Whistleblowers are the second type. the first type are no whistleblowers. Usually the unnamed official in a NYTimes article is the first type playing politics.
There are different types of anonymous sources. The most common ones are official sources whose message would be discredited if their names would be public but they wouldn't suffer repercussions. Then there are anonymous sources who do fear repercussions. It's easy to demand they go public and suffer the consequences but it's not reasonable.These are legitimate anonymous sources. This guy is somewhere in between. Would probably be fired but has a lot of establishment backing so would be unlikely to suffer much.
I'm not talking about minor events. Trump is a media-savvy populist who got elected by people who feel they're not represented. If Bernie Sanders had been the candidate for the democrats the situation would have been different. And how come Bernie Sanders didn't get past the primaries? Because Clinton had bought up the DNC. So my perception of the elections is completely different than yours. US democracy is broken alright but Russian meddling is just a red herring. And I consider that an informed opinion. It's the kind of opinion you commonly get from people who read consortiumnews.com , it's not the pro-trump type of opinion.
Close enough. They want to offload the messy moderating business to outsiders. Government is just one of the parties. The Atlantic Council for instance represents Nato and the oil kingdoms so they are already handling content.
Whatever the motivations of those involved are the result is that a lot of online platforms become a lot less neutral territory, and that is a serious problem. It means they now become the subject of intense competition where algorithms and filters are constantly tweaked to make a party less or more visible. You can argue that this was already the case but this is a step higher. Google is no longer neutral.
Concerning facebook ads, the argument is that Cambridge Analytica had succeeded in massively enhancing the targeting ability of ads and that this in effect had a large impact on the elections. That's a serious claim.
The motivation of Facebook really is they want to outsource the censoring/filtering/tuning part. If say NATO wants control over content they can get it, but they should let Facebook get on with their core business and not be distracted by political pressure and unwanted media attention. That's the idea.
I think this is nonsense. If a race is very close then every tiny event can be made responsible for tilting the result. Do you accept that if your kid comes home and he failed the exams but it was sooo close? The real issue is why the race was close at all. The same reasoning applied to Gore losing against Bush and the recount.
Very basic and to the point. People should be reminded that 9/11 (not the car, the bowling with planes) happened not because intelligence had too little power but because they weren't doing their job. They were busy with the war on drugs and with keeping things secret from each other. But since then the constant mantra has been 'We need more power!' and they've been getting away with it too.
I've said it before, the way you do away with free speech is to privatize. Media platforms to a large extent have been treated as public space. This is now being rolled back. So to some extent this is not regulation but deregulation. Social media now get to decide with their advisory boards what is allowed to be said. Guess who gets to be on the advisory boards.
I wouldn't disagree with the idea that people have to be kept accountable for what they say - to some extent. But what you get now is that big interests work together with social media platforms to control things to go their way. And those who don't like that are entirely free to find another planet.
Or unless you're the CIA or the NSA. The Reality Winner case smacks of a setup. Let's hire a suitable disposable person to 'find' a secret document we'd like to leak.
That doesn't change the fact that she requires whistleblower protection.
Facebook wants to outsource the moderation to insulate themselves from eventual blowback. So the big boys get to decide what is allowed on the platform and they can settle their conflicts amongst themselves. Here's a link which mentions the outsourcing https://www.reuters.com/articl...
Your protest sign has just been deranked and demonetized by google , GoFundMe and Paypal will not help you with funding, and people linking to you will become invisible on FB, Twitter and other social media. Good luck.
NASA never found out and they couldn't complain when they got the bill. All they did was ask Kubrick to make it realistic and you know how perfectionist Kubrick was. The only way he saw to make it realistic was to film it on the moon behind their backs. Word is he got some help from the Russians.
I doubt centralization is key here. AI can drive automation and in that way it increases the scope, the share of the web they control. But just take the trusted flagger program, last I read there were about 100 organizations. There will be more but each will take care of its own interests, even if they outsource the operations to the same server farms. 'hate' is simply a pejorative word for 'anyone who objects to what you're doing', and together with 'subversion' or 'incitement' it can be applied to any form of activism.
This is a likely scenario, but the division will not be what you think. It'll be more like a big cluster of big power who declare trust in each other, and those who don't trust them are refused any platform. It's like the NYTimes trusts the Pentagon and the CIA. Wikipedia trusts the NYTimes. Youtube trusts the NYTimes and Wikipedia. Big interests trust Youtube because they get some control over the output. So the CIA considers Youtube safe. The essence of a conspiracy theorist is not the incompetence but that he distrusts. So on the other half of the divide will be an awful lot of people who don't trust the system anymore. They'll be right. Youtube will flag their posts.
The truth of the moonlandings is not that important.It's trivia. Nobody who matters believes in fake moonlandings, it has no effect on people's actions(although it makes you doubt their general competence), and nobody who believes in that gets a trusted platform or ever did get such a platform. Who cares about fake news. It's just clickbait. Mostly.
