The most prominent channels may change over the decades, but the insidious nature of the misinformation spreading these days is not fundamentally different from the lies peddled a half-century ago.
"You're giving power to people who are feeling powerless," said Bob Goldberg, a history professor at the University of Utah and director of its Tanner Humanities Center. "It's an antidote to powerlessness because giving the responsibility, pointing the finger, targeting someone gives people a sense that they know what's happening."
Sondheim's Assassins comes to mind - except that show's set of freaks has sidled frighteningly close to the mainstream, and their avatar will soon sit in the White House.
Well I mean, the overriding narrative this year is apparently that there's another national anthem
It's eerie how fitting some of the lyrics are.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
It's poetic that a thread about pizza-gate had a page that devolved into moon speak about 4chan. Nothing personal against @Edith Upwards, I just think it shows that the sewage is spilling out. Hell, we may have been walking ankle deep in it for a while and just now noticed the smell.
I honestly blame facebook for most of this. The insanity of the...well...insanity you'll see get passed around is probably the biggest obstacle to reasonable discourse. No one reads the articles -only the headlines- and after a while even a normal person will start to wonder if half of this stuff is true. Its not one article here or there, its hundreds or thousands of little bits of sand tearing down the wall of logic.
I honestly blame facebook for most of this. The insanity of the...well...insanity you'll see get passed around is probably the biggest obstacle to reasonable discourse. No one reads the articles -only the headlines- and after a while even a normal person will start to wonder if half of this stuff is true. Its not one article here or there, its hundreds or thousands of little bits of sand tearing down the wall of logic.
It's poetic that a thread about pizza-gate had a page that devolved into moon speak about 4chan. Nothing personal against @Edith Upwards, I just think it shows that the sewage is spilling out. Hell, we may have been walking ankle deep in it for a while and just now noticed the smell.
I think it's a bit overblown to say that sort of thing is categorically bad. Every web community that lasts more than a few months will build their own internal memes, and some of them are catchy enough to stick. In-groups like to have references and coded language, whether it's upstanding groups like the military and academia or cabals of vile people like Stormfront or pedophile rings. Hell, GAF right now is having a discussion about why putting "Thor 2: The Dark World" in every bloody poll they host is a thing, or how newbies here (like me a year and a half ago) have no idea what the hell people are using the word "goose" for. Bad folks take shibboleths and use them to do weird or nasty things, but that's not alarmist.
To summarise: it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarise the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem.
Not that I think Douglas Adams had a constructive solution to that one, other than gallows humour and despair.
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
To summarise: it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarise the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem.
Not that I think Douglas Adams had a constructive solution to that one, other than gallows humour and despair.
It also seems pretty stupid. Obama wanted to be President and he did a fine enough job.
Didn't Plato have a similar thing to say about people who seek power?
But I'd also say that Obama follows another part I recall reading about; that those who do take up the mantle should do so as a public service. The whole 'philosopher kings' thing, etc.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I honestly blame facebook for most of this. The insanity of the...well...insanity you'll see get passed around is probably the biggest obstacle to reasonable discourse. No one reads the articles -only the headlines- and after a while even a normal person will start to wonder if half of this stuff is true. Its not one article here or there, its hundreds or thousands of little bits of sand tearing down the wall of logic.
I honestly blame facebook for most of this. The insanity of the...well...insanity you'll see get passed around is probably the biggest obstacle to reasonable discourse. No one reads the articles -only the headlines- and after a while even a normal person will start to wonder if half of this stuff is true. Its not one article here or there, its hundreds or thousands of little bits of sand tearing down the wall of logic.
Social media was a mistake
I dont know if i agree with that entirely. I'm one of the few who actually use facebook for what i think it is actually for. But its been absolutely over taken by fake news and ads for fake news now. I counted the other day and i had to scroll through 17 articles or "shares" of articles before i got to a post by a friend.
I honestly blame facebook for most of this. The insanity of the...well...insanity you'll see get passed around is probably the biggest obstacle to reasonable discourse. No one reads the articles -only the headlines- and after a while even a normal person will start to wonder if half of this stuff is true. Its not one article here or there, its hundreds or thousands of little bits of sand tearing down the wall of logic.
Social media was a mistake
I dont know if i agree with that entirely. I'm one of the few who actually use facebook for what i think it is actually for. But its been absolutely over taken by fake news and ads for fake news now. I counted the other day and i had to scroll through 17 articles or "shares" of articles before i got to a post by a friend.
