| General > General Technical Chat |
| Youtube/Google is evil, time to fight back |
| << < (45/61) > >> |
| madires:
The things we're discussing in this thread are nothing new. About 2k years ago Romans slandered Vandals to be monsters destroying everything they come across. Today we still use terms like vandalism because of this propaganda. But the truth is, as archaeology found out later, that Vandals were highly educated and not what the old Romans claimed to be. Today's social media is simply a fire accelerant for nonsense and propaganda because of its speed of distribution and the mass of 'information'. No time to reflect about what you just have read - the next message is already waiting. |
| Nominal Animal:
--- Quote from: MK14 on May 04, 2022, 12:28:35 pm ---Sorry Nominal Animal, if I've appear wrong/nasty, agreeing with other people (and me), saying/implying that your claims were a conspiracy theory. --- End quote --- No, don't worry. My frustration then (and less so now) was that having a discussion on the matter was impossible. I wanted then to have a discussion along the lines of "Okay; if we assume this article is essentially true, what does it mean? Also, if we assume this article is false, who and how and why this hoax was perpetrated?" Both questions are equally interesting in the time frame when corraborative or falsifying facts were being obtained (like the source of the laptop itself). Instead, I get labeled a conspiracy theorist for even entertaining the first case at all. Same with the Russian media. I don't want to know what they say because I think they are truthful, I want to know what they say because that describes what the powers that be there want to say; therefore, they reflect on what those powers want. It is not about what I want to believe, it is about what various powers want the population (like myself) to believe, and why. Everyone is trying to present a convincing narrative, and I want to find the holes in them. No matter how nasty and disgusting language might be used, free speech is the only way for individuals to be free to think. Rather than shielding people from the hurt and scariness, I want people to grow strong enough to weather the nasty, unfortunate side of the free speech (non-violence-inciting hate speech and such), because the possibilities and the end result is worth it, to me. --- Quote from: madires on May 04, 2022, 01:22:20 pm ---The things we're discussing in this thread are nothing new. About 2k years ago Romans slandered Vandals to be monsters destroying everything they come across. Today we still use terms like vandalism because of this propaganda. But the truth is, as archaeology found out later, that Vandals were highly educated and not what the old Romans claimed to be. Today's social media is simply a fire accelerant for nonsense and propaganda because of its speed of distribution and the mass of 'information'. No time to reflect about what you just have read - the next message is already waiting. --- End quote --- So true. Having public access to some Vandal thinkers might have changed the opinion of the populace. Food for thought when considering bans and censorship. --- Quote from: cdev on May 04, 2022, 01:30:28 pm ---I'm worried that the Supreme Court may invalidate my marriage by overcoming Loving vs. Virginia..which is based on Roe vs. Wade.. thats a very real possibility in the US today. --- End quote --- You are, however, aware that if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, it just means that it will be up to each state to decide about it in its own legislation, and not that anything becomes "banned" overnight? If you're worried, contact your local state legislature representatives, and help them make sure the proper state laws are in place in case Roe vs. Wade gets overturned at the federal level. If the old racist laws are no longer in place –– and they damn well shouldn't, right? –– nothing changes. As to the Roe vs. Wade and reproductive rights, the same applies: it just becomes a matter to be decided at the state level, instead of at the federal level. |
| cdev:
I can't because of redistricting.. BUT - Any billionaire can buy Twitter and have a voice that cant be bought. See, isnt the world great! |
| nctnico:
--- Quote from: ve7xen on May 04, 2022, 05:41:49 am --- --- Quote from: Nominal Animal on May 04, 2022, 05:13:24 am ---Journalists are not supposed to be the guardians of truth! They are not the watchdogs of the population, they are the watchdogs of the powers that be! --- End quote --- YouTube et al are not journalists, nor are (most of) their users. That is the problem. If they were, they would vet their sources, do proper research, and censor unreliable information before publishing it... They are platforms that host user generated content, and an entirely different thing. It is well within their rights and perfectly reasonable for them to censor the content they choose to host. I do think they have some ethical responsibility to at least make a good-faith effort to stem the spread of scams, misinformation, and hate on their platforms, but ultimately it is up to them. There is certainly no reason Google or anyone else should be obligated to host or publish any content on behalf of their users, especially if they believe it is harmful/misleading, which is in effect what you are saying. --- End quote --- Indeed. Most of the junk that goes against what is scientifically accepted as being true (or at least the best possible assumption) can go into the bin. There is too much noise nowadays which is echoed and amplified by people that have no clue at all and really need protection to prevent harming themselves and others. |
| Zero999:
--- Quote from: nctnico on May 04, 2022, 03:15:43 pm --- --- Quote from: ve7xen on May 04, 2022, 05:41:49 am --- --- Quote from: Nominal Animal on May 04, 2022, 05:13:24 am ---Journalists are not supposed to be the guardians of truth! They are not the watchdogs of the population, they are the watchdogs of the powers that be! --- End quote --- YouTube et al are not journalists, nor are (most of) their users. That is the problem. If they were, they would vet their sources, do proper research, and censor unreliable information before publishing it... They are platforms that host user generated content, and an entirely different thing. It is well within their rights and perfectly reasonable for them to censor the content they choose to host. I do think they have some ethical responsibility to at least make a good-faith effort to stem the spread of scams, misinformation, and hate on their platforms, but ultimately it is up to them. There is certainly no reason Google or anyone else should be obligated to host or publish any content on behalf of their users, especially if they believe it is harmful/misleading, which is in effect what you are saying. --- End quote --- Indeed. Most of the junk that goes against what is scientifically accepted as being true (or at least the best possible assumption) can go into the bin. There is too much noise nowadays which is echoed and amplified by people that have no clue at all and really need protection to prevent harming themselves and others. --- End quote --- What's scientifically accepted to be true changes. Remember, back in February/March 2020, we were told face masks were ineffective at preventing the spread of COVID-19, then a few months later, the position was reversed? It turns out that there wasn't much real world evidence to support them back then. There were a few lab experiments, involving cages of animals infected, with a cloth cover placed over the cages and computer simulations, but nothing concrete. Fortunately, a study was done in Bangladesh last year. It shows surgical masks reduce the spread by 11%, yet cloth masks didn't have a statistically significant effect. Great, you'd expect the mainstream media would report this and governments would start recommending people wear proper surgical masks, but no, ineffective cloth masks prevailed. :palm: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y --- Quote from: Nominal Animal on May 04, 2022, 01:16:26 pm --- --- Quote ---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy --- End quote --- Whenever you use Wikipedia as a source, I recommend also looking at the history of the page, i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunter_Biden&action=history. It contains gems like "New York Post is unreliable" as a basis for deletion, even though Media Bias / Fact Check rates New York Post as reliable as MSNBC or CNN. --- End quote --- I do read Wikipedia, but it does have a strong left-wing bias. If the left-wing Guardian thinks it's slightly biased towards the Democratic Party, then it must be strongly left-wing. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/29/the-five-wikipedia-biases-pro-western-male-dominated |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |