CNN amongst others would fall into 3 of those categories easily.
Which three? Remember, the sites had to meet ALL of the criteria in order to qualify for the seed group.
The point of my post was to show that they started with a 'known' list of sites, and not ALL sites with an objective standard.
Except that's not what they did at all. Your still arguing from what you want the study say rather than what the study says. You are a good example of the study's findings.
Its right there in the section you posted:
"For a source to be labeled as junk news it must fall in at least three of the following five domains:"
But whatever, I expect it would be trivial to put CNN or other media companies in that subjective basket one way or another.
CNN amongst others would fall into 3 of those categories easily. The point of my post was to show that they started with a 'known' list of sites, and not ALL sites with an objective standard.
Surely you are not suggesting that only so called educated people engage in critical thinking every day just doing their jobs day in day out?
It's not about education. It's about political orientation. This peer-reviewed article from Oxford University's Computational Propaganda Project, would seem to indicate, very specifically, that when it comes to fake news, people on the Right are less likely to engage in critical thinking and more likely to "listen and believe". That's not me saying that, it's the study (which you can read here and also learn about their methodology). And that's just the most charitable interpretation. It's also possible that they know the fake news they are sharing is fake, but just don't care.
Another way to read that study is to suggest that one group is looking for the truth more than the other group.
Rather than being told what to think, you may want to sift through more sources and decide for yourself. And then on top of that the inherent assumption that people fully accept everything they are told is false.
This is true, actually. And that kind of skill is to be commended. But it's not the same as critical thinking.
Surely you are not suggesting that only so called educated people engage in critical thinking every day just doing their jobs day in day out? Let alone just navigating life in general.
Yes we get it, 'they judged' so dont think citizen just believe us instead.
I dont care who wrote/said it or what site its on, I only care if its true or not and whether I can determine that for myself.
Yes I admit that over time some sources rise to the top and for convenience I will tend to be preferential because of a history of good results, but each individual thing is still evaluated on that fundamental basis.
I reserve the right to decide for myself and not be told what to think or where to get my information.
Somehow blue collar workers are just less smart than college educated people. Pure nonsense. There are stunningly smart people in all walks of life that didn't go to college or other.
I'll bet its no harder to trick a college person than any other person. Maybe its even easier to put one over on some so called schooled peoples because of built in prejudices like you demonstrate.
There is a gigantic difference between monitoring for performance compared to monitoring content, let alone categorizing content for policing.
Who imposed the requirement for someone providing a service to monitor content for policing? Would that not be counter productive to their service offering, would anyone actively use a service which monitored all content for delivery to be used someone who is not a customer or whatever, let alone some random copyright holder?
Just think of the burden of having to police for 'every' single rights holder of any sort of information/content/whatever. Its ridiculous.
If they dont already they should internally anonymize and or encrypt everything they handle so they can divest themselves of any liability or future nonsense.
Now that would be hilarious, even if just to watch the mental gymnastics.
I wonder if that could become some kind of national event, see which people have the most amazing mental backflips, we may need to train up some judges to score it.
Yep, a welcoming inclusive environment that excludes some people, heard 'you' the first time. Meanwhile the memo continues to be misconstrued in part or its entirety as necessary.
And in all those cases there are already layers of reprieve, Antitrust action, FCC itself, Justice Dept, and innovation of course, and probably other things including using another service.
Its a rule change, the 1934 title II rules don't seem to apply very well, and what exactly was so broken for the remainder of the years the internet has been around?
And the answer is not much but that set of rules appeared to have significantly deterred investment in upgraded internet infrastructure since it was enabled. Which was predicted and expected. Price controls almost always deter investment and drive away competition.
In a previous thread I asked, how does a public blockchain die? More exactly what are the 'death throes' as one reduces in popularity?
For people, what happens when a blockchain falls in popularity because 'all' the fools have moved on to the next big 'coin', and there is no reason to keep using this particular token because it has already failed as a currency due to ridiculous transaction fees and times?
