Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
Watch this video on BitChute / DTube / Minds.com / YouTube
How do you encapsulate a news story in an article? And how do you capture the essence of that article in a headline? More to the point, does any of it matter if people only end up discussing the headline itself? And just what is Andrew Yang’s ideas for regulating misinformation online anyway? Join James for this jam-packed edition of #PropagandaWatch.
SHOW NOTES:
Regulating Technology Firms in the 21st Century
Andrew Yang wants to tax digital ads and launch a new algorithm regulator
Episode 344 – Problem Reaction Solution: Internet Censorship Edition
“Yang wants to force the ying into powerful tech giants.”
Or
“Only government can protect us from big tech and Yang explains how he would do it.”
What about this free market one:
“Your data belongs to you and everyone who wants to use it has to pay you for it.”
The lack of control over you personal data is sometimes mentiond by internet pioniers as one of the fundamental flaws of the internet when it was designed.
Margaret Thatcher once said it quite well:
Yang cries “Power to the people”, and raises his clenched fist as he says it. We all know what he really means — power over people, power to the State.
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106348
Absolutely.
Yang proposes goverment regulates the internet, censoring alternative sources of information. (It’s for the sake of the children…right?)
“Yang wants to regulate big tech and the internet for the greater good”
On the idea that people comment on the title and not the content of articles consider Proverbs 18:2 “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
Is that a description of the comment authors?
Problem, Reaction, Solution: You WILL Demand the Changes We Desire; Because You Are SMART!
I didn’t participate in your challenge. I judge Yang by his construct Freedom Dividend (Barneys would be delighted).
But you read those four points for me.
And I got the title:
Yang PipeDreaming
from Impossible to 1984
I’m not sure how much shallow debating is a result of internet media and how much is actually a human nature. Might be one reinforces the other. Current situation of humanity is also reflected here.
My theory is that majority of people aren’t genuinely interested in deep thinking. Somehow they are followers. I don’t say they are incapable at least most of this group.
To really understand the meaning and consequences of texts like this one must have quite a lot of knowledge, some of this has to be acquired somewhere, certainly not in school.
Finally, one must have proper system of values, I like the expression Terminal Goals. I find most people believe everything is relative and don’t realize you can’t go far with this attitude.
p.s.
ownership of ones data: what a stupid, impossible,… idea
‘…Somehow they are followers…’
Nothing inherently WRONG with that, worked for most of history but our environment has changed to the point that psycopathic behavior towards your own people is no longer met with being cast out and dying and ends up paying off.
Agree, it’s actually good to some extent and brings stability, predictability, structure.
And yes, our environment changed and is changing towards worse and it’s full of perverse incentives making people behave psychopathic.
Hey James, I played along … it was fun. The blog was information rich and I was hard pressed to come up with a worthy headline. So, I settled for this New York Times-ish pablum: “Andrew Yang proposes new Department of Tech to bring gov on pace with development.” Since that headline is so milk toasty, perhaps people would be compelled to at least read my article, if not the original source! Of course, anticipating my inevitable embarrassment, I soldiered on to be edified by your insightful analysis. Cheers.
“2020 Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang Says He Is Government Solution To Government Weaponizing Internet Against The People!”
I choose “Andrew Yang’s Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Tech Policy”
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191116/01465143397/andrew-yangs-horrible-no-good-very-bad-tech-policy.shtml
I like the way Masnick gives the finger to “Chief Digital Officer.” What is it with the Dems that they keep advancing dogs like Yang?
OK… not listened to article or looked at other comments so at the risk of looking stupid….
“Presidential Wishful Promises to make Internet great again”
‘Candidate unveils plan to turn Internet into Mini-tel’
‘The lunatic plan that will KILL Facebook and Youtube with punitive taxes!’
‘Return of the GateKeepers’
To be honest he does make a point about net addiction but if he spends money on it the problem will end up as ‘solved’ as poverty and obesity…. and its not really a bad idea to limit how your data is going to be used but how exactly can you treat it like personal property without a huge number of administrators who end up selectively enforcing it?
OK… cringe if i find out I missed the point…
“No one read it!” Ha ha, nice pun on Reddit, James.
Reddit.. used to be a place where it it was a bar there would be sawdust on the floor and dirty glasses. Now its full of hipster scum.
Voat.co kinda freer but ends up with more racist types
Poal.co kinda like the middle of the above, but less activity
Corbett report… hmn, why dont we have a forum?
If this were reddit, I’d up vote that title. “clickbaits libertarians” could be substituted to “clickbaits librarians” 😀
Here are some more contenders:
Yang shows No Understanding of Policy Side Effects
US Govt to take on the Onerous “Moderation at Scale” problem as a Gift to Big Tech
Yang’s new Ministry of Truth to protect us all from Information
Yang says “Own your data”, but “all your metadata belong to US”
New Dept of Attention Economy to work with Attention Addiction Companies to regulate Attention Addiction
Woof!
My headline:
Increased Taxes And Regulation, Digital Caps In Games; The Government Will Save You From Big Tech.
Or another title
“regulation, restriction, manipulation; protecting society from the internet”
Presidential hopeful Proposes 21st Century Nanny State to Solidify Big Tech Monopolies
“President Yang will stop the spread of conspiracy-theories through the internet and will tax internet-advertising”
James I did “play along” as requested. I just read every
word of the Yang Manifesto on regulating ‘Big Tech’, and I am
enthralled by his thoroughness. More, I am pleased that an
American leader is finally admitting and willing to assume some
responsibility for repairing the damage inflicted on humanity
by US Tech corporations. I wrote several possible headlines on
a 5×7 index card, and that required me to go back to check my understanding of certain passages. (A partial second reading.)
Of course Yang won’t win the DNC nomination. My wet dream is that
the Trump White House reads and embraces the Yang Manifesto, and
in the true spirit of bipartisan cooperation, invites Yang to
join his Cabinet and get some of these Tech reforms underway.
Now I return to your video essay, where you will hammer me with
the details of how the Propaganda cadets have smothered Yang’s
valiant efforts. I am expecting that most will not even credit
Yang’s analysis of how we can and must save our children. This
is going to hurt. Cheers!
Ron Jack in B.C.
Interesting. You seem to be condemning the source
material itself as little more than propaganda, rather
than an honest attempt to give members of the Democratic
Party a proposal of substance to rally behind. I wouldn’t
be that harsh. If we agree that the predatory activities
of Big Tech are essentially an assault on the collective
human consciousness, numbing and dumbing us down for
purposes of exploitation and control,then it is war.
In this coming 21st century war, all weapons, from molotovs
to algorithms, will come to hand. Any regulator wishing to
be trusted as a true Ally against the corporations will have
to employ algorithms to monitor, confront and force compliance.
That specific suggestion in the Yang Manifesto does not discourage
me from applauding his campaign taking a stand, when all others
are terrified to even be caught on camera nodding their heads
when the subject of “pushback” is broached.
Cheers!
Under Guise of “Big Tech” Protection, Yang Plans Massive Expansion of Big Brother Powers in All Things Digital – Private or Public
Andrew Yang didn’t write this blog post by the way. Every bit of it has the fingerprints of the same deep state team that was writing Obama’s statements.
Also, we now fully know the purpose of the whole “loot box” thing that received the type and degree of media coverage & Internet buzz that only deep state psyops normally receive.
I read only the first part of the article, up to and icluding “This is a New Way Forward.”
Yang’s dialectics for 21st century
Title:
What is Left
Out?
Big Data and Borders
Big Data infrastructure
microwaves radiation
satellites’ trash
& more… too depressing to enumerate
“All Your Data Are Belong to You, Who Are One of US Who Own You…Ergo…”
I spend much time on the Interwebs and yet have yet to have Reddit.
Yang Articulates Vision for US Ministry of Truth; Conspiracy Theories are Disinformation
I played the game. Spending many hours mulling over this, all I could muster was…
‘Small fee for big tech’
Then came the infomercial
Would you like to earn extra cash ? Join Yang’s Billionaires in shaping the future of humanity.
We are currently inventing jobs in the tech sector to ensure that we will always have jobs.
Help us rule the internet and bring peace, freedom and safety for all.
The more you share the more we (you) pay,
Plus a guaranteed bonus in your future credit rating score.
Sign up today @digyourowngrave
Lizzie, that one is hilarious ? you inspire me to laugh, at tyrants.
“Parents and people in general are not very responsible, so Yang promises to remove all their ability to make anymore of their own choices.”
N-POTIS Yang will Vax the internet like California State Senator ‘Little Peter’ Dr. Richard ( Dick) Pan Vaxed California’s lost children.
Its a Fact! Google Facebook expects to recieve mandatory ‘ Little Dick Pan’ Ying Yang Vax!
“We’ve lost California” Yang comforts ‘ Little Dick Pan’ bemoans using Little Dick’s dirty tricks.
A related how to about the internet. This guy has some smarts.
Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai on 1st thing he would do if he wins Sen.Markey’s seat. And how to fix censorship of the internet. A sane suggestion. That doesn’t involve a Vat-Tax-Vax.
https://youtu.be/I24Tcjbldu8
“More government regulation of Big-Tech will be good for Americans, trust me.”
Facebook, google, apple, et al – clueless how they work, hook line and sinker fell like a ‘dumb f***’, infinite-scrolling-autoplayer libido-dominandi Yang, throwing children under the bus, now wants his fair share of profits from his ‘data’… and a whole lot of power.
My “headline”:
Who Decides Which Values, Truths And Goals Are Unworthy?
The concerns for children are legit.
