3 ms·

I honestly think you're missing the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter the actual reason massive, subtle opinion changes occur. Maybe it's the Russians. M

I honestly think you're missing the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter the actual reason massive, subtle opinion changes occur. Maybe it's the Russians. Maybe it's a liberal cabal. Maybe, as I suspect, most of SV doesn't know what the hell they're doing and are just faking it the best they can while they make bank. There is some effect occurring. Most reasonable commentators agree on that. Once that's settled, then there are a bunch of follow-on questions: how large is it? How do we measure it? And so forth. This video, assuming the worst slander you have is true, is an example of an answer to the following question: how are the existing political power structures perceiving this new effect? That, in my mind, is as interesting as any of the rest of it. More so, actually, since the perception of damage is a much bigger thing in most cases than the damage itself. This is going to get political, and in a hurry. I don't care which bunch of political assholes are carrying the flag towards fixing it, but I want to know how they perceive the problems involved and what they might do to fix things if given the chance. This is too important to choose up teams and play the usual stupid partisan games.

creato 8y ago
Sorry, I don't buy it. If you (or the authors of this piece) want to have a conversation about data harvesting, do that. Subtly entwining that with conservative conspiracy theories isn't just an innocuous side thread of the conversation. This is clearly an attempt to hijack the conversation about data harvesting to amplify their totally unrelated message about supposed suppression of conservative speech. This is a case of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' going horribly wrong.
- DanielBMarkham 8y ago
  I'll try again. And that's it. You are concerned that this piece is wrong/misleading. Ok. Great. Another person wrong on the internet. Now, from a meta level, can you accept that the public discussion about data harvesting, like everything else is going to be politicized? And would you rather understand and engage people of all political persuasions by following their arguments, or are you happy just being in teams? I like understanding both sides, seeing where they are going. That way I can have reasonable conversations with them. Innocuous has nothing to do with anything. In fact, I'd argue that it's not innocuous. It's important. That's why we need to understand it. You realize, of course, that both sides look equally nutty to the other, right? I'm watching it rain and friends of both political parties spin up the most fantastical explanations for why it's raining. I find that fascinating. I also need to talk to them about coming the hell in out of the rain, so I choose to understand first, then be understood. Nobody's trying to soft-pedal anything. There's no whitewashing here. The perception is the reality. That's the way humans work. The causal, pseudo-scientific part of things? Different conversation entirely. Stop mixing them up.
  - creato 8y ago
    You are basically regurgitating a bunch of points that apply more to what you are saying than what I am saying. When you align yourself (presumably concerned about data harvesting) with people that think facebook/google are suppressing conservative speech, who is it that is just happy being in teams? > You are concerned that this piece is wrong/misleading. No, my concern is that by hitching the data harvesting wagon to the Tucker Carlson/Fox News clown show, you will be politicizing an issue that should be apolitical.
  - vatueil 8y ago
    Listening to different political viewpoints can be good. I make sure to do so myself on many occasions. However, the criticisms regarding this film raised in other comments and linked articles appear to be valid. It concerns me that you have repeatedly dismissed these objections as "slander", even before watching the film according to your own words. You don't have to agree with someone's politics to work together on common ground, of course. And a film with a message may be worth watching even or especially if it challenges your views. But the film's agenda cannot be concealed. The Verge article, for example, made no bones about its political views but also raised factual concerns about the film. It is also a fact, as others have pointed out, that the writer and director of this film, M.A. Taylor, also worked on political films such as Hype: The Obama Effect (which detailed "various questions about Barack Obama's past") and co-directed Clinton Cash along with former Brietbart chairman Steve Bannon: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3379741/ https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3379741/

creato 8y ago

Sorry, I don't buy it. If you (or the authors of this piece) want to have a conversation about data harvesting, do that. Subtly entwining that with conservative conspiracy theories isn't just an innocuous side thread of the conversation. This is clearly an attempt to hijack the conversation about data harvesting to amplify their totally unrelated message about supposed suppression of conservative speech. This is a case of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' going horribly wrong.

DanielBMarkham 8y ago
I'll try again. And that's it. You are concerned that this piece is wrong/misleading. Ok. Great. Another person wrong on the internet. Now, from a meta level, can you accept that the public discussion about data harvesting, like everything else is going to be politicized? And would you rather understand and engage people of all political persuasions by following their arguments, or are you happy just being in teams? I like understanding both sides, seeing where they are going. That way I can have reasonable conversations with them. Innocuous has nothing to do with anything. In fact, I'd argue that it's not innocuous. It's important. That's why we need to understand it. You realize, of course, that both sides look equally nutty to the other, right? I'm watching it rain and friends of both political parties spin up the most fantastical explanations for why it's raining. I find that fascinating. I also need to talk to them about coming the hell in out of the rain, so I choose to understand first, then be understood. Nobody's trying to soft-pedal anything. There's no whitewashing here. The perception is the reality. That's the way humans work. The causal, pseudo-scientific part of things? Different conversation entirely. Stop mixing them up.
- creato 8y ago
  You are basically regurgitating a bunch of points that apply more to what you are saying than what I am saying. When you align yourself (presumably concerned about data harvesting) with people that think facebook/google are suppressing conservative speech, who is it that is just happy being in teams? > You are concerned that this piece is wrong/misleading. No, my concern is that by hitching the data harvesting wagon to the Tucker Carlson/Fox News clown show, you will be politicizing an issue that should be apolitical.
- vatueil 8y ago
  Listening to different political viewpoints can be good. I make sure to do so myself on many occasions. However, the criticisms regarding this film raised in other comments and linked articles appear to be valid. It concerns me that you have repeatedly dismissed these objections as "slander", even before watching the film according to your own words. You don't have to agree with someone's politics to work together on common ground, of course. And a film with a message may be worth watching even or especially if it challenges your views. But the film's agenda cannot be concealed. The Verge article, for example, made no bones about its political views but also raised factual concerns about the film. It is also a fact, as others have pointed out, that the writer and director of this film, M.A. Taylor, also worked on political films such as Hype: The Obama Effect (which detailed "various questions about Barack Obama's past") and co-directed Clinton Cash along with former Brietbart chairman Steve Bannon: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3379741/ https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3379741/