You can block them at the source and enjoy sweet, sweet peace. Most of that crap comes from only a few sites. Click the arrow in the top right of the post and select "Hide all from Breitbart" or whatever.
I honestly blame facebook for most of this. The insanity of the...well...insanity you'll see get passed around is probably the biggest obstacle to reasonable discourse. No one reads the articles -only the headlines- and after a while even a normal person will start to wonder if half of this stuff is true. Its not one article here or there, its hundreds or thousands of little bits of sand tearing down the wall of logic.
Social media was a mistake
I dont know if i agree with that entirely. I'm one of the few who actually use facebook for what i think it is actually for. But its been absolutely over taken by fake news and ads for fake news now. I counted the other day and i had to scroll through 17 articles or "shares" of articles before i got to a post by a friend.
You have a business and are advertising to people/representing your product?
I honestly blame facebook for most of this. The insanity of the...well...insanity you'll see get passed around is probably the biggest obstacle to reasonable discourse. No one reads the articles -only the headlines- and after a while even a normal person will start to wonder if half of this stuff is true. Its not one article here or there, its hundreds or thousands of little bits of sand tearing down the wall of logic.
Social media was a mistake
I dont know if i agree with that entirely. I'm one of the few who actually use facebook for what i think it is actually for. But its been absolutely over taken by fake news and ads for fake news now. I counted the other day and i had to scroll through 17 articles or "shares" of articles before i got to a post by a friend.
You can block them at the source and enjoy sweet, sweet peace. Most of that crap comes from only a few sites. Click the arrow in the top right of the post and select "Hide all from Breitbart" or whatever.
I know but.......
i'm kind of addicted to the crazy.....
I KNOW! I cant be saved....go on without me....
I honestly blame facebook for most of this. The insanity of the...well...insanity you'll see get passed around is probably the biggest obstacle to reasonable discourse. No one reads the articles -only the headlines- and after a while even a normal person will start to wonder if half of this stuff is true. Its not one article here or there, its hundreds or thousands of little bits of sand tearing down the wall of logic.
Social media was a mistake
I dont know if i agree with that entirely. I'm one of the few who actually use facebook for what i think it is actually for. But its been absolutely over taken by fake news and ads for fake news now. I counted the other day and i had to scroll through 17 articles or "shares" of articles before i got to a post by a friend.
You can block them at the source and enjoy sweet, sweet peace. Most of that crap comes from only a few sites. Click the arrow in the top right of the post and select "Hide all from Breitbart" or whatever.
the kinda bigger point is that all of that garbage is significantly impacting the national dialogue and probably elections/politics.
I honestly blame facebook for most of this. The insanity of the...well...insanity you'll see get passed around is probably the biggest obstacle to reasonable discourse. No one reads the articles -only the headlines- and after a while even a normal person will start to wonder if half of this stuff is true. Its not one article here or there, its hundreds or thousands of little bits of sand tearing down the wall of logic.
Social media was a mistake
I dont know if i agree with that entirely. I'm one of the few who actually use facebook for what i think it is actually for. But its been absolutely over taken by fake news and ads for fake news now. I counted the other day and i had to scroll through 17 articles or "shares" of articles before i got to a post by a friend.
You can block them at the source and enjoy sweet, sweet peace. Most of that crap comes from only a few sites. Click the arrow in the top right of the post and select "Hide all from Breitbart" or whatever.
the kinda bigger point is that all of that garbage is significantly impacting the national dialogue and probably elections/politics.
Sure, but that doesn't mean I have to suffer! I've blocked the liberal stuff too. My feed is all about babies and video games.
I honestly blame facebook for most of this. The insanity of the...well...insanity you'll see get passed around is probably the biggest obstacle to reasonable discourse. No one reads the articles -only the headlines- and after a while even a normal person will start to wonder if half of this stuff is true. Its not one article here or there, its hundreds or thousands of little bits of sand tearing down the wall of logic.
Social media was a mistake
I dont know if i agree with that entirely. I'm one of the few who actually use facebook for what i think it is actually for. But its been absolutely over taken by fake news and ads for fake news now. I counted the other day and i had to scroll through 17 articles or "shares" of articles before i got to a post by a friend.
