EPThttps://twitter.com/jensstoltenberg/status/1111286843058937856?s=20
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1258
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Slydie
1899 Posts
https://twitter.com/jensstoltenberg/status/1111286843058937856?s=20 | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 29 2019 00:49 JimmiC wrote: When was the last time either government did what the minority requested if they didn't want. That is basically the game, the minority asks, gets rejected and appeals to the people "this is why you need us". Of all the bat shit crazy stuff that has happened, this is just good old politics. Like the 1980s, pre-Newt. Congress used to be very different before it was corrupted by the national winner take all mentality. But prior to that, the Democrats had controlled the House for 40 years. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17852 Posts
On March 28 2019 04:14 Plansix wrote: They used to, like 30-40 years ago. There used to be discussions between networks, the FCC and congress about what was and wasn’t allowed. People like Mr. Rogers testified before congress for money for PBS. Congress used to be in it and having a back and forth dialogue with media as a whole. It wasn’t perfect in any way, but it existed. And Hanity peddling the Seth Rich conspiracy theory would likely never happen because the CEO of that network would be deathly afraid of a call from a senator or being dragged before congress to explain himself. Congress didn’t need pass laws all of the time. Showing the will to get involved at all was deterrent enough. Sounds to me like you want to put the genie back into the bottle. The world has irreversibly changed and we aren't suddenly going to return to newspapers, local radio and 3 tv channels having a monopoly on what 99% of the population hears about the world. The internet is here to stay, and even if you erect the Great Firewall of America around your country, people will still get on their virtual soapbox and yell. That said, I do agree that journalistic integrity is essentially dead, and we need to figure out a way of bringing it back. There is no easy way for a layperson to distinguish between someone who has verified his story with 3 independent sources and has documented evidence backing it up from the Alex Joneses of this world. Moreover, the Alex Joneses of this world are doing their utmost best to discredit those who actually do put in the research (and Trump is helping them more than hindering them with all his blather about fake news and deep state). It used to be that there were limited ways to reach lots of people, so there was an "establishment" who kinda chose who got to be heard, and the crazy guy on the corner yelling about alien abductions was easily recognized as exactly that. The internet makes it faaar harder to distinguish between the crazy guy on the corner (Alex Jones) and pulitzer prize winning journalists. And it really doesn't help that pulitzer prize winning journalists are doing their damndest to look more like Alex Jones, in order to get all the clicks. Anyway, I don't really know what role the government could play in all this, and I really don't think government-imposed censorship is the solution even if you could pull it off. I think the problem is really in education. We need to teach people critical thinking and information processing skills. It used to be easy: "ignore the crazy person with the cardboard sign around his neck, and listen to the 5 o'clock news". And even then, there was plenty of nonsense that got through. It has gotten a lot harder, and we need to equip people to deal with it. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Journalistic integrity is not dead. There are plenty of journalists that are doing great work across the world. They are no longer valued over the muck rakers and pro-wrestling style media coverage. The work still exists, but it is harder to find, not championed the way it should and is now rewarded. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On March 29 2019 02:29 Plansix wrote: I have to get to some work, but one point bothered me in your post: Journalistic integrity is not dead. There are plenty of journalists that are doing great work across the world. They are no longer valued over the muck rakers and pro-wrestling style media coverage. The work still exists, but it is harder to find, not championed the way it should and is now rewarded. Would you say that is a failure of capitalism or of the people. Media companies don't make shitty news because they're shitty people. They do it because revenue is based on clicks and ads. You don't make more money by having well sourced news that is hard to read and understand. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On March 29 2019 02:33 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: Would you say that is a failure of capitalism or of the people. Media companies don't make shitty news because they're shitty people. They do it because revenue is based on clicks and ads. You don't make more money by having well sourced news that is hard to read and understand. Ofcourse its a failure of capitalism. Competition in News Media is a race to the bottom and appealing to the lowest common denominator. But any attempts to regulate it would be decried as a muzzle on free speech, and regulation probably isnt the solution anyway. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 29 2019 02:33 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: Would you say that is a failure of capitalism or of the people. Media companies don't make shitty news because they're shitty people. They do it because shitty people consume it and they make money. Capitalism. The free market will not provide solutions to this problem. I’ve said that news media went to shit when the 24 hour news cycle the norm. The decline of news papers, especially local papers, due to the rise of the internet has also become a major problem. The fact that so much of the internet is “free” to use has created a race to the bottom for news media. Facebook recently put out that they were unable to provide local news in the US because of a lack of reporting, which like me saying I miss the milk I got from the cow I recently slaughtered for its meat. