- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Fact checking only matters when President Trump is wrong.
Trump Derangement Syndrome - Orange man bad. Read the OP! (ᴛʜɪs ᴛʜʀᴇᴀᴅ ɪs ʟɪᴋᴇ ᴋɪᴡɪ ғᴀʀᴍs ʀᴇᴠɪᴇᴡs ɴᴏᴡ) 🗿🗿🗿🗿
- Thread starter Randall Fragg
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
Playing devil's advocate here: if social media dies, dinosaur media will reclaim its monopoly on narrative.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
When all these fact-checkers came out of the woodwork, I asked: "who fact-checks the fact-checkers?"
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2015
Nobody. We're just supposed to assume they are incorruptible, infallible, and absolute. "Snopes said it, I believe it, you can't change my mind." Fact-checkers have become a form of priesthood in the leftist worship of government, treated as being filled with secular holy power that renders them immune to human foibles like bias or mistakes.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2019
Oh, it's just the standard lefty inverse gish gallop technique. I recognize it from talking with Chapo Trap House fuckheads on Reddit.
"You're making a claim? I NEED 15 DIFFERENT PEER REVIEWED PAPERS ACCEPTED BY RADICAL LEFT ACADEMIA BEFORE YOU CAN SAY THAT, BIGOT! What's that? You don't have several white papers immediately ready to go? YOU MUST BE LYING OR STUPID, YOU BIGOT!"
To say nothing about how finding "evidence" doesn't work when they immediately discard any evidence that they don't like, fire researchers who bring forth ideas that don't go along with them, and censor the search engines to make finding said evidence impossible.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
This is a little off-topic here, but I can probably tie it back into Trump.
I was chatting with my friend about this last night (the one who surprised me with his TDS a few months ago), and he's getting increasingly blackpilled by society in general, placing a lot of blame on the internet as a whole. I partly agree, but there's enough good with the internet to write it all off wholesale.
To me, the problem isn't even necessarily social media, it's how it's designed. Everyone's always chasing those likes, upvotes, retweets, and what have you, craving the dopamine hits they get whenever those numbers next to their posts go up. Not only have people been conditioned to desire bigger numbers, they've also been conditioned to accept that anyone with big numbers next to their content is more worthy of their attention, extending that to the belief that anyone who's getting that much engagement with their posts must be telling the truth. There's so much information out there that nobody has time to sift through it all, so they rely on whoever has the biggest following to tell them what they should think. When it comes to Trump, the masses follow the blue checkmarks' hot takes, never once questioning whether they're telling the truth.
Someone mentioned that anonymity isn't the answer because Reddit is anonymous (actually pseudonymous but that's just splitting hairs), but again, consider the difference between Reddit and the chans. Redditors are constantly chasing good karma, downvoting into oblivion anyone who goes against the status quo, creating a giant hivemind of acceptable opinions. Chans don't give you any association with your posts, aside from replies, and nothing sticks with you from thread to thread. Thus, even if it's just a bunch of morons flinging gamer words at each other, and even if there's still some hivemind tendencies (insert joke about /v/ hates video games here), you can speak your mind freely.
Even here, despite the like and autistic and Islamic content ratings we can hand out to each other, it doesn't really matter, and nobody's going around sucking the dick of people that have the most internet stickers because you'd be mocked relentlessly for it. Others have mentioned before that this is one of the few bastions of free speech on the web, and I have to agree. I know Null's getting a bit tired of the hassle of running the place, but the internet would be worse off without the Farms.
I don't really have an easy answer aside from nuking social media entirely, but even that's just a band-aid fix. The real solution would be to find a way to get people to think for themselves and actually analyze the info they're being fed, but it almost feels like that ship's sailed. I do think people would be a lot happier if they spent less time online and more time in meatspace, but for those that are addicted to social media, that's a hard sell.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2016
So trump has a major announcement regarding the chimp outs and the cities next week. What do you guys think it will be?
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2016
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2018
He's going to give those cities what they want and stop giving them federal funding. No leo resources, no federal aid, no support or information.