With a good telescope you can see there is a huge rocket visible on the moon. And I mean huge. That's the rocket they used to ship all that crew and shitloads of material over there which was needed to stage and film the fake moonlandings.
I think that's a good post. This is just another step in a censorship drive of historic proportions. It's not very centralized though. Youtube for instance works with a Trusted Flagger Program. In principle these don't decide what to censor but Youtube says they advise very well so in practice just about anything these organisations don't like is removed. Youtube itself doesn't care. Fake news has got nothing to do with it.
If fundamentalists go into recluse that doesn't affect the rest of the world much. If they plot to bring about armageddon it's a bit worse. If wealth and power is concentrated in a minority and they work to minimize repercussions of their acts then this is very unhealthy. It's like with military and defense. If you have a strong military but you allow your opponents the ability to hurt you you have a form of checks and balances. If you add defence systems so the other party can no longer hurt you, things become dangerous. For the military to work as a real defensive mechanism you have to allow your opponents the ability to hurt you.
Let's try and separate two things: my main argument is that this 'signalling' is a lot softer than 'impressing' and not being impressed misses that. I also believe that people are fairly sophisticated at interpreting those signals, though each group has its own language for it and they don't necessarily understand each other. Then I interpret the article as saying an iPhone would be a good signal. That doesn't mean people are actually using it but it's likely. You contradict that. You could be right, I'm undecided on that. It is plausible that indeed a while back people recognized the iPhone as a good signal, found out they could fake it, and soon the signal became devaluated as it was considered unreliable. So we're at the end of the 'high status' lifecycle of the iPhone signalling thing. The article is remarkable in that it is fairly explicit about this signalling value, but it is very explicit in claiming that in 2016 the iPhone is still a valid signal, so I think it's their statistical results versus your argument. It's a good argument but so are their numbers. Maybe the economical circumstances have to be taken in account. There is a lot more abject poverty where a 20$/week iPhone is not worth it.It certainly won't perform miracles by itself. After all nobody is going to be fooled if you don't have matching shoes.
This is not about being impressed. The message is , if you want to signal a degree of financial security then it's worth stretching to an iPhone. Others don't need to be impressed, just aware.
I see a lot of signalling around me, mostly understated. Then it's 'signalling that you don't need the signalling'.
Slashdot Mirror
Whistleblowers are the second type. the first type are no whistleblowers. Usually the unnamed official in a NYTimes article is the first type playing politics.
I like Deep Trump. It's politely rude. Briskly vague. Firmly uninformative.
There are different types of anonymous sources. The most common ones are official sources whose message would be discredited if their names would be public but they wouldn't suffer repercussions.
Then there are anonymous sources who do fear repercussions. It's easy to demand they go public and suffer the consequences but it's not reasonable.These are legitimate anonymous sources.
This guy is somewhere in between. Would probably be fired but has a lot of establishment backing so would be unlikely to suffer much.
I'm not talking about minor events. Trump is a media-savvy populist who got elected by people who feel they're not represented. If Bernie Sanders had been the candidate for the democrats the situation would have been different. And how come Bernie Sanders didn't get past the primaries? Because Clinton had bought up the DNC.
So my perception of the elections is completely different than yours. US democracy is broken alright but Russian meddling is just a red herring. And I consider that an informed opinion. It's the kind of opinion you commonly get from people who read consortiumnews.com , it's not the pro-trump type of opinion.
Close enough. They want to offload the messy moderating business to outsiders. Government is just one of the parties. The Atlantic Council for instance represents Nato and the oil kingdoms so they are already handling content.
Whatever the motivations of those involved are the result is that a lot of online platforms become a lot less neutral territory, and that is a serious problem. It means they now become the subject of intense competition where algorithms and filters are constantly tweaked to make a party less or more visible.
You can argue that this was already the case but this is a step higher. Google is no longer neutral.
Concerning facebook ads, the argument is that Cambridge Analytica had succeeded in massively enhancing the targeting ability of ads and that this in effect had a large impact on the elections. That's a serious claim.
The motivation of Facebook really is they want to outsource the censoring/filtering/tuning part. If say NATO wants control over content they can get it, but they should let Facebook get on with their core business and not be distracted by political pressure and unwanted media attention. That's the idea.
I think this is nonsense. If a race is very close then every tiny event can be made responsible for tilting the result. Do you accept that if your kid comes home and he failed the exams but it was sooo close?
The real issue is why the race was close at all. The same reasoning applied to Gore losing against Bush and the recount.
I wouldn't call it vague. It means any advocacy or activist group now becomes a russian agent.
Space elevators are a lot older than anime.
Very basic and to the point. People should be reminded that 9/11 (not the car, the bowling with planes) happened not because intelligence had too little power but because they weren't doing their job. They were busy with the war on drugs and with keeping things secret from each other. But since then the constant mantra has been 'We need more power!' and they've been getting away with it too.