Yang’s reference for “dis/misinformation” on social-media links to an Oxford University study that determined that the U.S. and Israel were NOT comparatively involved in such activities by taking Facebook and Twitter at their word, stating
“Facebook and Twitter attributed foreign influence operations to seven countries
(China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela) who have used these platforms to influence global audiences”.
Down in their own “TABLE 1 – ORGANIZATIONAL FORM AND PREVALENCE OF SOCIAL MEDIA MANIPULATION” is contradictory info, if that enlightens as to Yang’s references establishing credibility…
We’ve invented, manufactured and invested our hard-earned money in devices that can irreversibly mutate/educate the user. *
Some want to make ‘gentle-bullets’ for the ‘guns’ (devices firing images and info) but refuse to acknowledge that the “devices” are as (potentially) lethal as firearms.
As lethal to Earth (in all interwoven forms of “life” herein) as any gun-to-the-head can be, depending on what, if anything, is loaded.
The obsession with “devices” and “content” is akin to the gun enthusiast that must fondle and discuss endlessly the object of the obsession.
Though, with firearms, to actually discharge a cartridge is an exceptional step, rarely-taken relative to gun ownership,
especially when compared with the “device” user who is “fired upon” relentlessly from the moment of initiating exposure.
The gun is designed to fire away from the user.
The “device” is designed to fire AT the user, like a TV or radio, it’s “content” is coming at you, or it’s ‘off’.
Not to forget the “data collection” taking place, even when the “device” is “off” (? redefining the meaning of “off”)
We, as a “society” insist on having these ‘guns’ everywhere, encouraged, if-not mandated, by the corporate-national-security-state-economic-structure, even in the hands of our children (to play & safety-tracking?)
We justify the ‘device-ideology’ by citing the “need” credited to “everyone else” and the “FOMO” (fear of missing out) world of instant-gratification
(because “The world-as-we-know-it could end any moment!” or “That business deal is time-sensitive!”)
Ignoring the obvious conflict-of-interest inherent in short-term-profit-ideology designing a sustainable-world-view,
if we continue to ignore the consequences of our actions (“device-addiction/proliferation”) and simply attempt to fill all the ‘guns’ with “gentle-bullets” we are in for a rough ride into oblivion, needlessly.
We’ll have no more luck “policing” content than ‘checking’ everyone’s firearms, because the process required would create such invasive-oppression so as to eradicate the very “Values, Truths And Goals” of individuals whose realization of them is the purpose of our existence.
Yeah, I’ve got some ideas…
Quality Of Life, not speed-of-connection.
Take a walk, avoiding as much “civilization” as possible…
A piece of Earth for each of us, includes non-humans.
Clean water, air and soil.
I have say for me and nobody else.
You have say for you and nobody else.
Practice mutual respect with inclusive cooperation.
Just because “I can” doesn’t mean “I must” because to NOT ACT is as powerful as action.
[SNIP – Please keep comments to 500 words. -JC]
‘The fewer ideas and voices available, the closer we are to suisilence.’
That was the last phrase of my 100 word overflow beyond the 500 word limit that is apparently strictly enforced here.
Mr. Corbett, your “SNIP” tells me that the last 100 words that I wrote were judged unworthy, which answers my “headline” question for purposes based in Corbettland, portrayed as a word-count issue, not content.
I will ‘make a note’…
I did not exceed the “character” limit of 3000. Why not change that or make it clear that you enforce a 500 word limit, regardless of “characters available”.
Maybe you just didn’t like my comparison of the potential impacts of exposure to LSD vs exposure to “devices” which you ‘silenced’ with your “SNIP”.
As busy as I’m sure you are (creating content that I very much appreciate and support), I find it curious that you took the time to count my words.
No, I don’t expect anyone here to support my views, ideas or suggestions, but I will continue to “voice” them, as I continue my search for a forum lacking censorship, name-calling and what I consider to be silly-word-count-limits-that-disregard-specified-character-count.
I am convinced that this “community” lacks interest in my contributions.
Frankly, I expect this reply to be censored in it’s entirety…
Surprise me? Censorship is suisilence.
Dregeye, there is very little editor involvement here, except the 500 word one. Break up long pieces by replying to your own comment when you near the 500 mark. There are various ways to have the text counted as you write depending on what method and machine used. I don’t know how myself but its been discussed at various times.
Content has never been censored as far as Im aware. Im almost certain your thoughts are welcome and on occasion you may get more feed back than you ever could of imagined. Welcome aboard. You will be surprised.
generalbottlewasher, thanks for your explanatory and encouraging response. Curious that a 500 word limit is imposed, but 3000 characters is indicated (?) Had the “SNIP” not been accompanied by Mr. Corbett’s initials I would not have taken it ‘personally’.
Seemed ironic that a comment on censorship was, in effect, censored.
