Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use the word "dodge" and that is one of a number of things people do to avoid having to deal with information they find difficult to process. A while back, I decided to compile a list of these behaviors seen on a smaller, guilty pleasure type of site I enjoy. Here are the major ones seen very frequently: 1. Subject change 2. False comparison 3. Claim of too many opponents 4. Silence 5. Claim to either be a member o…
> silence Is it really fair to call this a dodge? Not responding hardly means one has difficulty dealing with a post's information. It usually means it is not worth dealing with the poster, as their post may be tiresome, repetitive, abusive, trollish, etc.
Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations
121–130 of 161 posts
Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations
#122Of course, this place isn't immune to it. That includes all the usual suspect discussions (NSA, Palestine, China, Russia etc.) but more visibly with the employees of certain companies. One of the more curious things you can do on HN to distract from a story is to start a tangential flamewar in the comments on it, but my single favourite way I see to bury things around here is to ask for detailed citations to data for…
The fascinating thing is, you can't stop the ads on HN from the big big players, because it's effectively accounted as being real news. Zuckerberg held the second public Q&A session the other day, that promised him some news. Then there was that article about a woman engineer at Facebook, the story appeals very appropriately to current events and the emotional zeitgeist of the tech industry, and there was that whole…
Now companies and big governments are analyzing network graphs in real time thanks to Facebook. They can test people's reaction on real time to anything.
I don't believe that Apple's success is just about Advertisement, I use their products a lot because they are very good products.
When I was a kid I did not have money so I bought all computer gear myself looking for the best deal, then I also used my own OS(gentoo with everything super optimized). I used to joke with my friends about how Apple was all about Advertisements and nothing about quality, and people was so stupid.
Then I grow up, I started working on my own and I suffered so much for my conscienceless. First I had to change to a stable Debian because gentoo was killing me, then I had to change to standardized hardware too as it was doing my life miserable.
One day I bought a mac as a luxury because I had made some money with my company. I started using it a lot, it was so simple and it did not made me spent as much time as Linux. I made some numbers and it made sense to buy more Apple gear. It worked great.
I made tons of money buying "expensive"() stuff.
What makes Apple great is that is is one of the only companies that get how real people work, read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Inmates-Are-Running-Asylum/dp/0672...
Now, I am not a fanatic of Apple, I would love other companies doing the same(like doing my computers on metal) but it is not easy. In my experience companies without engineers on place do not know how to create things. Those that have engineers on place do not understand humans well enough.
()expensive is losing a customer because you could not fix something on time. Expensive is paying an engineer to pay for something that should not be broken in the fist time.
Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt there is much written on this. It is a very new area (other that the traditional logic fallacies which still work as well as they always have) and if there is serious research being done it is probably proprietary - it's more valuable to use it secretly. Your work is some the best I've seen on online conversation manipulation. Keep up the good work.
Well, maybe I should publish. I'm not sure how, or what an appropriate context is. After mulling your comment over, I realize the best path on this might be to provide open information. This is likely to operate under the same kinds of dynamics information security currently does. So, let me just put it out there, maybe sort of a mini "Ask HN?" Really, I'm unsure how to proceed. I understand quite a bit about this an…
I know what you mean about how best to share your work. I am sitting on a bunch of AI research that others might be interested in and I am not sure how best to document and share, especially while not working in academia. A book, video, or web site maybe? I have no good ideas on that, only sympathy.
I think your experimental data is fantastic, but I have different hypotheses on the mechanism and motivation of the players.
We are creatures of reason which is great, but we still are susceptible to errors in judgement. These are small and mostly manifest as solidifying a conclusion prematurely.
But we are also social animals that have an inherent drive to find and defend our place in the pecking order. We display dominance to those beneath us and submission to those above.
The strategies of online conflict are varied and mirror those of offline conflict, but the core social desire is the same: to win the favor of our masters and weaken our lessers, unless we are forced to think for ourselves and become aware of the folly of it all.
Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had an anti-Obamacare Republican canvasser show up at my door during election season, and ended up debating for about an hour on the front porch. Though it was an enjoyable and intelligent discussion (far from the stereotype of the Tea Party), I couldn't help but realize that I effected a 1-to-1 "time attack" that drained his ability to canvass voters who actually had a snowball's chance of voting for his candidate…
This is one of the major goals of trolling -- trying to get someone to waste a lot of time trying to convince someone who isn't actually interested goes side by side with trying to get someone to waste a lot of emotion on someone who doesn't actually care. Part of what makes it so effective is that it can be hard to distinguish from genuine concern (ie, you found it an enjoyable and intelligent discussion, but a trol…
Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fascinating thing is, you can't stop the ads on HN from the big big players, because it's effectively accounted as being real news. Zuckerberg held the second public Q&A session the other day, that promised him some news. Then there was that article about a woman engineer at Facebook, the story appeals very appropriately to current events and the emotional zeitgeist of the tech industry, and there was that whole…
This was just the start: http://vimeo.com/85948693 Now companies and big governments are analyzing network graphs in real time thanks to Facebook. They can test people's reaction on real time to anything. I don't believe that Apple's success is just about Advertisement, I use their products a lot because they are very good products. When I was a kid I did not have money so I bought all computer gear myself looking fo…
I too used to use Gentoo, though it was far from my first Linux OS, and Linux was not my first Unix-like OS. I'll spare you the recounting of my entire computer-use history, except to say that I've used a wide variety of operating system over a period of decades, both as a user, sysadmin, and a developer.
I've hated Windows since it was invented, and hated Microsoft before even then, back in the DOS days, when it was a grabage OS that undeservedly dominated the 8-bit market. In some ways it's gotten better (particularly on the stability front), but in others its gotten worse (its dominance on the desktop market is complete).
Apple is like Microsoft with a smile on its face. Everybody's switching to it because it's cool, sleek, and trendy and even Linux is trying to emulate it. But its walled gardens, dumbed down, crippled and bastardized OS'es and "fuck you", "my way or the highway" attitude towards technical users, developers, and sysadmins make me want to puke.
Most users don't know any better, but I really don't get all the technical people who've switched to it from Linux and still sing its praises. They should know better. The most common attitude I hear from them is that they'd rather their OS "just work", and that they're too busy to spend a lot of time tweaking or making it work.
To that I say that they're really not as technical as they think. Someone who loves technology would pick the technically superior solution, the solution that gave them more choice and power, even if it required more of them as users, rather than picking the dumbed-down, technically crippled solution that may be easier to use by non-technical users (or users who don't care about technoogy, or are too busy to care). They would pick the three-button mouse over the one-button mouse.
Some examples of crippled and dumbed-down aspects of OS X off the top of my head (I should really keep a list, as I run in to something nearly every day):
- massive and pervasive lack of choice
- no focuse-follows mouse
- no tiling window managers
- X is not integrated with OS X's crappy windowing system,
so you can't use X and still effectively interact with non-X gui apps
- the Finder is a horrendous piece of shit
- mouse-centric interface, forcing clicking through everything to
configure the machine
- no standard package manager (no, homebrew/macports, etc are not a
good substitute until they can install everything and do it
without conflict with the rest of the OS
- no standard way to uninstall software
- no more server-level hardware, forcing the use of Mac minis in
racks because of:
- license limits to running OSX only on Apple hardware, so you can't
run it on standard server-level intel/amd hardware
- tons of closed, proprietary, non-standard garbage like mDNSResponder, mds, etc
- a feeble culture of open-source compared to Linux/BSD
- default installs stuck with ancient versions of *nix utilities like bash
- etc, etc, etc
- and don't even get me started on the Apple Store or iDevices
I wish I never even knew any of the above, but I've been forced to find out because I'm forced to use OS X at work. I've long suspected that OS X is garbage, but now I know first-hand. It's like Windows all over again.I guess I should be grateful that it's a *nix underneath, even if it is crippled and bastardized. But the world would be far better off if Microsoft and Apple never existed.
Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, maybe I should publish. I'm not sure how, or what an appropriate context is. After mulling your comment over, I realize the best path on this might be to provide open information. This is likely to operate under the same kinds of dynamics information security currently does. So, let me just put it out there, maybe sort of a mini "Ask HN?" Really, I'm unsure how to proceed. I understand quite a bit about this an…
So much here... It's nice that despite all the nonsense to be found on Internet posts, there can be some quality thought if you patiently wade through the junk first. I know what you mean about how best to share your work. I am sitting on a bunch of AI research that others might be interested in and I am not sure how best to document and share, especially while not working in academia. A book, video, or web site mayb…
Of course you do!
This kind of discussion needs to be out in the open to a far greater degree than it currently is.
Your last statements are good food for thought. Thanks.
Likewise on sympathies.
This thread has got me thinking on ways to put some basic information out there in the hopes of a greater dialog.
Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fascinating thing is, you can't stop the ads on HN from the big big players, because it's effectively accounted as being real news. Zuckerberg held the second public Q&A session the other day, that promised him some news. Then there was that article about a woman engineer at Facebook, the story appeals very appropriately to current events and the emotional zeitgeist of the tech industry, and there was that whole…
This was just the start: http://vimeo.com/85948693 Now companies and big governments are analyzing network graphs in real time thanks to Facebook. They can test people's reaction on real time to anything. I don't believe that Apple's success is just about Advertisement, I use their products a lot because they are very good products. When I was a kid I did not have money so I bought all computer gear myself looking fo…
Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was just the start: http://vimeo.com/85948693 Now companies and big governments are analyzing network graphs in real time thanks to Facebook. They can test people's reaction on real time to anything. I don't believe that Apple's success is just about Advertisement, I use their products a lot because they are very good products. When I was a kid I did not have money so I bought all computer gear myself looking fo…
I hate Apple. I too used to use Gentoo, though it was far from my first Linux OS, and Linux was not my first Unix-like OS. I'll spare you the recounting of my entire computer-use history, except to say that I've used a wide variety of operating system over a period of decades, both as a user, sysadmin, and a developer. I've hated Windows since it was invented, and hated Microsoft before even then, back in the DOS day…
Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
So much here... It's nice that despite all the nonsense to be found on Internet posts, there can be some quality thought if you patiently wade through the junk first. I know what you mean about how best to share your work. I am sitting on a bunch of AI research that others might be interested in and I am not sure how best to document and share, especially while not working in academia. A book, video, or web site mayb…
...but I have different hypotheses on the mechanism and motivation of the players. Of course you do! This kind of discussion needs to be out in the open to a far greater degree than it currently is. Your last statements are good food for thought. Thanks. Likewise on sympathies. This thread has got me thinking on ways to put some basic information out there in the hopes of a greater dialog.
I really like the idea that models are often formed prematurely and the reference to pokemon cards. One metaphor I use allot is that our values are like a deck of cards, some values are ranked higher then others. The ranking is determined in part by a recursive function (shuffling or playing a game of go fish) but also by functional requirements to justify the current mode of survival. A person tends to perceive their values in a way that justifies their actions (and vice versa). When modelling different Christian denominations you could consider each verse and interpretation as a card. The card game in play ensures that a church group ends up with a large chunks of each hand looking similar. The attraction of individuals to a particular church has allot to due with how well those cards advocate that person's life.
Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the best shows ever. The whole Stand Alone Complex concept is kind of unique to GitS, is it? Edit: Oh and btw, ghost in the lisp: http://medias.ircam.fr/x03b42f RPG talking about his work on the mass media manipulation machine of DARPA.
Yes and no[0]. For reference, the definition of a Stand Alone Complex from wikipedia [1]: Stand Alone Complex (スタンド・アローン・コンプレックス Sutando Arōn Konpurekkusu) eventually came to represent a phenomenon where unrelated, yet very similar actions of individuals create a seemingly concerted effort. The ideology of radical Islam from the viewpoint of neoconservatives in the USA in the 00 decade was of "shadowy underground ter…
I.e. it is a mistake to think that 'intelligence agencies' could not make this same analysis if you can.