521–530 of 763 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are, but when the FED keeps re-inflating bubbles and manipulating the markets, all conventional economic processes that they were using as sentinels were also getting disrupted.
> They are, but... But nothing. In short, the claim of 'scarily accurate' is not true. There may be underlying reasons that their accuracy has issues, but their track record up to this point has been highly inaccurate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ZH was talking about coronavirus way earlier than anyone else, which is bound to happen if you don’t validate as well—sometimes you do strike gold. A comment I saw once about them was “ZH has reported five of the last three catastrophes”.
4Chan is light years ahead of ZH and the rest. There were posts that were so eerily accurate about the virus late Dec into the first couple of weeks of January it was freakish. People like to write off 4Chan for all the shit posting and racism, etc. But if you can ignore all that there are truly some amazing Gems to be found.
https://www.wired.com/story/how-an-anonymous-4chan-post-help...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"centre leaning" Could you draw a diagram of this?
Heh. I should have known better that people would get stuck on this. Try find people to follow on Twitter with a nuanced view on abortion, somewhere between at right before birth and never.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Power companies are regulated monopolies. There are no competitors. The funny (sad) thing is that these utilities are almost easier to work around Twitter in this case. Power company cuts you off? Buy a generator, no big deal. Town turns off your water. IBC totes are cheap. Comcast terminates your account? Verizon is happy to pay you money and if they aren't where you are then you can suck it up and by satellite. If…
Buying a generator is as poor replacement for grid power as starting a WordPress blog. If you want to live an off grid life in the woods you might as well blog like it’s 2004.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, it's called the Overton Window, and it moves over time. Generally speaking in America it has moved leftward continually since the American Revolution, which was a left-wing act of protest against a monarchical government (which, on a flatness hierarchy view of the left/right axis, is among the furthest right political systems possible). Each successive major shift in American politics has been a shift towards t…
And compared to most other countries the US overton window is still very right on economics and foreign policy. Socialised health care, or economically left wing politics are still not mainstream and acceptable. Anything other than pure capitalism is called socialist, and socialist/communist is a term that can be career death for a politician.
Yes! It's amazing. I don't think there will ever be some magical set of axes that allows a really clear quantification of where the US is at. The problem, of course, is that because of the false dichotomy of choices (R vs D) you can't actually vote for foreign policy decisions at all. It's not even a topic of debate, really!
Essentially, the USA continues to have a relatively hawkish position, continues to fund under-reported foreign wars (e.g. in Yemen presently), continues to be a destabilizing entity in many ways, often to the benefit of countries more closely allied to the USA (Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc) at the expense of smaller and less powerful nations. It's very confusing, full of misdirections, and impossible for any normal person to follow.
Most Americans want fewer foreign wars, I think. Most Americans (surprisingly including a large and growing swathe of the working class right-wing, believe it or not) are open to the idea of social healthcare in one form or another.
Large moneyed interests make these efforts impossible to take on politically, though, and whenever public opinion could be useful to influence actions on the issue, you'll see more false dichotomies form, meta-layers of fractally nested infighting designed to make it so people get hung up on stupid things and debate that instead of the real issue (huge lobby groups intent on acting as middlemen in every transaction to wring every last dollar out of people for no benefit to them whatsoever).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It should not be the job of the social media companies to be judge and jury for truth. Let the people decide for themselves what is true and false. Basically the social media company argument is... we think people are too dumb to figure out what is "real" or not so we are going to censor. That to me is an extremely damning view of the common person. But then, everywhere on the platform.. "make a plan to vote". So you…
The "common person" is honestly pretty depressing. The common person primarily votes based solely on a historical allegiance to a political party (be it individually formed or inherited) with about 75% of America essentially being unmovable D or R safe votes. Censorship is a hard question and I think we do need to have better laws promoting free access to material (even "libelous" material) but this is also an area w…
What's wrong with conspiracy theories? They're as harmless as The X Files.
The Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven, but more and more often, it seems that they release primary sources of information (especially videos) much earlier than other news outlets will, if the other news outlets do so at all. There have been multiple times when I've seen an insane video of something happening spreading around Twitter or WorldStar or some other "raw video" agg…
It doesn't matter. This strawman is presented every time this topic comes up. It's not about the quality of the Post's journalism. It's about whether Twitter should restrict it.
I've been reading the Post off and on for the last 40 years, and you are correct that it is a rag. But it is a newspaper. A newspaper with a better reputation for reporting the news than Twitter.
Not every article is going to be to your taste, or ape your point of view. And as newspapers go, it is very sensational. This is not a secret. Everyone knows what to expect when they pick up a copy. And they read it with that filter in mind. This is literacy 101.
But people on HN try to falsely characterize it as the equivalent of the National Enquirer. It isn't. It's a legitimate newspaper, whether you like it or not.
99.9% of the Post criticism I see on HN is from people who have never lived in New York. Never actually read the Post, or any other newspaper. They just amplify and repeat the echo chamber hyperbole they see from other people who have never read the Post. Some of the most vocal have stated in other threads that they are Twitter employees.
If I have to choose between the Post being an information gatekeeper and Twitter, I'll go with the Post every time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious what your thoughts are on the NY Times pushing false information that led to the second Iraq War? Should they get penalized on Twitter after pushing a narrative that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths? From the NY Times itself ( https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-th... ) "But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some…
I don't think there's any evidence that the times purposefully published information that they strongly suspected to be untrue. That is what the post did. The times made mistakes, but they admitted it and apologized, as seen in the link you posted. The post maliciously overruled their own newsroom to post fake news.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's my opinion that getting everyone to vote is the best option - there is a whole big chunk of the electorate that's quite uninformed but any attempt to narrow down the pool of eligible voters seems quite likely to fall into authoritarianism to me. We've got a lot of historical evidence about what happens if you let only people of certain skin colors, gender or wealth vote and all of those approaches were eventuall…
Do you think there is also a danger of uninformed voters bringing about authoritarianism?
I really really want to dump FPTP voting since I think it inevitably leads to two party systems and that two-party partisan us vs. them politics is what lets authoritarianism grow.