I considered simply adding the last 100 or so words in a ‘reply’, but it seemed odd that I had not exceeded the character limit which led me to suspect that it was content related and the initials led me to think that Mr. Corbett had personally snipped this:
”
Live simply that others may simply live.
from a bumper sticker: “If you can’t change your mind, are you sure you still have one?”
read a book. agree or disagree, but critically THINK about it (it ain’t QUITE illegal, yet… [Funkadelic])
*were studies to be done, LSD might have an edge in positive outcomes vs “device” usage.
And YES, the “content” to which an LSD ‘user’ is exposed can significantly influence any “mutation/education” taking place, just as the “content” on a “device” does.
However, with LSD, a ‘user’ can experience self-examination when a modicum of ‘sensory-deprivation’ is adopted.
Proper preparation, forethought and companionship (or it’s absence) are important in the use of both ‘catalysts’ (LSD or “devices”) for mutation/education toward enhancement or extinction.
Even with TV, we can change the channel or turn it off.
The fewer ideas and voices available, the closer we are to suisilence.
“
dregeye,
If I may be contrary, I for one, enjoyed reading your post, and your post post, i.e., that portion of your post Mr. Corbett deemed appropriate to censor, or if that’s not an appropriate term, then let’s say that portion of your post that received a nice trim.
Also, on behalf of generalbottlewasher, I’d like to add that, indeed, content, as opposed to excess wordage, does get censored (let’s simply call a rose by it’s name, eh?). On such occasions, rare though they may be, said censorship includes an explanation, however terse, brief and to the point. In your instance, dregeye, excess wordage alone was the apparent culprit, and not as you suggested, your continuing comparative dialogue comparing “potential impacts of exposure to LSD vs exposure to “devices”…”, etc. For, as we can see, the snipped portion, that last 6th of your post, was allowed to be published, untouched and uncensored! Hallelujah!
At your expense (I’m afraid to say), I found your reaction to getting snipped just as funny as I found it rather admirable, not only in tone, but even more so in your expressing its inherent irony. Ah, what do they sometimes say certain things are that seem incomparable?….”Priceless.” Thank you. 🙂
My own posts have been subjected to getting clipped multiple times at various times for various reasons. At least a couple of times for excessive wordage and another time for going uncomfortably(whose comfort we’ll leave in the ether)way off topic, and once for fighting with another subscriber – believe it or not – going toe to toe, so to speak! From down on high, dregeye, I was chastised, at least, that’s what it felt like….Anyway.
Who knows, dregeye, even now, the wordage of this post is starting to get a little long in the tooth, and as for going off topic? Well, I guess that’s for the censors to decide….
They are there, mind you, they’re out there, reading, counting, keeping everything on the up and up.
So, you’re a new subscriber? I don’t know, for one, I’m not much of a contributor, and not here too often, and besides, I’ve taken just now a good few weeks off. There are times I get very, very weary and worn down by all this bantering about the truth, or the Truth, or even the TRUTH, whatever. Just ask James and Luke Rudkowski, they both seemed a bit weary and worn the other day, in constant battle fighting the good daily fight.
Anyway, at this juncture, I’m starting to get more than a little curious whether or not the winds of words have blown me too far off course for too long.
We shall soon see.
Cheers
PS: Interesting term “suisilence”.
There is a bug with this version of wordpress and the character counter does not work. It should be counting down as you type and prevent you from entering more than 3000 characters but it doesn’t do that. Queue in confusion.
They only censorship I witnessed here are against publication of personal details and infrequent insults.
Hmm, personal details? Such as what, real name, email address, phone number?
The censorship must be exceptional, then – better than bleeping out a cuss word on TV – because I’ve never seen hide nor hair of any personal details such as mentioned.
Of course, that type of personal detail obviously can be easily used to literally identify an individual. Have you actually seen instances of this? I haven’t.
But, as far as subscribers detailing aspects of their personal lives, that’s quite common and never censored. Indeed, some the most prolific subscribers on this board, describe their lives rather specifically, going as far, in some instances, as to link photos of themselves in situations that are described in detail. I’d have to think that any sleuth with a fraction of the talent of a Nancy Drew, could root out the individual’s identity with little trouble. And, yet, none of that is censored. Further, if a subscriber links to their personal website or YouTube platform, that’s not censored, either.
So, I’m not sure what you mean by “publication of personal details” triggering censorship.
Though, what I am sure of is that I was censored once for going on a wild tangent, a fanciful vignette, elaborating on another subscriber’s visual image that they had painted with words, and I was having a grand old time, laughing my fool head off…. and poof! It was censored. Naturally, I realized I had, in a sense, erred, and apologized.
And then there was the time I was “snipped” whilst engaged in as mud slinging contest with a certain subscriber. Hahaaha. That definitely resulted from the unleashing of that “infrequent insult” you mentioned.
Even beyond the simple “snip”, there’s the subscriber expulsion, too. I remember a short, sweet warning lecture aired in the confines of James’ automobile, wherein he warned of engaging in excessive acrimony will result in expulsion. And sure as the sky is blue, not long thereafter, one of our compatriots disappeared from the board. Surely, you must know what and who I’m talking about.