I've said it before, the way you do away with free speech is to privatize. Media platforms to a large extent have been treated as public space. This is now being rolled back. So to some extent this is not regulation but deregulation. Social media now get to decide with their advisory boards what is allowed to be said. Guess who gets to be on the advisory boards.
I wouldn't disagree with the idea that people have to be kept accountable for what they say - to some extent. But what you get now is that big interests work together with social media platforms to control things to go their way. And those who don't like that are entirely free to find another planet.
Or unless you're the CIA or the NSA. The Reality Winner case smacks of a setup. Let's hire a suitable disposable person to 'find' a secret document we'd like to leak.
That doesn't change the fact that she requires whistleblower protection.
Suit yourself but I'm starting to tie things down in case that 'stupid' flaw causes them to start floating away.
Facebook wants to outsource the moderation to insulate themselves from eventual blowback. So the big boys get to decide what is allowed on the platform and they can settle their conflicts amongst themselves. Here's a link which mentions the outsourcing https://www.reuters.com/articl...
Your protest sign has just been deranked and demonetized by google , GoFundMe and Paypal will not help you with funding, and people linking to you will become invisible on FB, Twitter and other social media. Good luck.
NASA never found out and they couldn't complain when they got the bill. All they did was ask Kubrick to make it realistic and you know how perfectionist Kubrick was. The only way he saw to make it realistic was to film it on the moon behind their backs. Word is he got some help from the Russians.
I doubt centralization is key here. AI can drive automation and in that way it increases the scope, the share of the web they control. But just take the trusted flagger program, last I read there were about 100 organizations. There will be more but each will take care of its own interests, even if they outsource the operations to the same server farms.
'hate' is simply a pejorative word for 'anyone who objects to what you're doing', and together with 'subversion' or 'incitement' it can be applied to any form of activism.
This is a likely scenario, but the division will not be what you think. It'll be more like a big cluster of big power who declare trust in each other, and those who don't trust them are refused any platform. It's like the NYTimes trusts the Pentagon and the CIA. Wikipedia trusts the NYTimes. Youtube trusts the NYTimes and Wikipedia. Big interests trust Youtube because they get some control over the output. So the CIA considers Youtube safe.
The essence of a conspiracy theorist is not the incompetence but that he distrusts.
So on the other half of the divide will be an awful lot of people who don't trust the system anymore. They'll be right. Youtube will flag their posts.
The truth of the moonlandings is not that important.It's trivia. Nobody who matters believes in fake moonlandings, it has no effect on people's actions(although it makes you doubt their general competence), and nobody who believes in that gets a trusted platform or ever did get such a platform. Who cares about fake news. It's just clickbait. Mostly.
With a good telescope you can see there is a huge rocket visible on the moon. And I mean huge. That's the rocket they used to ship all that crew and shitloads of material over there which was needed to stage and film the fake moonlandings.
I think that's a good post. This is just another step in a censorship drive of historic proportions. It's not very centralized though. Youtube for instance works with a Trusted Flagger Program. In principle these don't decide what to censor but Youtube says they advise very well so in practice just about anything these organisations don't like is removed. Youtube itself doesn't care. Fake news has got nothing to do with it.
If fundamentalists go into recluse that doesn't affect the rest of the world much. If they plot to bring about armageddon it's a bit worse.
If wealth and power is concentrated in a minority and they work to minimize repercussions of their acts then this is very unhealthy. It's like with military and defense. If you have a strong military but you allow your opponents the ability to hurt you you have a form of checks and balances. If you add defence systems so the other party can no longer hurt you, things become dangerous. For the military to work as a real defensive mechanism you have to allow your opponents the ability to hurt you.
Let's try and separate two things: my main argument is that this 'signalling' is a lot softer than 'impressing' and not being impressed misses that. I also believe that people are fairly sophisticated at interpreting those signals, though each group has its own language for it and they don't necessarily understand each other. .It certainly won't perform miracles by itself.
Then I interpret the article as saying an iPhone would be a good signal. That doesn't mean people are actually using it but it's likely.
You contradict that. You could be right, I'm undecided on that. It is plausible that indeed a while back people recognized the iPhone as a good signal, found out they could fake it, and soon the signal became devaluated as it was considered unreliable. So we're at the end of the 'high status' lifecycle of the iPhone signalling thing.
The article is remarkable in that it is fairly explicit about this signalling value, but it is very explicit in claiming that in 2016 the iPhone is still a valid signal, so I think it's their statistical results versus your argument. It's a good argument but so are their numbers. Maybe the economical circumstances have to be taken in account. There is a lot more abject poverty where a 20$/week iPhone is not worth it
After all nobody is going to be fooled if you don't have matching shoes.
Actually with the degree of outsourcing they've done since 2001 the NSA has become more of a company than ever before.
Let's compare our senator-wallets, maybe we could exchange a few.
This is not about being impressed. The message is , if you want to signal a degree of financial security then it's worth stretching to an iPhone. Others don't need to be impressed, just aware.
I see a lot of signalling around me, mostly understated. Then it's 'signalling that you don't need the signalling'.