The semi-official news institutions you mention do still have comment sections. However they are heavily censored. Dissident comments are quickly and silently purged.
So basically in their methodology, the effluence of semi-official propaganda organs is described as "real news"; and dissenting views are labeled "fake news".
No surprise that "real news" propaganda is popular mainly with apologists for and beneficiaries of the Financialist regime.
Yup my brother, we programmers have been proletarianized. We're blue collar factory workers now. It's time we got over our bourgeois pretensions and started facing reality.
Join the Software Workers Union. One big union for the whole industry. When we strike we'll shut down the Internet. Solidarity forever.
Oxford is the epitome of upper class Establishment. Where you put them on the idiotically bogus "left / right" divide is irrelevant.
It should come as no surprise that a bunch of upper class that's and their sycophants published an anti-populist screed. Nor should it surprise that they gussied up their work of cheap propaganda and called it "science".
I, too, thought that listening to NPR and reading the New York Times made me smarter and more sophisticated than all those dumb country bumpkins. When I was 17 years old. Then I grew the fuck up.
And what does FB say when someone says they want to advertise their shoes nationwide? "Sorry, we can't accept your ad because Seattle doesn't allow shoe ads." Ok, can I advertise suspenders? "Nope, Kansas City has laws against suspender ads."
You're looking at this like someone is always going to target their ads at a specific city. They aren't. In fact, if someone knows their ad is banned in that city and they want to get the message through anyway, they'll just not say it is targeted at that city. (I gave an example in another post already.) And FB isn't going to know that the user is in any specific city, so they can't stop users from seeing ads based on their location.
It is harder than you think it is. That's why you think I'm making it harder than it has to be.
Let's roll back for a minute. The actual issue in Seattle now is disclosure about campaign advertisement spending. So we're both kind of barking up the wrong tree talking about banning ads.
Anyways, this is a pretty narrow class of advertisements. I think from television there is quite a bit of existing law about how to tell what is and is not a campaign ad subject to the disclosure laws.
Just because FB is a nationwide company headquartered out of state, should it be exempt from campaign finance disclosure laws? If someone buys a bunch of "Elect Ike Eisenhower for Major!" billboard ads from Clear Channel, should Clear Channel also be exempt from the local law because it is headquartered out of state?
Extending already established campaign finance disclosure laws to online advertising is a narrower issue than allowing local laws to block what products may be sold or what content may be published. Its maximal failure mode is not that bad - tons and tons of campaign finance disclosure with potentially burdensome administrative overhead.
One might argue a Federal-level uniform set of campaign finance disclosure laws for online advertising would be a better way to go. Certainly it would ease the administrative burden on big national companies. However on the issue of campaign transparency I suspect many local laws are going to be better and more in the public interest than any Federal law we might realistically expect.
You're making this *way* harder than it needs to be. FB is an advertising company. They sell advertising products that are targeted to specific cities. A customer says to FB something along the lines of, "doodz, I wanna like sell shoes to people in like Seattle, hook me up!" And Facebook can reply, "Sorry sir, local laws in the city of Seattle prohibit us from selling advertisements targeted to that city. Maybe you would like to buy an ad for Portland instead?"
No need for absolute certainty about a user's location. The issue is the product they are offering for sale, not the precision of IP-based geolocation.
Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Trump trolls sure do have a lot of pent-up homosexual feelings.
Sure. Anyone who still believes in the Repuglican or Demonrat faces of the Financialist Party is a little bit daft. Your point?
Featuring obscure Slavic slang in you replies does little to enhance your credibility, Sasha. How's the weather in Kiev today?
I know a LOT of people who recognize that CNN is all lies all the time. But I know NO ONE who thinks Fox News is a reliable information source.
Maybe you could try a different sophism next time? This particular false dichotomy doesn't seem to be fooling anyone.
The semi-official news institutions you mention do still have comment sections. However they are heavily censored. Dissident comments are quickly and silently purged.
