4 ms·
I suppose that's a variation of Hanlon's razor, but this isn't a rule of thumb situation. They are winning at gaming the biggest source of information, which sh
by some1else 9y ago
I suppose that's a variation of Hanlon's razor, but this isn't a rule of thumb situation. They are winning at gaming the biggest source of information, which shouldn't be hapenning regardless of their motivations.
- korrachs 9y agoWho is "they"? The people who own the top slots of the news today aren't the ones who did 6 months ago. The sites I was running are making less than $20 a month, at their best they were making $500 a day (lasted all of one week during the primaries) and even then I make more at my day job. I'll never do it again because I have better options, but it was an education to see my bullshit stories picked up by top shelf news organizations. How do you propose to stop people like me from taking over the news? Rely on someone like Murdoch to keep us safe from fake news? Have an official news network from the US government that only publishes verified news? One from Google? Facebook? Comcast? Let the bullshit bubble and froth, it's sound and fury signifying nothing. Any cure I've ever herd put forward is worse than the disease.
- some1else 9y agoYour points are valid, but I'm not sure about the strategy. It would definitely make sense for left wing adversaries to use the same techniques, ending in total media pollution. Even if that helps everyone distinguish fact from spin, Google's mission would inevitably have to shift towards estimating the credibility of such organized mis-information.