When a blockchain has all of its arbitrarily predetermined tokens mined, what keeps the miners from moving on to the next big 'coin'? Well heck for that matter when the rate of newly mined tokens falls below some rate or if its even getting close to the end of the number of tokens would some already start to migrate?
Lots of other possibilities, this is just what I was thinking about for 5 minutes.
Not what proceeds it or how the fools will move on to the next SuperDuperMoGoodererCoin, those things are probably not easily predictable as there is an infinite number of 'coins'.
But what are the death throes?
After a blockchain has reached a certain size, does the time per transaction go up significantly if the total number of nodes and or compute rate drops below some threshold of the whole? Do most or all blockchains require a churn rate of compute time just to stay active? When all the 'coins' in any particular popular public blockchain are mined, what is the expectation that all the miners wont immediately move on to the next popular blockchain to ride that wave of perceived value? Once the compute rate drops because 'everyone' has moved on to the next SuperDuperMoGoodererCoin, is a 51% attack trivial on a somewhat stagnant pool of coins?
And probably lots of other questions along the same lines but thats what I could come up with in 5 minutes.
Even if we pretend its impossible for a 51% attack (and I dont believe this, I expect it to happen at some certain thresholds of value where the hardware is cheap enough compared to the perceived value of the coins), attacks could be made on the nodes or consensus or who knows what.
As the perceived value rises, who knows what lengths people or groups will go to attack the network, especially since its supposedly untraceable.
Then I also would find it interesting if all this perceived value is believed, how does a public blockchain die? Is there some need for a critical mass of computers to maintain a 'live' blockchain, and what happens when it falls below that number because people have moved on to SuperDuperMoGoodererCoin?
I know exactly what bitcoin is, a greater fool bubble.
It has been interesting to notice though that every time I see someone say 'you really dont understand bitcoin', or whatever variation of the same, I dont recall ever seeing a description of whatever the person was supposed to be missing or not understanding. Just a blanket 'you dont get it', almost as if there is some kind of true believer faith requirement for bitcoin.
See that idea sounds interesting, it would create a one time record of voting, but that will never fly as for some reason there are people who dont like requiring some kind of proof of ID (or private key) to vote.
"For example in MultiChain, they introduce a permission based mining (not mandatory) and a round-robin style, where a certain miner can mine limited number of blocks. This means different miners will be mining the blocks. Additionally, most private blockchains do not use the concept of "mining" at all - they have KNOWN identities, who will create the block and KNOWN identities, who will confirm that the block is indeed valid."
So you can have known entities only on a round robin style system so no one would be able to mount an attack that way.
But I still dont see the point compared to a database.
Is there a version of a blockchain tech that doesn't have the 51% vulnerability? If not imagine having property sold 2 times because someone was able to attain 51% of the public compute rate, or as I understand it the block history can be rewritten as well.
OR were you suggesting a private compute network of some kind, in which case why not use a database?
I was doing some research and some companies are trying to make it work as an inventory tracker.
Every time I see the tech in practice, it seems to be easily replaceable by a secure database, which appears to have all the features of blockchain except the supposed anonymity, and a secure database doesn't have problems like a 51% attack, nor the ridiculous time per transaction or cost per transaction problems.
Seems like blockchain so far is workable as a very expensive type of unregulated gambling.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
The left has always had a more slippery slope towards authoritarian, fascist, totalitarian rule since they are imposing it all for our own good.
Yes thats exactly what I am saying, there is a reason to allow baseless insults.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." H. L. Mencken
And you are absolutely correct, I dont use facebook, twitter or any of those services because I like my privacy and have an aversion to groupthink.
Slashdot Mirror
Which three? Remember, the sites had to meet ALL of the criteria in order to qualify for the seed group.
Except that's not what they did at all. Your still arguing from what you want the study say rather than what the study says. You are a good example of the study's findings.
