| General > General Technical Chat |
| Youtube/Google is evil, time to fight back |
| << < (43/61) > >> |
| wraper:
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on May 04, 2022, 05:58:09 am --- --- Quote from: ve7xen on May 04, 2022, 05:41:49 am --- --- Quote from: Nominal Animal on May 04, 2022, 05:13:24 am ---God dammit I utterly, utterly despise the idea of information providers limiting access to information based on what they believe to be true or factual. It is not their right, nor their responsibility. --- End quote --- So you despise journalists with integrity? I'm so confused by your position here Journalists *are* 'the guardians of truth', doing that research, determining, in good faith, what is fact, and publishing the result of their efforts so we don't all have to retread the same path is exactly their job and purpose, yet somehow you use this as an argument against censoring lies and misinformation :wtf:. That is what journalism is all about, and while social media / Internet hosting companies are not journalists, they are realizing that they should exercise at least some of the discretion that actual journalists do in what they publish and propagate. --- End quote --- You conflate two completely separate things: 1) What a person in a news organization chooses to write about 2) What an organization forbids discussion about Don't you see the difference? Again, the Hunter Biden laptop case is a perfect example. Hard evidence existed, it was just labeled as "Trump campaign product" and "Russian misinformation", and therefore not to be discussed in media. No matter of personal :wtf: changes the fact that no media organization is to be trusted to define what is true and what is not, no matter what their political leanings are. The best journalists will post their findings, separate from their personal opinions –– or at least clearly stating what is their opinion and what is what they found out. Today, "journalists" try very hard to mix and conflate the two, and deliberately mischaracterise their political leanings exactly because they do not see themselves as servants of the public, but as the gatekeepers and shepherds of the public, determining what information the public should not be exposed to. This is sick. Without free information, all you have is manipulation. Better face it, or accept being manipulated. --- End quote --- Actually it was published by 220 years old media called New York Post, and then their account was banned/limited on twitter and other social networks. Any links to the article posted by other users were automatically deleted. I guess because they needed to "fortify" elections as they say https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/. |
| Nominal Animal:
--- Quote from: wraper on May 04, 2022, 07:55:31 am ---Actually it was published by 220 years old media called New York Post, and then their account was banned/limited on twitter and other social networks. Any links to the article posted by other users were automatically deleted. --- End quote --- Yes, exactly; and they did have the proof at hand. The other journalists simply refused to look at or consider it at all, and labeled –– based on various characters' assertions –– it something to be censored and hidden from view. The point is, if you hand that kind of power to anyone, regardless of their political stance, that power will eventually be misused, to the detriment of all. Even trusted fact-checkers sometimes get things wrong. Because of that, telling people to trust some kind of checkmark that labels it factual, is just manipulating them. Teaching each person to weigh things for themselves, to apply rational thought and logic, and how to critically analyse data –– say, the very basics of critical rationalism –– is what we should do, to empower individuals. Of course, you do not become powerful by teaching people to be powerful. You become powerful by making people into followers, into consumers. |
| MK14:
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on May 04, 2022, 06:09:29 am ---(That Hunter Biden laptop is a particularly sore point for me, because when I mentioned it in some face-to-face discussion here in Finland, I was labeled a "conspiracy theorist". Our beloved Finnish newsmedia still hasn't reported on it, probably because they find the topic "distasteful". That's the level of "world's free-est journos" for you.) --- End quote --- No, I think they were right in accusing you of believing in, a conspiracy theory ("conspiracy theorist"). On the one hand, at some level, it is true that there is such a claim, (Hunter Biden laptop). But, as I understand it, it is NOT acknowledged (genuinely/cleanly proved), to be a verified/true piece of evidence. On the other hand. A good quality/reliable news article (and somewhat similar things, such as social media), should at least mention its existence. But carefully explain that it is NOT