31–40 of 152 posts
"Because the other side doesn't have a viable candidate" Glorious two party system, how is that even remotely called democracy by anyone?
See: Italy, and a dozen other examples from Europe over the last 70 years
If your culture is rotten, your politics will be rotten, regardless of whether you have 2, 5, 27 parties.
Of more concern is the possibility that Google is increasingly correct, and the algorithms and heuristics it uses know us better than we know ourself. Nothing's going to fuck with democracy more than the knowledge that free will is a myth and the outcomes for Very Important Things are already decided.
Media in the UK are stopped from reporting on Exit Polls before elections and there's a move to ban all polling because knowing how people will vote is enough to adversely affect elections. I can see this being applied to issues like this, but even that's problematic. I don't know if a machine accurately telling everybody who will win is better or worse than a machine only telling Important People who will win.
I didn't get the one intended by parent from Google though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is now entirely self-referential. Also interesting, I guess :) http://i.imgur.com/VMrkvTn.png Edit: Changing language to English helps. http://i.imgur.com/HnG9v4k.png
Sweden: http://imgur.com/6XMCQOS
(hacker news is the first 'real' link)
"Because the other side doesn't have a viable candidate" Glorious two party system, how is that even remotely called democracy by anyone?
Another unintended consequence of Google doing the things that Google recommends you don't do (in this case, scraping sites). Can we talk about how terrible a piece of pro-hillary propaganda that was? Namely this: > America is ready for the leadership of a Hillary Clinton. A new history will be made when she becomes the leader of the free world. The world of women everywhere will change Sure, this sounds very reminis…
Look, we likely will have to filter any story where a candidate is mentioned because its been obvious for far too long that their supporters who are in the press will slip in favorable or unfavorable stories as they are instructed to do so all under the guise of hard journalism. Best yet there are entire groups devoted to landing such stories onto as many sites as possible.
We have two years of war on women, etc, crap coming, because we live in an age where politics of identity are more important that what you stand for and when what you stand for isn't popular to throw out the race/sex/etc card.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do people really think like this? All you have to do is "pay your dues" and you "deserve" it instead of voting on issues, track record & potential to make real change? Yes. Source: Click around the Facebook comments of any substantially large digital publication. Tonnes of people don't even vote. Of those that do, most vote for the parties they're already loyal to. Of the few that are in the middle, most decide acc…
Most people are becoming desensitized to the power of their vote to actually do the research as to who is the better candidate. Nobody seems to care as long as they are not directly affected in their day to day life. Reactions flare up for issues which become popular in the social domain, the issue settles and everybody forgets and moves on
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people are becoming desensitized to the power of their vote to actually do the research as to who is the better candidate. Nobody seems to care as long as they are not directly affected in their day to day life. Reactions flare up for issues which become popular in the social domain, the issue settles and everybody forgets and moves on
We are all terrible at decision making especially on complex issues. I would guess that people doing deep 'research' are still making shortcuts as well (they just don't realize it). The key here is that the aggregate of terrible individual decisions should point to a better overall decision. Which is why increasing turnout is really important