Its right there in the section you posted:
"For a source to be labeled as junk news it must fall in at least three of the following five domains:"
But whatever, I expect it would be trivial to put CNN or other media companies in that subjective basket one way or another.
Its nonsense.
CNN amongst others would fall into 3 of those categories easily. The point of my post was to show that they started with a 'known' list of sites, and not ALL sites with an objective standard.
Its garbage.
It's not about education. It's about political orientation. This peer-reviewed article from Oxford University's Computational Propaganda Project, would seem to indicate, very specifically, that when it comes to fake news, people on the Right are less likely to engage in critical thinking and more likely to "listen and believe". That's not me saying that, it's the study (which you can read here and also learn about their methodology). And that's just the most charitable interpretation. It's also possible that they know the fake news they are sharing is fake, but just don't care.
http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/re...
"For this study, a seed of known propaganda websites across the political spectrum was used"
Start with a bias end with a bias.
Another way to read that study is to suggest that one group is looking for the truth more than the other group.
Rather than being told what to think, you may want to sift through more sources and decide for yourself. And then on top of that the inherent assumption that people fully accept everything they are told is false.
This is true, actually. And that kind of skill is to be commended. But it's not the same as critical thinking.
Surely you are not suggesting that only so called educated people engage in critical thinking every day just doing their jobs day in day out? Let alone just navigating life in general.
I think that would be a silly thing to say.
Yes we get it, 'they judged' so dont think citizen just believe us instead.
I dont care who wrote/said it or what site its on, I only care if its true or not and whether I can determine that for myself.
Yes I admit that over time some sources rise to the top and for convenience I will tend to be preferential because of a history of good results, but each individual thing is still evaluated on that fundamental basis.
I reserve the right to decide for myself and not be told what to think or where to get my information.
What a stunning load of horseshit that is.
Somehow blue collar workers are just less smart than college educated people. Pure nonsense. There are stunningly smart people in all walks of life that didn't go to college or other.
I'll bet its no harder to trick a college person than any other person. Maybe its even easier to put one over on some so called schooled peoples because of built in prejudices like you demonstrate.
What arrogance.
There is a gigantic difference between monitoring for performance compared to monitoring content, let alone categorizing content for policing.
Who imposed the requirement for someone providing a service to monitor content for policing? Would that not be counter productive to their service offering, would anyone actively use a service which monitored all content for delivery to be used someone who is not a customer or whatever, let alone some random copyright holder?
Just think of the burden of having to police for 'every' single rights holder of any sort of information/content/whatever. Its ridiculous.
If they dont already they should internally anonymize and or encrypt everything they handle so they can divest themselves of any liability or future nonsense.
Thanks for the link, its 160 pages or so, have read most of it now. Hopefully we get some lawyerly opinions on it at some point.
Now that would be hilarious, even if just to watch the mental gymnastics.
I wonder if that could become some kind of national event, see which people have the most amazing mental backflips, we may need to train up some judges to score it.
Yep, a welcoming inclusive environment that excludes some people, heard 'you' the first time. Meanwhile the memo continues to be misconstrued in part or its entirety as necessary.
And in all those cases there are already layers of reprieve, Antitrust action, FCC itself, Justice Dept, and innovation of course, and probably other things including using another service.
I was telling a friend exactly this recently.
Its a rule change, the 1934 title II rules don't seem to apply very well, and what exactly was so broken for the remainder of the years the internet has been around?
And the answer is not much but that set of rules appeared to have significantly deterred investment in upgraded internet infrastructure since it was enabled. Which was predicted and expected. Price controls almost always deter investment and drive away competition.
In a previous thread I asked, how does a public blockchain die? More exactly what are the 'death throes' as one reduces in popularity?
For people, what happens when a blockchain falls in popularity because 'all' the fools have moved on to the next big 'coin', and there is no reason to keep using this particular token because it has already failed as a currency due to ridiculous transaction fees and times?