proved/accepted as being true/genuine, at this moment in time. It could have been planted by other parties (I.e. Trump/Russian sources), and seems to have a number of "holes" in the evidence (serious or somewhat serious doubts). TL;DR I suppose, it would really need a jury and/or panel of (independent) experts. To properly analyse the available evidence, and decide if it seems to be genuine/true, possibly genuine/true (but not PROVED or 100% known to be so), or definitely FALSE (lies, planted by other parties). Just because it has NOT been proven so far, to have been falsely created by other parties. Doesn't mean, that it is genuine. E.g. An electronics component from AliExpress, that passes some basic electronic tests, and looks possibly genuine. Could still be later, proved to be a fake. It is just that the simple electrical parameter checks, with a $15 multimeter, and quick glance at it. Haven't shown any obvious defects, yet. Reference material (helping me write this post) was taken from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy |
| Zero999:
--- Quote from: MK14 on May 04, 2022, 10:00:54 am --- --- Quote from: Nominal Animal on May 04, 2022, 06:09:29 am ---(That Hunter Biden laptop is a particularly sore point for me, because when I mentioned it in some face-to-face discussion here in Finland, I was labeled a "conspiracy theorist". Our beloved Finnish newsmedia still hasn't reported on it, probably because they find the topic "distasteful". That's the level of "world's free-est journos" for you.) --- End quote --- No, I think they were right in accusing you of believing in, a conspiracy theory ("conspiracy theorist"). On the one hand, at some level, it is true that there is such a claim, (Hunter Biden laptop). But, as I understand it, it is NOT acknowledged (genuinely/cleanly proved), to be a verified/true piece of evidence. On the other hand. A good quality/reliable news article (and somewhat similar things, such as social media), should at least mention its existence. But carefully explain that it is NOT proved/accepted as being true/genuine, at this moment in time. It could have been planted by other parties (I.e. Trump/Russian sources), and seems to have a number of "holes" in the evidence (serious or somewhat serious doubts). TL;DR I suppose, it would really need a jury and/or panel of (independent) experts. To properly analyse the available evidence, and decide if it seems to be genuine/true, possibly genuine/true (but not PROVED or 100% known to be so), or definitely FALSE (lies, planted by other parties). Just because it has NOT been proven so far, to have been falsely created by other parties. Doesn't mean, that it is genuine. E.g. An electronics component from AliExpress, that passes some basic electronic tests, and looks possibly genuine. Could still be later, proved to be a fake. It is just that the simple electrical parameter checks, with a $15 multimeter, and quick glance at it. Haven't shown any obvious defects, yet. Reference material (helping me write this post) was taken from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy --- End quote --- As you've acknowledged, there's a possibility the Hunter Biden laptop story might be true, so calling someone as conspiracy theorist for believing it is uncalled for. Quite often, it's impossible to know what's true and what's a conspiracy theory. Another example was the lab leak theory of SAR-Cov-2, rather than the then accepted wet market narrative. It was originally dismissed as a conspiracy theory by many, but only a year later, many experts started to believe it's true. In reality, it's not proven, but is certainly a possibility. |
| MK14:
--- Quote from: Zero999 on May 04, 2022, 10:23:15 am ---As you've acknowledged, there's a possibility the Hunter Biden laptop story might be true, so calling someone as conspiracy theorist for believing it is uncalled for. Quite often, it's impossible to know what's true and what's a conspiracy theory. Another example was the lab leak theory of SAR-Cov-2, rather than the then accepted wet market narrative. It was originally dismissed as a conspiracy theory by many, but only a year later, many experts started to believe it's true. In reality, it's not proven, but is certainly a possibility. --- End quote --- I agree, that (if we accept that it is NOT proven yet, so might or might not be true), it is debatable/acceptable/arguable/arbitrary as to how reliable the claim, that the 'Hunter Biden laptop story' is true. Is a persons opinion and/or conspiracy theory and/or political belief/opinion and/or technical analysis of the publicly available evidence, so far. You're right. Conspiracy theory, may be (or is) too much of a counter-claim. Ideally/hopefully, eventually the (known to be reliably) true facts will come out, one way or the other. As these things, sometimes do. In the future. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |