This is the truth. But for clarification that's not to say that we shouldn't fight it.
1,448 karma · joined September 20, 2011
This is the truth. But for clarification that's not to say that we shouldn't fight it.
This is what it smells like to me. I hope they've learned from this, though.
I've been following. They're doubling down on the Russia conspiracy theories, identity politics, alluding to Trump being Hitler. The party is in shambles, philosophically speaking. It's a shame. It's also ironic that Trump has pictures of President Andrew Jackson(D) in his office.
Humans don't act this way and don't respond to it. The media isn't out to inform people through content, but to program people through delivery.
The only result of this will be to have people say "SEE! GOOGLE SAYS IT'S TRUE/FAKE!" And they'll share the headline on Facebook/Twitter and be done with it.
People don't act rationally anymore, especially when it comes to media.
Media outlets have agendas. The press hasn't been free in a long time. https://medium.com/@SarahRRunge/amazon-the-washington-post-a...
The perception of whether Google is good or not is all that matters. This is how media and mass psychology works. This isn't about fact-checking stories. It's about using Google's brand to deem specific stories to be real or fake.
I'm saying that it doesn't really solve the problem of lies in mass media and the impact of the lies. It's a mitigating factor at best, a polarizer at worst.
Journalists are also held less accountable than even elected officials these days.
We're not far off, right?
http://thomasfriedmanopedgenerator.com/about.php
Then again, maybe these are generated articles. Hmmm....
I have never seen a piece complaining about the usage in "insurgent" vs. "rebel" when the news speaks of foreign affairs, but that is a perfect example of newspeak.
Instead, we speak of newspeak because the new president doesn't like "politically correct" speech.
What?
They need to get rid of all counter-terrorism operations and ignore the problem because all attempts to stop any attacks have been without effect.
That's a detail that doesn't matter. What matters is that we open the doors to men who have high risk of radicalization and ties to rich Saudis, bigot.
He's giving intel agencies more power in an attempt to box in Trump.
The question is to what end will this be done, and will it be effective in reaching that end?
That word is the problem. It means something different for every person. To you it means one thing, to him it means another. When people criticize capitalism their arguments are always convincing because you project your own negative connotations into the word.