy cabal of bankers?
You can have whatever opinion you want on public spending policy but that is a little bit out there
As has been pointed out, I didn't post the article, so it's not necessarily the telegraph.
Debt is as real as any contract. There are many ways people look at it. The correct one is that debt is a contract. It has a value when it is traded (as all things only have value at the moment of interaction, apart from that we can only speculate on the price they could potentially have). That value is usually a positive one, as you get money for giving away a debt contract. That's how money is created, by trading something against a promise. If you are out of things you want to trade but want money, you start trading debt contracts (i.e. you get the promise that is money itself, its value guaranteed for by the institutions emitting it, for the promise to give the other side money later on).
A popular but technically wrong conception of debt is to sum up the overall projected payments written in the contract and call that debt. And since it is a contract, you can always see it from both sides. When you take that already technically wrong notion and say "the world owes X", you may as well say "the world has a credit of X". Hurray, we are so rich and gonna get so much money! 
Which is why I call it fake news. It is an agenda. There is as much global debt as there is global credit (=negative debt).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