When a blockchain has all of its arbitrarily predetermined tokens mined, what keeps the miners from moving on to the next big 'coin'? Well heck for that matter when the rate of newly mined tokens falls below some rate or if its even getting close to the end of the number of tokens would some already start to migrate?
Lots of other possibilities, this is just what I was thinking about for 5 minutes.
Whether intentional or not, because of its unregulated nature, all crypto currencies are some hybrid of an MLM/Ponzi/Pyramid scam.
The most charitable view of them at this time is an unregulated form of gambling, with near zero risk possibly actually zero risk for the house.
Nothing was made.
Some gambled and won, most will lose.
Not what proceeds it or how the fools will move on to the next SuperDuperMoGoodererCoin, those things are probably not easily predictable as there is an infinite number of 'coins'.
But what are the death throes?
After a blockchain has reached a certain size, does the time per transaction go up significantly if the total number of nodes and or compute rate drops below some threshold of the whole?
Do most or all blockchains require a churn rate of compute time just to stay active?
When all the 'coins' in any particular popular public blockchain are mined, what is the expectation that all the miners wont immediately move on to the next popular blockchain to ride that wave of perceived value?
Once the compute rate drops because 'everyone' has moved on to the next SuperDuperMoGoodererCoin, is a 51% attack trivial on a somewhat stagnant pool of coins?
And probably lots of other questions along the same lines but thats what I could come up with in 5 minutes.
Even if we pretend its impossible for a 51% attack (and I dont believe this, I expect it to happen at some certain thresholds of value where the hardware is cheap enough compared to the perceived value of the coins), attacks could be made on the nodes or consensus or who knows what.
As the perceived value rises, who knows what lengths people or groups will go to attack the network, especially since its supposedly untraceable.
Then I also would find it interesting if all this perceived value is believed, how does a public blockchain die? Is there some need for a critical mass of computers to maintain a 'live' blockchain, and what happens when it falls below that number because people have moved on to SuperDuperMoGoodererCoin?
I know exactly what bitcoin is, a greater fool bubble.
It has been interesting to notice though that every time I see someone say 'you really dont understand bitcoin', or whatever variation of the same, I dont recall ever seeing a description of whatever the person was supposed to be missing or not understanding. Just a blanket 'you dont get it', almost as if there is some kind of true believer faith requirement for bitcoin.
See that idea sounds interesting, it would create a one time record of voting, but that will never fly as for some reason there are people who dont like requiring some kind of proof of ID (or private key) to vote.
I found it from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Block...
"For example in MultiChain, they introduce a permission based mining (not mandatory) and a round-robin style, where a certain miner can mine limited number of blocks. This means different miners will be mining the blocks. Additionally, most private blockchains do not use the concept of "mining" at all - they have KNOWN identities, who will create the block and KNOWN identities, who will confirm that the block is indeed valid."
So you can have known entities only on a round robin style system so no one would be able to mount an attack that way.
But I still dont see the point compared to a database.
Is there a version of a blockchain tech that doesn't have the 51% vulnerability? If not imagine having property sold 2 times because someone was able to attain 51% of the public compute rate, or as I understand it the block history can be rewritten as well.
OR were you suggesting a private compute network of some kind, in which case why not use a database?
As a currency its a complete failure so far.
I was doing some research and some companies are trying to make it work as an inventory tracker.
Every time I see the tech in practice, it seems to be easily replaceable by a secure database, which appears to have all the features of blockchain except the supposed anonymity, and a secure database doesn't have problems like a 51% attack, nor the ridiculous time per transaction or cost per transaction problems.
Seems like blockchain so far is workable as a very expensive type of unregulated gambling.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
The left has always had a more slippery slope towards authoritarian, fascist, totalitarian rule since they are imposing it all for our own good.
Yes thats exactly what I am saying, there is a reason to allow baseless insults.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
H. L. Mencken
And you are absolutely correct, I dont use facebook, twitter or any of those services because I like my privacy and have an aversion to groupthink.