Come to think of it, it hasn’t been quite as much fun as it was since then. Sparing, argument and debate, if relatively respectful, needless to say, is simply more engaging, at times, than in its absence.
Oh, well.
Rules for Comments
~~ A phone number or email address is a “no no”.
James Corbett has often said that the comment section is what we make it.
The website header reads: The Corbett Report: Open Source Intelligence News
A lot of sharp folks here can gather some very interesting stuff.
I think most folks would agree that this is a very friendly and caring community.
James Corbett runs the comment section like a benign Republic.
There are very few guidelines.
~~ Keep comments under 500 words. If you need more, reply to your first comment.
~~ Don’t attack another with insults, like mkey mentions earlier.
~~ Be civil. It is okay to disagree with another, but civility is key to a discussion.
~~ ALWAYS verbally describe a link, so folks know where they are headed.
…and most importantly!!… tip $5 to HomeRemedySupply everytime you see his name. 😉
Homey, do you offer a coupon for that last bit?
I must report for the record you cannot use fake phone numbers either, even if you claim its a fake number. The humanity of it all!
The scores and scores of $5 tips that will be coming your way, where can they be sent? Do you have an address?….
You’re being quite the master of the obvious here, HRS, with your sermon regarding addresses, phone numbers, and civility. And geesh, as for the 500 word limit, uh, how many times now does it make it that you’ve reminded the multitudes? However many, we ought not take it as an insult. 🙂
Anyway, you hit the nail on the head about running a Republic, benign or otherwise. For a non-statist, voluntarist, it lies at the crux of the irony that dregeye indirectly expressed above.
But, to be more accurate than benign Republic, I would say James runs the comment section much like a teacher would a classroom, albeit, as you mentioned, with few rules.
Who knows, though he’s never mentioned it that I’m aware, perhaps James was influenced and inspired by the teaching philosophy of A.S. Neill, the founder and headmaster of Summerhill School, the famed progressive English boarding school way ahead of its time. There’s a book of the same name “Summerhill”, written by A.S. Neill which is just incredibly insightful. I consider it a treasure. It’s on the same level in terms of wisdom as the educators at the Japanese school featured in the documentary that James had brought our attention to a while back.
Anyway, HRS, take it easy and keep truckin’.
Be good! —– $5$5$5$5$5$5$5$5$5!!!! —– Be very good!
You don’t see the irony?
You don’t see any irony?
A question for Ms. Conway, assuming when she wrote “…whatever rules are in effect are explicitly consented to by the members of the organization…”, she meant “all” the members: What happens when a new rule, or rules, from up on high comes down the pike and not all the members are willing to voluntarily consent to it explicitly, or for that matter, in any fashion, whatsoever?
Are they shown the door? If so, is that not a form of coercion? No NAP for the disgruntled?
And, if they stay, yet do not follow the rules? Do they get snipped, or subjected to a snipping’s “rectifying” equivalent?
I don’t know about you, but that sounds kind of aggressive to me, possibly amoral within the voluntaryist’s creed-like belief system.
Am I being too purest in my reasoning?
What am I missing?
Anyway, just for laughs, a link to an individual’s blog describing his attendance at the Libertopia event back in 2018. – By the way, on the Libertopia website it appears that Luke Rudkowski was one of the presenters in 2018. – In any event, I found the aragorn blog below very humorous and telling:
http://aragorn.anarchyplanet.org/2018/05/
mbp,
To be snipped or not to be snipped, that is the question….
Actually, that’s not really the question. And as I’ve been belaboring this issue of the 500 word limit, I don’t want you to get the impression that it’s a big deal, or that I find fault in it, or suffer too badly the slings and arrows of the roving WCP. Although, let me have my 1000 word comment just once! and I’d gladly slip any member of the roving patrol the $5 bribe that was possibly being alluded to by you know who, that chief among the WCP. Right, HRS? 🙂
I still find irony in the 500 word rule, though. But, it could very well be that the reason why I see it as irony derives from a lack of understanding of the dynamics of a so-called Voluntaryist Community. I may be ascribing principles to it that are non-essential, and simply have no bearing in the functioning of such a community. Another thing is, I’ve been going on the assumption that the Corbett comment board is based upon Voluntaryist Community protocols, since its chief architect is a self proclaimed Voluntaryist. Though, either way, as I said, I lack an understanding of the critical nature of such a community.
I’ve listened repeatedly, since your last post, to how James answered a question as to what his “ideal world” would be – what his “end game” would be. He was answering a series of questions posed by subscriber, bart, in QFC#45 linked below.
James’ answer primarily focused on his conceptualization of what his, or anyone else’s endgame (i.e., an endgame as couched in terms of one’s community) should have in common, regardless of its nature – and, boy, did James rattle off some bizarre funky endgames – and that commonality is community based solely on voluntary interactions of its members, coupled with the freedom to join in, as well as the freedom to leave the community.
