111–120 of 171 posts
"... make it more difficult to create and share low-quality information. This could involve adding friction by forcing people to pay to share or receive information. Payment could be in the form of time"
This could mean a simple rule such as: "You can only post once a day (for free)"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russiagate is basically the idea that the Trump campaign was working closely with Russia to "cheat" the 2016 election. The Mueller report showed.. Russia was messing around for sure, but the Trump campaign wasn't really involved in any meaningful way.
Are we reading the same report? There was definitely meaningful involvement by the Trump campaign in Russia's efforts to undermine the 2016 election. One example... 5. June 9, 2016 Meeting at Trump Tower On June 9, 2016, senior representatives of the Trump Campaign met in Trump Tower with a Russian attorney expecting to receive derogatory information about Hillary Clinton from the Russian government. The meeting was…
> The centerpiece of the Trump/Russia conspiracy – the Trump Tower meeting – was such a dud that Jared Kushner, halfway through the meeting, texted Manafort to declare the meeting “a waste of time,” and then instructed his assistant to call him so that he could concoct a reason to leave.
https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-m...
I sympathize with people who want to see a technological basis for this, I really do. I just don't buy it. We just saw a press conference an hour ago by the executive office of the most powerful nation in the world allege with a straight face that the recent election was tainted by Canadian election machines running malicious software written by Venezuela, Cuba, "likely" China, and directed by George Soros and (from…
I think one of the root causes of this is the increasingly partisan behavior of the "mainstream" media. People are sick of having their opinions dictated to them, they're sick of media outlets that all push the same narratives 24/7 (Russiagate, anyone?), and they're desperately searching for any outlet that will objectively report "all the news that's fit to print" (as the NY Times likes to say). In the past year we…
I don't know if Bari Weiss can be part of this. Bari Weiss had apparently been slamming her co workers in public during a company-wide meeting. If I knew my co worker was publicly insulting me on twitter while we were in a meeting together I would also call for my co worker to no longer be my co worker for contributing to a hostile workplace.
> My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name.
I’ve always found the news from my trusted sources to be reasonable and accurate until it covers something I know about. Then it seems like a complete mess. Humans tend to trust the first thing they hear and we tend to be less skeptical about news media especially if they seem very confident or persuasive.
Shameless plug, but this is something we are working on right now. Social media is a terrible medium for news. Aside from the ability for anyone to post anything, which can easily lead to misinformation, it also sets up the absolute worst incentives. If news organizations are expected to share their reporting for free, and only be able to monetize when someone clicks through to their page -- you end up with clickbait…
How does this help with information overload? It looks like a new channel of information to add to the existing flows. What am I missing? If it's reporters notes (like the site says) it means what consumers get isn't distilled into the flow of a story that informs. That is left up to people who consume to do and to do that they need to get all the details. Sounds overwhelming to me. Or, am I missing something?
We know people go to Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/etc to read news because of the convenience, even if it can be riddled with misinformation or just low quality information (i.e. "7 celebrities without makeup!"). We're taking that convenience and backing it up with journalistic integrity.
I think one of the root causes of this is the increasingly partisan behavior of the "mainstream" media. People are sick of having their opinions dictated to them, they're sick of media outlets that all push the same narratives 24/7 (Russiagate, anyone?), and they're desperately searching for any outlet that will objectively report "all the news that's fit to print" (as the NY Times likes to say). In the past year we…
What in the hell is Russiagate? If you're referring to Russia actively interfering with American elections through a pointed and state sponsored disinformation campaign that continues to this day... then that's not a narrative? That's a thing that's happening that matters and is one of the principle sources of bad actors behind this very article
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are we reading the same report? There was definitely meaningful involvement by the Trump campaign in Russia's efforts to undermine the 2016 election. One example... 5. June 9, 2016 Meeting at Trump Tower On June 9, 2016, senior representatives of the Trump Campaign met in Trump Tower with a Russian attorney expecting to receive derogatory information about Hillary Clinton from the Russian government. The meeting was…
It's pretty hilarious that you picked the Trump Tower meeting as one of the most incriminating parts of the Mueller report: > The centerpiece of the Trump/Russia conspiracy – the Trump Tower meeting – was such a dud that Jared Kushner, halfway through the meeting, texted Manafort to declare the meeting “a waste of time,” and then instructed his assistant to call him so that he could concoct a reason to leave. https:/…
Clearly it wasn't incriminating, no charges were brought, but that's a strawman because the comment I'm replying to was about whether the campaign was involved with Russia, not whether anyone in the campaign was convicted of anything based on their involvement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It also means that virtually all local news is silenced Every time I visit a local news page, it's 10% content advertised by the headline, and 90% popups, clickbait, and "ads" like, "Drivers over 55 without a DUI are in for a surprise this November!" with a picture of the Centrum Silver guy with a handful of cash.
desperate attempt to survive in the internet age.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And obviously evidence was provided for none of this. what kind of evidence would you expect to see if it was true?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is just hijacking criticism of authority, to start an authoritarian cult of lies, bullying and manipulation.
Also, I hardly think that the notion that people conspired to cheat an election is extraordinary. Rather it would be extraordinary if they did not. Also as regards the suspension of belief necessary to consider elections overseas to be corrupt but not in this bastion of freedom and democracy, the good ol' U.S.A.