81–90 of 145 posts
An author made a book series with a metal based magic system in which aluminum was inert/block magic effects. And there was emotional magic there, so wearing an aluminum foil hat could block covert attempts at influencing you. He was really proud of that :)
The op doesn't seem to know the first thing about advertising and is in denial of how it works. Op asks head of facebook advertising if advertising influences people, their response "No companies spend millions on advertising with us because it doesn't work!". > The gullibility of the latter two may have stemmed from wishful thinking: If Brexit and Trump could be traced to the malign influence of a single company The…
Much (more?) effort is put into disinformation, discouragement, confusion.
Brad Parscale, Steve Bannon, and many others have said (bragged) as much.
--
The weaponization of social media has brought two novel strategies.
1- Instigating conflicts. Like organizing both a protest and its counter protest.
2- Virality. Where people themselves help perpetuate the messages.
(Perhaps only novel because of the new found scale.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been asking that question since 2015.
The power vacuum at the top has existed since before then. Commissioners' terms started expiring, without being replaced, in 2007. It's practically impossible for them to devote resources to new things like online activities. And the organization has always been under-staffed. Investigating a charge is difficult. They have to prove their case in order to sanction anybody -- and they have limited power to act even whe…
I hate to actually don a tin foil hat given the title of this particular HN submission, but is it not possible that this is all by design?
I mean, aren't politicians the ones who are, at once, in charge of making sure that organization is effective, and at the same time beneficiaries of any ineffectiveness in that same organization? So if it's effectiveness has been eroded over the past, say 20 or 30 years, and it has, obviously the politicians benefit. Or more precisely, the various political machines these politicians and campaigns are a part of benefit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this reminds me of an interview i saw on the news with an elderly british voter who was adamant that she will vote Tory as they are bound to win. it's almost like she saw her vote as a bet and she wanted to get it right. this interview moved me significantly towards being sceptical of current democracies
That sounds like a cultural artifact of a Spoils System sort of corruption from US history - being blindly followed while forgetting that there even was a purpose because it was a cultural norm. I am aware of literal feudalism version in the UK but I am unsure if they historically had a similar thing - it wouldn't be surprising personally.
https://news.sky.com/story/number-10-blocked-mary-beard-role...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I know first hand that people are willing to pay me to do a ton of things that don't actually work. (They often continue trying to do so after I tell them it doesn't work and it's a bad idea) Hehehe very true. I tell people what works then they ask me to do random shit. I can't deny you are right at the end of the day I do what they will pay for whether it works or not.
Hello, chain of ancestor posters, each saying the same shocking thing. I have been making things that work, and getting paid for them, for more than 20 years now, and I would like some advice on how to transition my career into making things that do not work, for which the customer has specifically been informed that they will not work, and still get paid for them--preferably paid more than I am currently getting for…
I think it is quite difficult to accomplish entirely by yourself
The op doesn't seem to know the first thing about advertising and is in denial of how it works. Op asks head of facebook advertising if advertising influences people, their response "No companies spend millions on advertising with us because it doesn't work!". > The gullibility of the latter two may have stemmed from wishful thinking: If Brexit and Trump could be traced to the malign influence of a single company The…
Exactly. Moreover, the second sentence gets it entirely backwards >The previously little-known company, reporters claimed, had used behavioral influencing techniques to turn out social media users to vote in both elections. The major Cambridge Analytica push was not to increase turnout of supporters, it was to suppress and divert turnout of the opponent's supporters. E.g., finding black voters and highlighting Hillar…
I didn't want to say it in a post titled tinfoil hats but this, the dark market of political advertising is very real and very dangerous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By way of alternative, I'd suggest not consuming news at all. Or at least, delaying your consumption of news to sources that have had a chance to digest and consider the news, such as a weekly news magazine. It's very, very rare that you require up-to-the-minute news. Continually-updated news sources, like Internet sources or 24 hour news channels, are more for entertainment than information. They focus on keeping yo…
I strongly encourage people to reduce / remove news consumption as well. News is not a good way to learn about the world - news is precisely what is unusual. Consuming news gives you a distorted sense of what real life is like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We’ve had political advertising in this country since Thomas Paine, and much of it has been scurrilous. I would say that this is a natural consequence of having a free press, but places with a nonfree press also have political advertising (as a propaganda organ of the state) so maybe it is just a consequence of having media available in general.
A free press doesn't necessarily mean that the press can do whatever it wants, exactly like free speech doesn’t mean that you can say whatever you want whenever you want to. I think it’s fairly easy to set up some rules about political advertisement, we already do it for other stuff like alcohol, tobacco, porn etc. I’m not implying that we should ban the media from covering politics, it’s just the blatant advertiseme…
More specifically, you are arguing against the speech that that the US supreme court has specifically identified as "core political speech," which has been explicitly covered by the strongest legal protections, such that any limitations must withstand the strictest legal scrutiny. You are suggesting that treating it with the lesser protections afforded to commercial speech is something good for society, that it is consistent with current legal treatment of free speech, and is consistent with the ideals of freedom. None of these are true.
(Well, not in the US, anyway. In Europe, this is actually normal and consistent with the way that speech is normally treated. But Europe doesn't actually have or want free speech, notwithstanding any protests you may hear about the topic.)
I do believe that most people need to be manipulated into anothet truth or belief, otherwise they would become truly insane - in the clinical matter. The more harsh truth is, the more manipulation is needed.
The op doesn't seem to know the first thing about advertising and is in denial of how it works. Op asks head of facebook advertising if advertising influences people, their response "No companies spend millions on advertising with us because it doesn't work!". > The gullibility of the latter two may have stemmed from wishful thinking: If Brexit and Trump could be traced to the malign influence of a single company The…
Exactly. Moreover, the second sentence gets it entirely backwards >The previously little-known company, reporters claimed, had used behavioral influencing techniques to turn out social media users to vote in both elections. The major Cambridge Analytica push was not to increase turnout of supporters, it was to suppress and divert turnout of the opponent's supporters. E.g., finding black voters and highlighting Hillar…
Surely you're aware that political mudslinging ads have been a thing since like, forever, right?
> finding black voters and highlighting Hillary's 25-year-ago comment on "superpredators"
Maybe don't say such crazy things, don't have to worry about someone calling you out on it. I don't recall her campaign ever addressing this issue, I don't recall any sit down where the media pressed her on the issue.