And that seems to be James’ one and only criteria forming an “ideal world” per his answer.
So, my takeaway is that as long as members of a community are free to come and go as they please, and interact as they please, completely on a voluntary basis, then all’s well. The community could be democratic in nature(member’s can vote), or a community can be centered around procuring rocket launchers to grandmothers, or, I suppose a Voluntaryist community can be set up like a totalitarian state, for all it matters, so long as members can freely come and go, and freely associate, or not associate, with others in the community as one wishes. It can even be set up as a benign Republic.
But, my question is, is the Corbett subscriber board community a benign Republic, or is it in essence a relatively benign Dictatorship, sans an iron curtain?
The QFC question referred to earlier starts at about 12 minutes into link.
And, fortunately, or unfortunately, I’m just about out of my word allotment for this here post, sans a $5 bribe. 🙂
Cheers.
https://www.corbettreport.com/qfc045/
SNIP!
mbp, if we try to apply that line of thinking on youtube we might see quite a lot of triggered people.
I write long pieces too, and have been SNIPPED by Corbett a few times.
Now I break my long posts into pieces.
It would really help if the SNIPPED posts would be e-mailed or something.
That way we can add some important info to a different reply.
As a forum the Corbett report is not working very well.
For example, I find it hard to find some of my previous posted
material and it is not simple to link to them.
Also it is hard to see or discuss any replies.
Now I prefer to use an uncensored forum like saidit.net and
link to my post on there if I want to write some large text.
Saidit even has a section for Corbett videos:
https://saidit.net/s/CorbettCommenters/
Just register and go!
Maybe we can maintain a link with Saidit.net discussions
for each Corbett post.
On minds.com there are also open discussions, but the space for discussions is very limited.
I would call all those twisted pretzel headlines discussion of the encapsulated discussions a Meme. A freaking screaming me me.
The worst of the blog manifesto by Yang would be ; incentivivas broadcast productions… Like broadcast TV.
That is just crazy.bing bong mickey icky crazy
This just in…
‘Occultists’ Yang fleece cud chewers thread by thread.’
Where Reuters describes Yang approach as ‘technocratic’,
https://web.archive.org/web/20190901071125/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-yang-idUSKCN1SL231
they will also remind you that it’s his ideas and policies that count as they make it into the discussion.
Looks like someone else has been watching Corbett…
Yang, “…and what I’ve been going around telling everybody is, technology is the oil of the 21st century.”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cTsEzmFamZ8
Watch the Patrick Wood article as the refresher.
Then, watch the video posted by Libertydan,
https://youtu.be/7j_JjvKK1VE?t=1758
See the seeds planted…
Then, watch a World Economic Forum panel lay out the exact mechanism of growth. While masticating concepts ethical machine makers and ethics codes written into smart devices.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ejc4Ezz1vHw
Then, if you haven’t had enough (because you’re a desensitized, polarized, apathetic, nation baby, who needs even more slaps in the face, like myself), slam home the concept of corporate resource control and human data with this poignant anime episode:
https://m.wcostream.com/ghost-in-the-shell-arise-alternative-architecture-episode-1-english-subbed-2
Then get ready for work, or, go to bed. You (We) Slaves!
Just kidding around, I’m not really that grim. I think the future will be separated by the doers and the talkers. Anyone that gives in to this ‘technocracy’ will have their Will eroded from them and they will be stuck with prescribed activities. The ones that resist will have to do a lot more on their own and engage in the real, personal, economy of private trade. They will live like renegades but it will be exciting. Nobody should be afraid of a little fight even if it ends in death. We’re going to die, everyone knows the sayings. We all know that we would rather die living the life we love. Just because it might be a little crazier than we might have imagined shouldn’t dissuade us, it should excite us!
Oh yeah and we should all write down our tales and put them with other memories in time capsules and litter them everywhere! Decentralized data old-school style!
MPB , that was an impressive dispatch. However the details of MIT Entrepreneurial and Innovation stats. For the record. 2014
30,000 new companies by alumnus
2.4 million employed
$ 1.9 trillion value
23% of the 30,000 new firms are located abroad.
23%×$1.9= $437,000,000,000 over…over there.
Call in the special forces, call in the calvary horses, it don’t mean a thing if you can’t make em sing. Don’t mind our hypocrisy we will take all and leave you democracy.
Tony has been a (quite an important player, it seems) player in the industry for quite a long time. That he understands the issue the clate chane or cares to expose it shouldn’t be collated with any other issues one may find important.
For instance, I don expect him to denounce Israel any time soon. There’s a thin line between fallacy of association and cherrypicking but we must walk it.
Presidential wannabe, Ignores existence of NSA, advocates for more Nanny State control.