You can block them at the source and enjoy sweet, sweet peace. Most of that crap comes from only a few sites. Click the arrow in the top right of the post and select "Hide all from Breitbart" or whatever.
the kinda bigger point is that all of that garbage is significantly impacting the national dialogue and probably elections/politics.
And once again, it's all because of the right wing working the ref. Remember when they were screaming bloody murder over Facebook curating news sources, claiming bias?
The promise of the internet age to me, when i was younger, was that i was naive enough to think that the quality of certain information was self-apparent, that there were a few fools who bought into the scams, but that these people were all properly under the lizardman threshold and couldn't effect society at large.
While it's noble to try to Snopes every misguided link and whatnot, there's also a limit to just how much time one can put into the day curating all that shit as a random dude/chick just trying to catch up on social stuff.
I agree that blocking it all off might be counterproductive, but at the same time it's not my personal crusade to yell into the hurricane that is 'bullshit on the internet'.
So I'm kinda torn there. I've had more than my share of lengthy political debates online, trying to change minds (observers if not those with opposing views), but that gets tiresome. We are all but one person, and there's a damned industry making this shit up constantly. More fake and bullshit and clickbaity news gets made per day than I could debunk eloquently in a week (hell, it's probably more like 'made in an hour', but let's not nitpick; it's a lot).
And I don't know where to go from there. We can try to address it collectively, but 'the other side' is just as capable of blocking/hiding dissenting views. Outsiders watching might be swayed, but at what cost in time and frustration?
It just seems bigger than one person, or even we collectively. It's the Fox News fight all over again in some ways, but instead of being a major corporation, it's a (hail) Hydra of bullshit and memes from said major corporations and 4Chan/Reddit and Twitter and Stormfront and a thousand other sources large and small.
This might be something we have to address one day as a society... fuck, as a species.
We've been over the whole 'freedom of speech isn't the right to a platform', but the platform is free now, and with the help of some likeminded folks you can Like/Upvote/Whatever the most vile and incorrect shit to get infinitely more eyeballs on it than one used to with a home printing press and a bunch of paper.
And I'm not sure what to do about that in the long term. The short term, we all do what we can, both to combat it and to preserve our sanity (there's nothing wrong with choosing not to wade into the quagmire, sometimes the life you save needs to be your own). But in the months and years and decades to come?
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I've had multiple people tell me that Snopes was liberal nonsense so you can't even rely on Snopes.
There's got to be some debunking of "liberal" bs on there you can refer to. Just a matter of figuring out what the hell they think "liberal" means. Antivax? Bush did 911?
Look, I'm not saying that social media might end up being an existential threat to humanity specifically and the Earth in general, but social media might end up being an existential threat to humanity specifically and the Earth in general.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I've had multiple people tell me that Snopes was liberal nonsense so you can't even rely on Snopes.
There's got to be some debunking of "liberal" bs on there you can refer to. Just a matter of figuring out what the hell they think "liberal" means. Antivax? Bush did 911?
There is plenty of liberal BS on Snopes. There's a lot more right wing BS. Is this because Snopes is a liberal rag, or because there's just a lot more right-wing BS out there? You decide. (Actually, no, it's the latter.)
While it's noble to try to Snopes every misguided link and whatnot, there's also a limit to just how much time one can put into the day curating all that shit as a random dude/chick just trying to catch up on social stuff.
I agree that blocking it all off might be counterproductive, but at the same time it's not my personal crusade to yell into the hurricane that is 'bullshit on the internet'.
So I'm kinda torn there. I've had more than my share of lengthy political debates online, trying to change minds (observers if not those with opposing views), but that gets tiresome. We are all but one person, and there's a damned industry making this shit up constantly. More fake and bullshit and clickbaity news gets made per day than I could debunk eloquently in a week (hell, it's probably more like 'made in an hour', but let's not nitpick; it's a lot).
And I don't know where to go from there. We can try to address it collectively, but 'the other side' is just as capable of blocking/hiding dissenting views. Outsiders watching might be swayed, but at what cost in time and frustration?
It just seems bigger than one person, or even we collectively. It's the Fox News fight all over again in some ways, but instead of being a major corporation, it's a (hail) Hydra of bullshit and memes from said major corporations and 4Chan/Reddit and Twitter and Stormfront and a thousand other sources large and small.
This might be something we have to address one day as a society... fuck, as a species.
We've been over the whole 'freedom of speech isn't the right to a platform', but the platform is free now, and with the help of some likeminded folks you can Like/Upvote/Whatever the most vile and incorrect shit to get infinitely more eyeballs on it than one used to with a home printing press and a bunch of paper.
And I'm not sure what to do about that in the long term. The short term, we all do what we can, both to combat it and to preserve our sanity (there's nothing wrong with choosing not to wade into the quagmire, sometimes the life you save needs to be yourself). But in the months and years and decades to come?
Part of it is the counter force involved in a social media argument. It used to be that commenting on something, in real life and even in old versions of the internet, you wouldn't be boosting it at the same time. You could say "that's a stupid argument you goose!" Without it making the stupid argument more visible.
Now, with social media, you can comment "of course the Clintons don't run a pedophilia ring" and what happens? It pops up to the top of the stream or comment section, not with your comment, but with the original misinformation. Arguing against things counters itself by signal boosting the nonsense.
It is a systemic problem that wasn't intended but is the outcome.
It is much easier to agree than to disagree in social media.
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
You ever been to Reddit? It has a "downvote" button intended for horrible things like Pizzagate, so the community can vote to hide them. It is used for the alt-right to silence moderates.
I've been wondering if there is a possibility of some other third party type "verification" thing that can go on. Like a "seal of actuality" or some type of rating system. I dont know....its a very loose idea.
Like if you saw a story that had the "seal of actuality" you'd know its probably worth reading, or at least taking in to consideration.
I've been wondering if there is a possibility of some other third party type "verification" thing that can go on. Like a "seal of actuality" or some type of rating system. I dont know....its a very loose idea.
Like if you saw a story that had the "seal of actuality" you'd know its probably worth reading, or at least taking in to consideration.
I've been pondering a way to get this rolling, but I keep coming back to someone almost immediately creating a "conservative" version that gleefully signs off on all manner of bullshit and calls the original a tool of lefty propaganda.
I've been wondering if there is a possibility of some other third party type "verification" thing that can go on. Like a "seal of actuality" or some type of rating system. I dont know....its a very loose idea.
Like if you saw a story that had the "seal of actuality" you'd know its probably worth reading, or at least taking in to consideration.
1) actuality is biased, so a lot of people who are already too lazy to think for 5 seconds or to look at the second link on a Google search probably won't care if it is saying something they already want to believe.
2) you'd have to click the link to see the cert unless it was built into Facebook. Facebook wouldn't do that, or they would do it "fairly" which would just make things worse.
The problem with the right at the moment is that they don't care about truth or falsehood - if it feels right, it's true. If someone says it's actually false, they have sinister motives. The only people who would care about the "medal of truth" would be liberals, so the right would damn it as liberally biased (see Snopes.)
Posts
A really nice guy, I never believed he could have tried to do something like that.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I think it's funny that they needed to do that. I can't get enough of headlines that read stuff like "Trump said Cruz's dad killed JFK (he didn't)"
http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/
I think it's a bit overblown to say that sort of thing is categorically bad. Every web community that lasts more than a few months will build their own internal memes, and some of them are catchy enough to stick. In-groups like to have references and coded language, whether it's upstanding groups like the military and academia or cabals of vile people like Stormfront or pedophile rings. Hell, GAF right now is having a discussion about why putting "Thor 2: The Dark World" in every bloody poll they host is a thing, or how newbies here (like me a year and a half ago) have no idea what the hell people are using the word "goose" for. Bad folks take shibboleths and use them to do weird or nasty things, but that's not alarmist.
...goose means cheese pizza, right?
Yes, i suppose the CORE issue is peoples inability to stick to principles instead of party but Facebook is the gasoline for that match.
I mean, I guess, but now we're at "the problem is that humans are human," and it's hard to have a constructive solution to that.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
It also seems pretty stupid. Obama wanted to be President and he did a fine enough job.
Edit: Original message above edited to make it clearer what my reply was in reference to. It may still be pretty stupid, obviously.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
But I'd also say that Obama follows another part I recall reading about; that those who do take up the mantle should do so as a public service. The whole 'philosopher kings' thing, etc.
Social media was a mistake
"Ahh, the Internet. The great thing about it is that people can freely exchange ideas and information.
The downside? People can freely exchange ideas and information."
Little did I know just how on point that is.
I dont know if i agree with that entirely. I'm one of the few who actually use facebook for what i think it is actually for. But its been absolutely over taken by fake news and ads for fake news now. I counted the other day and i had to scroll through 17 articles or "shares" of articles before i got to a post by a friend.
You can block them at the source and enjoy sweet, sweet peace. Most of that crap comes from only a few sites. Click the arrow in the top right of the post and select "Hide all from Breitbart" or whatever.
You have a business and are advertising to people/representing your product?
I know but.......
i'm kind of addicted to the crazy.....
I KNOW! I cant be saved....go on without me....
the kinda bigger point is that all of that garbage is significantly impacting the national dialogue and probably elections/politics.
Sure, but that doesn't mean I have to suffer! I've blocked the liberal stuff too. My feed is all about babies and video games.
And once again, it's all because of the right wing working the ref. Remember when they were screaming bloody murder over Facebook curating news sources, claiming bias?
However even engaging with them seems to bring no release either. It's a lose/lose for everyone.
I agree that blocking it all off might be counterproductive, but at the same time it's not my personal crusade to yell into the hurricane that is 'bullshit on the internet'.
So I'm kinda torn there. I've had more than my share of lengthy political debates online, trying to change minds (observers if not those with opposing views), but that gets tiresome. We are all but one person, and there's a damned industry making this shit up constantly. More fake and bullshit and clickbaity news gets made per day than I could debunk eloquently in a week (hell, it's probably more like 'made in an hour', but let's not nitpick; it's a lot).
And I don't know where to go from there. We can try to address it collectively, but 'the other side' is just as capable of blocking/hiding dissenting views. Outsiders watching might be swayed, but at what cost in time and frustration?
It just seems bigger than one person, or even we collectively. It's the Fox News fight all over again in some ways, but instead of being a major corporation, it's a (hail) Hydra of bullshit and memes from said major corporations and 4Chan/Reddit and Twitter and Stormfront and a thousand other sources large and small.
This might be something we have to address one day as a society... fuck, as a species.
We've been over the whole 'freedom of speech isn't the right to a platform', but the platform is free now, and with the help of some likeminded folks you can Like/Upvote/Whatever the most vile and incorrect shit to get infinitely more eyeballs on it than one used to with a home printing press and a bunch of paper.
And I'm not sure what to do about that in the long term. The short term, we all do what we can, both to combat it and to preserve our sanity (there's nothing wrong with choosing not to wade into the quagmire, sometimes the life you save needs to be your own). But in the months and years and decades to come?
There's got to be some debunking of "liberal" bs on there you can refer to. Just a matter of figuring out what the hell they think "liberal" means. Antivax? Bush did 911?
Robot overlords
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
There is plenty of liberal BS on Snopes. There's a lot more right wing BS. Is this because Snopes is a liberal rag, or because there's just a lot more right-wing BS out there? You decide. (Actually, no, it's the latter.)
Part of it is the counter force involved in a social media argument. It used to be that commenting on something, in real life and even in old versions of the internet, you wouldn't be boosting it at the same time. You could say "that's a stupid argument you goose!" Without it making the stupid argument more visible.
Now, with social media, you can comment "of course the Clintons don't run a pedophilia ring" and what happens? It pops up to the top of the stream or comment section, not with your comment, but with the original misinformation. Arguing against things counters itself by signal boosting the nonsense.
It is a systemic problem that wasn't intended but is the outcome.
It is much easier to agree than to disagree in social media.
but they're listening to every word I say
A dislike button.
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.
You ever been to Reddit? It has a "downvote" button intended for horrible things like Pizzagate, so the community can vote to hide them. It is used for the alt-right to silence moderates.
No, I don't reddit though. Been on the site a couple of times when researching a topic and a subreddit has some relevant info but that's about it.
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.
Like if you saw a story that had the "seal of actuality" you'd know its probably worth reading, or at least taking in to consideration.
I've been pondering a way to get this rolling, but I keep coming back to someone almost immediately creating a "conservative" version that gleefully signs off on all manner of bullshit and calls the original a tool of lefty propaganda.
1) actuality is biased, so a lot of people who are already too lazy to think for 5 seconds or to look at the second link on a Google search probably won't care if it is saying something they already want to believe.
2) you'd have to click the link to see the cert unless it was built into Facebook. Facebook wouldn't do that, or they would do it "fairly" which would just make things worse.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)