It's to do with social media, and the internet in general.
103 karma · joined February 15, 2022
I used to read it frequently and enjoyed it, especially around the time he was setting up DNA lounge. Then after a while I started to notice this odd regression, as in, day by day it seemed to get younger and more naïve. When I eventually gave up it was like reading the livejournal of an edgy 15yo who'd just finished Das Kapital, or a stereotypical r/latestagecapitalism mod.
I can't imagine what's it like now but totally unsurprised to hear it's todays flavor of radically authoritarian leftism.
https://www.jwz.org/blog/2021/12/digital-vaccine-passes-will...
>> "Your privacy maximalism is all very nice in the abstract, but continuing to cater to the whims of kooks like you is literally going to kill me and my friends."
Hahahah. Oh wow.
Something really weird is happening to a lot of people and I just don't get it. It isn't happening to me, so why is it happening to them?
That's creating an environment where those editors can edit articles on the basis of papers not available to the general public and pinky swear that their translated-onto-wikipedia interpretation of the paper is correct.
Youtube literally operates walk-in 'creator spaces' where creators with popular channels can go to make use of editing equipment and resources. They can staff a media liaison office. They can staff a media liaison office in every major city of every first world country. They have those offices already existing to sell adverts, after all.
It would be trivial for them to operate those media liaison offices and ensure that things like this don't happen. They choose to hide behind the 'oops, the algorithm did it, nothing we could have done' excuse.
There's a very toxic current of censorship spreading which involves redefining opinions (inherently a subjective matter) as information (inherently an objective matter) in order to justify them being censored on the grounds of 'combating misinformation.' People are free to be wrong and to spread the word of their wrongness.
If you take the random words - on a subjective topic! - of a weirdo on the internet to be 'information' then you're a bloody idiot.
It's Vox.
It's only 'misinformation' if you take the words of random people on the internet as being 'information' instead of 'opinion.'
As that's a very foolish thing to do I think it's better to call their content 'ignorance' rather than 'misinformation' as that accords it a type of status it doesn't deserve.
With that in mind, do you propose that the ignorant should be silenced?
Of course it is. The modern media is absurdly woke and out of touch with reality and pretty much without principle either.
The trucker convoy was a perfect example of a modern working-class struggle and the media lined up to portray them as anything but.
I remember literally reading in some op-ed words along the lines of 'the truckers are not the working class, they are the modern bourgeoise; they do not work with their hands but merely direct from padded comfort the toil of their mechanical slave.'
It would be funny if it didn't actually affect things.
Much like you sourced your claim that transferwise worked? No thanks, I'll save my time.
Which would potentially or eventually lead to the team they supported (Team Trump) capturing control of the government.
If Pence refusing to count those ballots wouldn't potentially lead to them capturing control of the government, why would they do it?
>their own tribe
This is the problem in your thinking. These 'tribes' you worry about aren't real. It's an artifact of twitter, of terrible reportage, of lazy journalism and muck-slinging that puts lots of different typs of people in one box because that makes it easy to pick out the craziest of them and and say that they're all like that.
By and large the protesters were/are just normal people who want to be able to get on with their lives and accept the risks they're comfortable with. They spend all their life in their trucks, alone. They interact with maybe 5 people per week, if that, but they're forced to get a vaccination whereas grocery clerks who interact with 5 people every 15 minutes aren't. Most of them already have the vaccination but it's the principle, dammit. And they're sick of journalists and twitterati calling them - and everyone else, for that matter - nazis because a few lunatics showed up to the protest with nazi flags and got kicked out. It's boring that the media keep falling for this shtick. Every single time. You have a group of normalish people with normalish goals and all of a sudden some crazy fucker pops up with a nazi flag. You eject them but then all you hear on the news for the next month is 'nazi truckers...' It's just shit reportage. Utterly shit lazy yellow journalism.
When you finally realise that people just want to be left alone and not slandered and tarred with labels they don't deserve so much of this pointless infighting will go away. But then the media would have nothing to report on.
What aspect of 'sanctions' do you not understand?
Edit: Oh, I read your other contributions in this thread and see you're just trolling. My mistake.
Ghandi and MLK have already given us the answer to that question. It's fine to peacefully protest until you achieve your objectives. Yes, people will try to malign you (saying that you're 'holding the public hostage') and insinuate things about you, but ignore them. It's okay.
It's okay.
Note that the byline of that article is 'world service disinformation team.'
CNN was openly anti-Trump for the entire administration, as in, instructions were literally passed down that reporting should be slanted in such a way as to taint him.
It isn't a case of having to think they have a bias, it's a case of literally being told that bias is part of their policy.
It wasn't hard to spot, either. Their reportage during the Trump administration was absurd. You'd have headlines and first-paragraphs that were contradicted by the entire rest of the article; the headline and intro para made Trump look bad, the rest of the article begrudgingly attempted to convey the facts. It was utter nonsense.
Modern journalists are used to observing social media to determine and reinforce trends. When something won't trend on twitter or propagate on FB because those platforms have added it to their hardcoded lists of 'topics that will never trend even if literally half the userbase tweets the hashtag' it's almost impossible to get the media to pay attention to it.
It makes a lot of sense to me. NaN indicates data has been lost. You did something and you stored the result in a number datatype but the result isn't a number. Data was lost. You lost the data and have only 'your answer wasn't a number.'
Comparing NaN with NaN is asking the computer 'we have two buckets that have overflowed, were their contents the same?' The answer is 'we don't know' which means, to err on the side of safety, the answer is 'no.'
No?
>a reliable way to measure whether it actually improves things
After the process has been carried out, it is measured as successful if less people agree the problem exists. Very simple, very quantifiable.
>Then do some thorough data analysis, trying to learn as much about the problem as you can.
No, that's not necessary. That seems more like gatekeeping and wikilawyering, which is basically the actual problem - entrenched power networks refusing to let anybody consider changing things without first having produced ten man-years worth of proof.
You don't solve the problem by doing what the problem tells you that you must do in order to be allowed to solve it.
>absolutely no reason other than some editors going all "nuh uh"
They're almost certainly paid to keep that content on the talk page and off the article.
Once you're in the partisan politics bubble normal procedures and safeguards break down because there are absurd amounts of money being spent.
I looked at that talk page and it's just painful.
"It isn't his laptop"
"It isn't not proven to be not his laptop"
"Even if it is his laptop, it isn't his files"
"It isn't not proven to be not his files"
Just admit that it could be genuine or it could be a disinfo campaign. Ugh.
On the other hand, people who have unhealthy lives become totally invested in that forum or space because it's literally all they have and guard it like a mother hen guards their eggs. In Wikipedia they create a huge bureaucracy which excludes all but the most determined of users. That intensity drives away all casual users.
On the other hand I once made an edit to a Wikipedia page from an IP address - I removed an unsourced claim from the Ron Paul page - and didn't find my edit reverted or blocked in any way.
So while I have heard of the issue of frighteningly intense editors camping pages as though their life depended on it and demanding all changes be proven to the nth degree it doesn't seem to permeate the entire site.
Wires exist
Reddit is a website mostly consumed and curated by people who have anxiety disorders, it seems. There's just nothing healthy on any of the major subreddits, it's nonstop fear porn and alarmism. It doesn't in any way reflect reality and the viewpoint of the average human being. That's why the advertisements on it are a total disaster, because the advertisers know there's no real value to be extracted from those eyeballs.
It's literally their written policy and has been enforced multiple times. App store and GPlay apps have to adhere to Apple/Google set content standards. You can't host 'free speech' apps there because trolls instantaneously fill the 'free speech' apps up with visibly anti-semitic content then report it to google and down it goes.