261–270 of 311 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To defend free speech you need to fight propaganda. Propaganda is literally the opposite of free speech. People being paid to say this or that is not free speech.
The opposite of free speech is censorship, not propaganda. Lying is not illegal.
Disinformation/narratives' control has always been present: There are some examples I can think of: - Manifest Destiny. - Spanish American 1989 war because (Maine sinking). - The gulf of Tokin incident. - The Nayirah testimony. - Irak's WMD. I think the issue here is that the some western governments are failing to control information, and their citizens are now being preyed by other governments' disinformation campa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Subnautica 1 yes. Subnautica 2 (below zero) is far less epic. The world is smaller and denser. There aren't the big open spaces, much less deep water. It's prettier and has some better features here and there, but lacks the majesty of the original.
That's unfortunate. I hadn't picked it up yet, still working through the first one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's unfortunate. I hadn't picked it up yet, still working through the first one.
Subnautica 2 is add-on DLC for the first game. It just doesn’t feel like a new game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A better alternative is not trusting any of them. Realize that they're all distorting the truth, and yet also sharing a part of the truth, and dig deeper. Uncritical acceptance of any source leads to mistakes like believing the Steele dossier and claims about collusion between Trump and Russia, whose claims even the NY Times itself now admits "have never materialized or have been proved false".[1] That was one of the…
> A better alternative is not trusting any of them. Realize that they're all distorting the truth, and yet also sharing a part of the truth, and dig deeper. I think that's kinda right, but I have some quibbles. Basically, I feel the attitude that they're not trustworthy and distorting the truth leads to a kind of paranoia, feelings of helplessness, or succumbing to the trap letting an uncritical indulgence of one's o…
> “What I’m saying is that our readers and some of our staff cheer us when we take on Donald Trump, but they jeer at us when we take on Joe Biden,” New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet told his staff in a town hall on Monday.[1]
No doubt some members of the media are still trying their best, but look how many of the best have left the media for Substack or other independent pursuits, because the climate in the big media organizations no longer permits the pursuit of truth over politics.
1: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/new-york-times-m...
Ehh, I don't like current state of the Internet In last months I've started wondering why do I even pay my internet bills 60% of the reason I still do it is that I need internet for my job the rest is HN, two or three subreddits, music and some video games, wiki/google/maps and the fact that I still need to learn a lot in order to advance in career. It's insanely hard to avoid that main stream media content (celebrit…
Email, online bill pay, stock quotes, monitoring your security cameras, one can make good use of the Internet while avoiding most of the web. I think that (some) people eventually mature beyond contentious and arguably toxic things like reddit (I know I am, slowly but surely)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because a media outlet that is trusted and good and has a significant following would keep people away from disinformers. Unfortunately, we appear to have something towards the opposite - large media outlets that aren't good, aren't trusted, and are trying to manipulate the market (à la Youtube with it's now completely useless search and its nefarious recommendation algorithms) to stop people going to competitors who…
I’ve never been happy with YouTube search, did they change something recently?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. We point the finger at the media all the time, but the media is just a reflection of society. Why is Kim Kardashian on the front page of CNN? Why is "Iconic New York City park, featured in sitcom ‘Friends,’ trashed by urban decay" on the front page of Fox News? Because they drive clicks. As soon as gossip and unedited "news" blogs started appearing with rumor and unsubstantiated claims, it was a race to the b…
>Why? Because the majority of people prefer mindless trash to the idiosyncrasies of a local county commission meeting. >I don't have a good answer because media companies have to make money to stay in business. Making them backed by the state is an even worse idea. An excellent point. Local media outlets (in the US at least, not sure about elsewhere) are few and far between these days. We need local news that focuses…
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winners_Take_All:_The_Elite_Ch...
I have a hard time to take seriously any disinformation talk from the political and media establishment after the lab leak theory twist, where it had been shameful disinformation, until it suddenly wasn't. I have to be doubting publications even from reputable sources, after "The Lancet" fiasco, where the organizer of the open letter that condemned the lab leak theory was discovered to have ties with the lab in quest…
"When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?" ― John Maynard Keynes
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because doxxing does not exist outside of some particular very online spaces Journalism very much has the idea of protecting their sources. The NYT, for whatever reason, didn't feel like protecting Scott.
> Journalism very much has the idea of protecting their sources. The NYT, for whatever reason, didn't feel like protecting Scott. He wasn't a source, he was a subject . Think of it this way: if the NYT was writing a story about Trump, is he a source they should protect? No, he's the subject: they might give him a chance to comment, but they're not going to let him dictate their coverage. A source would be (for instan…
I understand the difference. I'm responding to this line in particular:
> doxxing does not exist outside of some particular very online spaces
Journalists do understand that someone may want to keep their identity secret, which is what doxxing is. While doxxing as a term is particular to the internet, it - at least as a concept - predates the internet.