Reddit: For people who like to read as little as possible prior to delivering enlightened mainstream wisdom unto the unwashed masses.
Irony: Haven’t-Read-It.
Headline…. “Why not regulate tech ourselves?”
November 20, 2019
Derrick Broze goes over a new report released by Pew Research Center which claims a strong majority of Americans believe they are being spied upon and tracked by private companies and the government on a regular basis.
(15 minute video)
https://www.activistpost.com/2019/11/are-americans-starting-to-recognize-the-surveillance-state.html
OK, I will be honest, I came up with a surface level title for my “article”.
Will Andrew Yang be able to reign in tech giants? Combating disinformation is only part of it.
So, I then finished your video and realized how far off I was. I’m not a practiced journalist by any means, but at the end I realized how little you can convey with a headline. In my case, I came up short because I missed that he/Gov’t would be the one’s regulating it and that is not preferable in any way.
Good exercise James, really makes you think how the trickle down effect works for news and information online.
I think the only way to boil these issues down is not by articles but by videos like yours. Showing the pitfalls of overly generalized solutions to real problems in our world. I agree with how Yang’s policy puts the problem into perspective, but the answer is not “Just leave that to us, we promise to get it right….”.
Forum sliding
Forum sliding means that the discussion is not really about the main topic,
but is lead to a different topic that has little to do with it.
This sliding works better when the reply has strong emotion in it.
This is very common, and in the media I could call it topic-sliding.
The article is talking about points that are not so relevant at all.
But taxation seems important.
The article hides the idea about the control of the government of our data.
The main problem is that there should be no data collection at all to begin with.
Education
This technique is used in the US schooling system. Talk about minor details,
or emotional topics, and no discussion about the real issues.
They usually learn to copy what is in the books without questioning.
And with discussions about tax for example, they discuss how much tax
would be the best for a certain person. Not if taxation should exist at all.
Logical fallacies
Strawman and Ad Hominem are very common in discussions and media-articles.
But as you talked about in a podcast, it is common in so many propaganda.
Probably the topic-sliding is a fallacy in some way, but I can not find it.
Different Voting systems in social media
Different social media really show differences in dynamics. And none of the voting-systems are really working.
Twitter – A mess of headlines. People try to bend headlines to their own meaning. Should not be used and only leads to conflicts.
Reddit – Upvoting and downvoting, nested discussion. Only the earliest and most popular ideas come to the top. There are groups that support each other to rise to the top quickly, and to downvote opposing ideas.
This means that only a few ideas dominate. Certain groups also infiltrate discussions to suppress opposing ideas via downvotes or trolling.
Additionally moderators of a sub-reddit can remove posts and replies that are unwanted. This means that you can not criticize anything. These removals are usually shadowed, so you don’t even know that they were removed.
Good discussions become invisible due to
Saidit/ Hackernews – Voting is more limited to upvotes. Saidit also has “fun” option. This means that opposing ideas still stay visible. People also give better and more serious replies.
Slashdot – Posts are in a long list, always with text or summary added. This means that you can read them before you click into the link or discussion. Replies in discussions have all kinds of markers (insightful/funny etc), and the texts seem more serious.
Facebook / Minds – Groups are specialized and discussions are not very visible.
Dramatic or romantic posts get the most likes.
Some scientists use facebook, because they can exclude critics that way.
You have to believe in invisible stuff, that you can’t proof.
Youtube – Limited discussions possible. Opinions are too diverse to closer. I mainly post funny replies, sometimes with a hidden layer.
Generally: good ideas and factual information get pushed away by emotions.
Improving discussions?
I posted it here before.
We are all still searching for the correct solution.
Discussions should be able to branch into different directions.
And backwards. This could stop people from posting the same thing
over and over again.
Information does not end the next day, as on reddit. It is inter-linked
in many ways.
So a forum would slowly build a database of up-to-date information,
instead of a quick stream of headlines.
The ordering of the posts and discussions can be a post by itself.
Discussions need a place for humor or beauty or emotions.
But that is different than discussions about facts.
Different flags could be used to separate them.
There could be voting too, about the quality of the post.
With an additional agree button if necessary.
No disagree/dislike, because it leads to animosity.
Different viewpoints should be possible, like different categories.
And the target of the discussion should be a cooperative action
to get the information well ordered. So there can not be a winner.
To get people towards the same goal, they might work towards a solution.
And see what the good or bad effects of solutions are, and why.
Forum sliding should be taken out of the discussion, but moved to a sub-section of the discussion.
Dealing with Trolls
In my sub-reddits I remove unfriendly posts of trolls, but repost the information in a nicer way. Often with listing the logical fallacies. That way I stop the troll, but also show him how he can post in a good way (if he wants to).
A part of trolling is also posting many answers and forum sliding. I do similar work with those posts.
For people that really want to see what shit the trolls write, I leave a link to click on. If a troll stay aggressive, even after warnings, I still ban him.
