4 ms·

He has some insights, but also injects a lot of naive and grating political signaling into analysis, which makes him sometimes hard to take seriously.

• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• jbreckmckye 9y ago
  I have never read _The Four_, but stopped by to make a quick complaint: can we please retire the verb "signalling" in political discourse? As far as I can tell all "political signalling" means is "I cannot believe what you profess to believe, therefore I assume that you profess it merely to be trendy".
  • ghostcluster 9y ago
    When talking about Facebook earlier this month, he posed this question: "If a firm wittingly or unwittingly becomes weaponized by Russian intelligence, isn't the responsible thing to do to shut the firm down?" That is the kind of eye-rollingly partisan political "signalling" I'm talking about. If he thinks $100,000 of Russia linked ad-spend on Facebook flipped the votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, and Florida, and thus we should consider shutting Facebook down for this reason, I really can't take his analysis that seriously.
    • jbreckmckye 9y ago
      That is not signalling. Signalling is making a political statement for a social benefit. There is no particular indication of that here.
  • fwn 9y ago
    It is a well known, meaningful concept. If you spot someone using it the wrong way, just correct this specific person. If we trash every concept someone does not understand, we are cavemen by afternoon.