If you don't like Izvestia, maybe try Pravda instead?
But MUH FACTS!!!!1!!2!!
Stalin's Red Army literally killed a couple million real live fascists.
So basically in their methodology, the effluence of semi-official propaganda organs is described as "real news"; and dissenting views are labeled "fake news".
No surprise that "real news" propaganda is popular mainly with apologists for and beneficiaries of the Financialist regime.
How have you managed to travel the world, and yet remain so ignorant?
Yup my brother, we programmers have been proletarianized. We're blue collar factory workers now. It's time we got over our bourgeois pretensions and started facing reality.
Join the Software Workers Union. One big union for the whole industry. When we strike we'll shut down the Internet. Solidarity forever.
Fake-progressive Hillaryists sure do hate organized labor.
Ukrainian trolls sure are gay.
Oxford is the epitome of upper class Establishment. Where you put them on the idiotically bogus "left / right" divide is irrelevant.
It should come as no surprise that a bunch of upper class that's and their sycophants published an anti-populist screed. Nor should it surprise that they gussied up their work of cheap propaganda and called it "science".
Lay off the Kool Aid, broham.
Hillaryists sure do hate the thought of hardworking country folk having decent employment.
I, too, thought that listening to NPR and reading the New York Times made me smarter and more sophisticated than all those dumb country bumpkins. When I was 17 years old. Then I grew the fuck up.
Please consider doing the same.
On-site storage of spent nuclear fuel is dementedly risky.
Chuck Norris will not let that happen.
It's going to be a yuuuuuuuge reactor - really big!
You don't have to be a climate change alarmist to realize that reducing pollution is a damned good idea.
Lay off the crack, bro.
And what does FB say when someone says they want to advertise their shoes nationwide? "Sorry, we can't accept your ad because Seattle doesn't allow shoe ads." Ok, can I advertise suspenders? "Nope, Kansas City has laws against suspender ads."
You're looking at this like someone is always going to target their ads at a specific city. They aren't. In fact, if someone knows their ad is banned in that city and they want to get the message through anyway, they'll just not say it is targeted at that city. (I gave an example in another post already.) And FB isn't going to know that the user is in any specific city, so they can't stop users from seeing ads based on their location.
It is harder than you think it is. That's why you think I'm making it harder than it has to be.
Let's roll back for a minute. The actual issue in Seattle now is disclosure about campaign advertisement spending. So we're both kind of barking up the wrong tree talking about banning ads.
Anyways, this is a pretty narrow class of advertisements. I think from television there is quite a bit of existing law about how to tell what is and is not a campaign ad subject to the disclosure laws.
Just because FB is a nationwide company headquartered out of state, should it be exempt from campaign finance disclosure laws? If someone buys a bunch of "Elect Ike Eisenhower for Major!" billboard ads from Clear Channel, should Clear Channel also be exempt from the local law because it is headquartered out of state?
Extending already established campaign finance disclosure laws to online advertising is a narrower issue than allowing local laws to block what products may be sold or what content may be published. Its maximal failure mode is not that bad - tons and tons of campaign finance disclosure with potentially burdensome administrative overhead.
One might argue a Federal-level uniform set of campaign finance disclosure laws for online advertising would be a better way to go. Certainly it would ease the administrative burden on big national companies. However on the issue of campaign transparency I suspect many local laws are going to be better and more in the public interest than any Federal law we might realistically expect.
You're making this *way* harder than it needs to be. FB is an advertising company. They sell advertising products that are targeted to specific cities. A customer says to FB something along the lines of, "doodz, I wanna like sell shoes to people in like Seattle, hook me up!" And Facebook can reply, "Sorry sir, local laws in the city of Seattle prohibit us from selling advertisements targeted to that city. Maybe you would like to buy an ad for Portland instead?"
No need for absolute certainty about a user's location. The issue is the product they are offering for sale, not the precision of IP-based geolocation.
Rule of lawyers is worth nothing, unless you're a lawyer.