51–60 of 100 posts
Yes, I agree. But why call out something like this page? Surely there are more successful and profitable content farms. Not justifying the behavior, just saying that this example is the 'little guy'.
Considering she's working on a TV deal, I bet not many. Plus it doesn't matter who is larger, wrong is wrong.
I 100% agree that IFLS should be crediting the artists who make great work and direct traffic to IFLS's page. What I am having trouble understanding is why the general thrust of comments on this page seems to be "This is UNACCEPTABLE!!" when (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the general thrust of comments on pages about, e.g., The Pirate Bay seems to be "There's absolutely nothing wrong with The Pirate Bay!" Aren'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we should relax about the idea that most people post inaccurate facts when they're cheering science. What they're doing is cheering for the idea of science. It's similar to people cheering at a basketball game. They're not basketball players, so most of what they have to say about the topic is going to be wrong. But they're still rooting for you, and this is a good and powerful thing.
> I think we should relax about the idea that most people post inaccurate facts when they're cheering science. The absolute only good thing about this is that it fights fire with fire: that is, it uses tribalism to fight tribalism. But that's all it is. Atheistic religiosity is still religiosity, and it's a problem whether or not magical woo is involved. It's the same kind of thing when people think that calling out…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Atheistic religiosity is still religiosity" A lack of belief in God is not a belief in a God. Your example is ignorant.
Are you so sure? A person that is conditioned to follow an idea will behave in a conditioned way, I doesn't matter the topic. When you are conditioned to beleave and cheer a "scientific" fact, it is improbable that you'll allow new facts to replace your beleave. You have made a new religion wit a new "Idol".
Religion is the belief in an absence of evidence. Science is the whole of objective reality. You don't seem to understand what "science" and "religion" actually mean, but you really don't like persons who don't believe in anything, so you assign bizarrely negative qualifiers for someone who knows things.
No one on earth worships "SCIENCE". It's a tool we use daily, whether you understand why things work or not.
I don't know if it's necessarily fair to call out "I F*cking Love Science". The same could be said about Reddit/9gag/thousands of other Facebook groups/etc. It's an Internet-wide problem, not just one FB group.
On top of what raganwald said, the difference between IFLS and Reddit is that this is a curated stream done by one person, rather than an aggregation of user-generated content. Reddit is morally different, since arguably you cannot hold them directly responsible for content generated by their users, they are strictly a conduit. Similarly, we don't blame Facebook when their users post pirated content, we rightly blame…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A fellow robs my house. I catch him and hold him for the police. He complains, "No fair! Most robberies are unsolved because we lack the manpower to chase every lead!!" Lie is indeed "unfair" to him in some statistical sense, but I am absolutely not being "unfair" to him in a moral sense. Or to put it another way, the reality of the Internet as you describe it is that a certain %age of copyright violations go unpurus…
Your analogy to reposting is a robbery? Really? Mine is, telling your friends a joke without bothering to establish who originally invented it.
Nor do they love science. Most of the things they post are not accurate. The picture of the universe and a synapse for example springs to mind. They are just a "Like" farm. They use their tracking of likes to mine relationships so you can get personalized spam that appears that it came from your friends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 3. A small part of IFLS' success rests on Andrews' eye for picking out good/funny/clever quotes/cartoons/photographs/artwork This isn't hard, and can be automated... it's the 9gag model. Just view the cream of the crop that bubbles to the top of reddit and randomly pick out a few every day.
Small part of Shakespeare was picking the right words and phrases and putting them in right order. Small part of every DJ is picking the righ music to remix.
"Picking the right words and phrases and putting them in the right order" is not even in the same plane of existence as "looking at a picture and deciding if it's remotely funny or interesting."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you so sure? A person that is conditioned to follow an idea will behave in a conditioned way, I doesn't matter the topic. When you are conditioned to beleave and cheer a "scientific" fact, it is improbable that you'll allow new facts to replace your beleave. You have made a new religion wit a new "Idol".
"When you are conditioned to beleave and cheer a "scientific" fact, it is improbable that you'll allow new facts to replace your beleave. You have made a new religion wit a new "Idol"." Religion is the belief in an absence of evidence. Science is the whole of objective reality. You don't seem to understand what "science" and "religion" actually mean, but you really don't like persons who don't believe in anything, so…
The problem with ifls and equivalents is that that is actually what they are encouraging. They misrepresent "science" completely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Small part of Shakespeare was picking the right words and phrases and putting them in right order. Small part of every DJ is picking the righ music to remix.
I'm sorry, are you seriously comparing Elise Andrew with Shakespeare? "Picking the right words and phrases and putting them in the right order" is not even in the same plane of existence as "looking at a picture and deciding if it's remotely funny or interesting."
More serious analogy would be photography. How you do make good photos? Do you create them? No. You just make hundreds of photos (adhering to some technical limitations) and the you pick and crop the right ones from all the photos you made. That's what Bresson did.
Picking content is the creative part. The rest is just pointing the camera, turning the knobs and pushing the button.
On the internet artists create respective images. But she's also the artist who picks and crops creating her feed which many people apreciate the value of.