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On March 29 2019 02:45 Plansix wrote: Capitalism. The free market will not provide solutions to this problem. I’ve said that news media went to shit when the 24 hour news cycle the norm. The decline of news papers, especially local papers, due to the rise of the internet has also become a major problem. The fact that so much of the internet is “free” to use has created a race to the bottom for news media. Facebook recently put out that they were unable to provide local news in the US because of a lack of reporting, which like me saying I miss the milk I got from the cow I recently slaughtered for its meat. I'd consider it more of a customer is always right situation. People don't want to be informed, they want to click on click bait articles that agree with their views. Capitalism and the media are only delivering what people want and they want a 24 hour news cycle to feed the outrage machine. You rail against facebook constantly, but the consumer really does have all the power here. You can look at the ban of white nationalists on the platform and see that if people wanted something different facebook would deliver so long as it improved their bottom line. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 29 2019 03:05 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: I'd consider it more of a customer is always right situation. People don't want to be informed, they want to click on click bait articles that agree with their views. Capitalism and the media are only delivering what people want and they want a 24 hour news cycle to feed the outrage machine. Capitalism is a race to the bottom if left unchecked. Payday lenders will be successful. Usury will flourish because teh consumer wants money now. So on and so on. But the problem is that in this market, the internet has been given unearned advantages due to laws governing liability for hosting articles that traditional media do not enjoy. Companies like Facebook and Google will not fail. They will simply host the next low quality site in the great churn while they provide us with trash tier news while they soak up enough of the profits to make quality reporting not viable. At least in the era of yellow journalism there was a wide variety of news sources, all which could fail on their own terms and we paid for that news directly. On March 29 2019 03:05 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: You rail against facebook constantly, but the consumer really does have all the power here. You can look at the ban of white nationalists on the platform and see that if people wanted something different facebook would deliver so long as it improved their bottom line. Do they? I'm not on Facebook any longer, but they have an account for me and my wife. They have accounts for people that never signed up. They collect data on us all. Ads will be delivered to me on the internet based on their data no matter what I do. And lets say you are right, how much damage does Facebook get to do before it fails and the next thing moves in? And will that new thing be better? Do we just hope that if we have the national media landscape upturned enough times we will get a viable system for an informed population? Or subscribe to your fatalism that human nature is terrible and we are doomed to failure because of it? And if that is the case, why do you want to live in a democracy? | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On March 29 2019 03:18 Plansix wrote: Can't you request that they provide and delete data on you?Do they? I'm not on Facebook any longer, but they have an account for me and my wife. They have accounts for people that never signed up. They collect data on us all. Ads will be delivered to me on the internet based on their data no matter what I do. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 29 2019 03:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Can't you request that they provide and delete data on you? I could ask. We have no right to be forgotten law in the US, so they are not obligated to delete it. And even if they said they were going to, I don’t believe them. | ||
KwarK
United States41991 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21368 Posts
On March 29 2019 03:23 Doodsmack wrote: I think its pretty much a given that there will be some cases brought against him as soon as he loses the protection of the office of the President.Have a feeling that once trump leaves office, he'll be hit with charges for financial crimes. I mean, the NYT article pretty much laid out incontrovertible proof of tax fraud. He needs to get beat in 2020 so that his legacy will largely consist of being a one term president who was criminally investigated while in office and then being convicted of crimes right after leaving office. He'll be permanently smeared in the history books, thus proving that America's institutions can deal with a villain of a president. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Yurie
11687 Posts
On March 29 2019 04:14 Plansix wrote: The report is 300 pages. The 4 page summary within 48 hours of release to the DOJ seems more than premature. Seems reasonable to me. It won't be 100% accurate like that but can easily see it being done by one person in 2 work days if there is urgent need for a quick summary. Read a page every 1.5 minutes (or faster for some people). Then summarise each major section as its read in a few minutes. Can't validate anything like that but you can make a summary. If you split it over more people you can also do minor validations of your 30 pages. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 29 2019 04:22 Yurie wrote: Seems reasonable to me. It won't be 100% accurate like that but can easily see it being done by one person in 2 work days if there is urgent need for a quick summary. Read a page every 1.5 minutes (or faster for some people). Then summarise each major section as its read in a few minutes. Can't validate anything like that but you can make a summary. If you split it over more people you can also do minor validations of your 30 pages. Physically possible, sure. But I was talking about if it was necessary or appropriate to take so little time with something so complex. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21368 Posts
| ||
| ||