I notice that with friendly moderation, the discussion becomes more friendly and more readable, and more interested people get involved.
It is funny how easily I skip the other 5 points of Chang’s proposals.
They are all draconian.
Especially the internet censorship.
I had actually forgotten about it.
Until I start read the comments, I was reminded of the other problems.
I think that is the hidden propaganda of the article and discussion:
Let the people focus and fight on minor details.
So much, that the real issues do not even reach long term memory.
In similar sense: the real topic is avoided.
Dirt Cheap Gasoline Is Fueling Colombia’s Cocaine Cartels
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/dirt-cheap-gasoline-fueling-colombias-cocaine-cartels
Article goes into how cheap the Venezuela oil has gotten.
And how this is helping criminal organizations.
The fuel from Venezuela is 0.01 $ per liter.
That is more than 100 times cheaper than in the EU.
Amazing that they can’t sell it elsewhere, isn’t it?
Oh wait, they can’t sell it due to US-sanctions and
the underground war that the US is causing in that country.
The propaganda solution: block the borders even more.
And kill more of their civilians.
The real solution, bring Venezuela back in the global market.
Its fuel will be expansive again, and they will be able to
buy stuff for their people. Everyone will be happy.
Again: The cause are the sanctions, not the resulting poverty.
The same is with sanctions on Iran.
I think that for people to survive they need to work together outside
the US and EU market.
And even with criminals or dictators.
More propaganda in the style of:
“Let’s blame Facebook and the internet for everything”
Read Sasha Baron Cohen‘s scathing attack on Facebook in full:
greatest propaganda machine in history
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/22/sacha-baron-cohen-facebook-propaganda
In images: https://imgur.com/gallery/zZOdh31 + comments
In a speech last at the Anti-Defamation League, the actor and comedian Sacha Baron Cohen attacked Facebook and other social media for enabling the proliferation of hate speech and misinformation.
It seems to me that the censoring the internet
is planned and coordinated on many fronts.
The tech companies, the DNC, and Israeli organizations work together
to blame the internet and censor it.
Probably to “prevent a next Trump” and
to protect their financial interests.
That’s an interesting story about oil. In my failed state we also have subsidies with a slight difference being that the end consumer is paying for the subsidy directly.
There is more than 100% tax on fuel (these taxes also include varous “subsidies”) while the starting fuel market value is established on the “mediterranean” market. The “law” defines all the the price segments, there are no free market machanisms allowed.
US Forces Attack Boats Caught Smuggling Oil To Syrian Government
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/us-forces-attack-ships-smuggling-oil-syrian-government-side-euphrates
The US is waging war on Syria again.
They did not stop the Oil coming from ISIS, and are
illegally claiming the Oil in Syria (and in Venezuela)
And Israel has been bombing for a while now.
After Rockets Allegedly Fired At Syria’s Golan, Israel Bombs 20 Locations In Damascus Killing 23 (The Last American Vagabond)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ppv1_L8YtK8/
Shouldn’t that be a good reason to remove the US president?
Oh wait.
The propaganda keeps on going..
NYT CAUGHT With FAKE Anti-Trump Story Refuses To Back Down Saying “We stand by our reporting”
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZewXzRxRen0/
Tim Pool talks about how NYT / CNN /(etc) create fake news.
But the first subject is much more important.
Trump has pardoned several people accused of war-crimes.
But he does not pardon Assange or Snowden?
Why not impeach a president on this?
This shows to me again how the US is a military dictatorship
behind the circus that is the 2-party politics.
There’s no such limitation on my end. Maybe that’s combined with your location as well.
I wonder how far back in time would we have to go to see a real differene in people’s behavior. It’s really easy to falsely assume that techology leads to societal advancement.
Good or bad is just a point of view. Bad stuff for good people is good for bad people.
But that point about taking a few people to drag others along really stings.
About a week or so ago, Catherine Austin Fitts had mentioned the following documentary on her Solari Report.
PBS’s (Public Broadcast Service) ”Frontline – In the Age of AI”
(1:56:07 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyGEejOBdFc&feature=emb_logo
Over 2 ½ hours in length, I found it to be ‘okay’, offering perspectives and aspects to consider.
If you want to economize your time and skip ahead to the meat in the meal, start watching at the 1:07 mark ”Four: The Surveillance Capitalists”
QUOTES
Kai-Fu Lee: “A.I. really is the ultimate tool of wealth creation.”
“Artificial Intelligence is a technology which can be used for good or for evil.”
Shoshana Zuboff: “We thought that we were searching Google. We had no idea that Google was searching us.”
One: China Has a Plan – 00:07:17
Two: The Promise – 00:22:19
Three: The Future of Work – 00:42:38
Four: The Surveillance Capitalists 01:07:01
Five: The Surveillance State 01:33:03
Honey, it’s better English than most born English speakers. It’s certainly better than most English writing on the internet. God, what a mess that is!