Tanner Glass
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2016
It isn't likes/shares/whatever - it's that social media literally herds people into Echo Chambers, by design, to keep them engaged longer. Your facebook, for example, will learn your political alignment and only show you stuff that lines up with your perception. Google (and by extension, YouTube) do the same exact thing - they serve you ads based on the content of videos you watch. The longer you're on the app, the longer you're being served ads and the more money the company makes from you.
Reddit is entirely politically segregated - there's no "let's try to see the other side of the argument" subreddit - it's a gigantic dogpile in thousands of seperate and segragated subreddits.
There's also (including COVID) the issue that with the rise of the internet - people interact with people far less than they used to. There used to be a lot more common respect between people as a whole and this used to include political parties. You would have to interact with people all the time before social media/technology. You'd talk to people in the bank for most transactions, you'd always talk to a live person for your utility shit, you'd always have to interact over food, you would constantly encounter strangers in restaurants, movie theaters, arcades, malls, etc.
Now most of that shit is online. You don't have to speak to anyone, you don't even have to look at your DoorDash driver to eat food - movies and entertainment are streamed directly into your house. You essentially never have to encounter anyone that you don't want to - which means you'll never really encounter a view point that challenges you unless you deliberately look for it - and even then it has to be in a place where the person won't be afraid to have it.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2017
Well, my vote has been sealed.
Sekirodiealot
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2019
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2017
It's true that US society has polarised badly in politics over the last few decades, but I think the internet reflects this. It's not responsible for it.
Most countries in the world have mass internet access, aside from very poor countries like Chad and North Korea. Even in India about half the population is online. However, we do not see extreme political polarisation in every country in the world. For example, Poland recently had an election in which the conservative president Duda was re-elected. This did not result in mass rioting and chaos, even though the election was somewhat close run and his government is controversial for various reasons.
US society started to polarise badly during the 1990s, particularly after the 1994 midterms when the Republican Revolution and Contract with America happened. A growing gap emerged between rural and urban voters that got increasingly worse over time but wasn't too awful until the 2016 election. Obama 2008 ran on a very moderate platform but by 2016 the culture wars had blown up badly to the point where they were permeating into daily life outside university campuses. Over the next 4 years this proceeded to become even worse as TDS set in. We see the results of this on Twitter and Facebook but this is the symptom, not the cause. There have been various other times of severe unrest in post-civil war American history (the race riots and labour unrest of the aftermath of WW1 and the late 1960s being the biggest examples), so we shall see if this defuses as those periods did or turns into something worse as it did in the 1860s.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
I go to bed, go to work, and then come to this thread to see Witches trying to kill Trump and change the election.
I said it before and it bears repeating: Maybe Purtian witch burnings were just the funny hat wearers finally getting an excuse to rid themselves of insufferable, useless, psycho-bitches.
I said it before and it bears repeating: Maybe Purtian witch burnings were just the funny hat wearers finally getting an excuse to rid themselves of insufferable, useless, psycho-bitches.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2015
Well, that's interesting. John Weaver, the co-founder of the Lincoln Project, took $700,000 per year to lobby for a Russian state-owned energy company, TENEX, which is owned by Rosatom. If Rosatom sounds familiar to you, congratulations, you've got a long memory. They're the company that owns Uranium One. John Weaver's talked an awful lot of shit over the past few years, but I get the feeling that a lot of this might come across a little differently now that we have this information.
Kinda' strike a different chord, don't they?
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2017
Classic case of projection.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2020
The internet I believe made it easier for bad actors to communicate and organize. Maybe that why the rage is so intense?
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2017
It has made it easier but it's still not at Tulsa race riot or Appalachian miner rebellion levels yet. Similar unrest, and worse, has happened before in American history.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2020
Well it didn't get as bad as now in my life time until the internet went mainstream. Guess I dont know how it was long term history wise.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2015
Eh, the quality of witches really went down once they could buy a "Booke of Magick" on the internet and join a Facebook group about how to snag a dude with a sixpack using chants to Gaia.