3 ms·

There were a lot of humor pictures on reddit about this. Things like "you can see X for the first time since Y". I'm suspecting it could be an astroturfing eff

by jokoon 6y ago

There were a lot of humor pictures on reddit about this. Things like "you can see X for the first time since Y". I'm suspecting it could be an astroturfing effort by the fossil fuels lobby, to try to discredit the real pictures. I guess I'm paranoid, but at least it shows I have little faith in the internet.

dijit 6y ago
Honestly, the amount that public discourse can be swayed by "meme makers" and other such things has left me very disillusioned. No doubt there are people who either have a marginal vested interest in denying this ("I love my truck/status quo/flights") and also normal people who are typically contrarian. -- these people can be easily swayed by people who have a financial investment in keeping things fossil friendly. I saw a video from Vox recently[0] where they have some people from 'knowyourmeme' making memes for the US democratic representative debates, it was eye opening. When you think of Memes you think of grassroots folks, people who just sit in their living room and think of something funny, make a low effort pop culture reference and then continue living their lives. You _don't_ imagine people sitting in boardrooms thinking up the best comedic caption that simultaneously promotes brands or ideas.. the concept feels absurd, yet, it happens. Now I'm completely jaded; I am immediately distrustful of comments or memes containing even subjects I agree with, I still have some form of trust in ordinary media because at least it's not as anonymous. [0]: https://www.vox.com/2019/11/1/20942599/glad-you-asked-episode-4-memes https://www.vox.com/2019/11/1/20942599/glad-you-asked-episod...
- dntbnmpls 6y ago
  Vox is hardly a reliable source. It's as trustworthy as the memes that you fear.
  - dijit 6y ago
    Citation please. Vox media has a left bias but is mostly factual[0]. And, like I said, at least their identity is tied to their statements, so if something is false it has the possibility of being called out, and you notice when they spew a lot of content with the same idea. You can't do a media bias fact check with memes. [0]: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/
    - dntbnmpls 6y ago
      > Citation please. "Vox media has a left bias...". > And, like I said, at least their identity is tied to their statements Right. So you know that they are not reliable and untrustworthy. > You can't do a media bias fact check with memes. Sure you can. Just like you can for any media. > [0]: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/ Mediabiasfactcheck, snope, etc are even more untrustworthy than vox. This is the circular joke that the media is. Since nobody trusts them, they create "fact checkers" to create an illusion of objectivity. They'd be better off creating another award named after a fake news king like Pulitzer. Let me guess you think foxnews is the bastion of truth?
      - dijit 6y ago
        I think you're proving my point here a little bit. Fox News have an identity tied to their media output, therefore if they consistently put out bad faith or incorrect representations of information then they will be identified and mentally blacklisted. Fox News in particular has a wikipedia page dedicated to it[0] The idea that "Snopes and media fact check are biased and inaccurate" is bordering on the insane. If you can't trust the media _and_ you can't trust the people who keep an eye on the media, who can you trust? Deplatforming all media sources and those that seek to keep them in check just leaves you vulnerable to people who do not identify themselves feeding you biased information. I don't trust myself, I can apply some amount of critical thinking to new information as it is presented but I can't be everywhere at once nor can I be an expert on all things. If you depose all your information sources you will be left with information coming from unofficial sources, and that is not better because "unofficial" generally just means "unaccountable". [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies
        dntbnmpls 6y ago
        > Fox News have an identity tied to their media output, therefore if they consistently put out bad faith or incorrect representations of information then they will be identified and mentally blacklisted. Just like vox. > Fox News in particular has a wikipedia page dedicated to it[0] Right and you can write a wiki article for vox and every other media outlet as well. > The idea that "Snopes and media fact check are biased and inaccurate" is bordering on the insane. No. You are right. They are unbiased. There are also, right-leaning fact checkers as well. Are they unbiased? > If you can't trust the media _and_ you can't trust the people who keep an eye on the media, who can you trust? Yourself. That's it and your ability to reason. Your ability to see vox, foxnews, nytimes, wapo, cnn, etc as propaganda sites and decipher the propaganda as best as you can. > Deplatforming all media sources and those that seek to keep them in check just leaves you vulnerable to people who do not identify themselves feeding you biased information. Your vox mentality is showing. Who is talking about deplatforming anyone? I'm pro-free speech and pro-free press. I don't want anyone deplatformed or censored. Oddly, the biggest champions of deplatforming are vox, cnn and most likely your favorite "news" sources. > I don't trust myself, I can apply some amount of critical thinking to new information as it is presented but I can't be everywhere at once nor can I be an expert on all things. Nobody at vox is an expert at anything. That much you can be absolutely sure about. > If you depose all your information sources you will be left with information coming from unofficial sources, and that is not better because "unofficial" generally just means "unaccountable". Actually, the authoritative/official sources are unaccountable as they have all the power. The "official" sources have started wars with their lies and led to millions of innocent people's deaths. Do they get held accountable? No, they get shifted to other "authoritative/official" sources like pedophiles priests get shifted to other diocese. It's amazing how oblivious you are. You do realize that fox news is an "authoritative/official" source.

by jokoon 6y ago

dijit 6y ago

Honestly, the amount that public discourse can be swayed by "meme makers" and other such things has left me very disillusioned. No doubt there are people who either have a marginal vested interest in denying this ("I love my truck/status quo/flights") and also normal people who are typically contrarian. -- these people can be easily swayed by people who have a financial investment in keeping things fossil friendly. I saw a video from Vox recently[0] where they have some people from 'knowyourmeme' making memes for the US democratic representative debates, it was eye opening. When you think of Memes you think of grassroots folks, people who just sit in their living room and think of something funny, make a low effort pop culture reference and then continue living their lives. You _don't_ imagine people sitting in boardrooms thinking up the best comedic caption that simultaneously promotes brands or ideas.. the concept feels absurd, yet, it happens. Now I'm completely jaded; I am immediately distrustful of comments or memes containing even subjects I agree with, I still have some form of trust in ordinary media because at least it's not as anonymous. [0]: https://www.vox.com/2019/11/1/20942599/glad-you-asked-episode-4-memes https://www.vox.com/2019/11/1/20942599/glad-you-asked-episod...

dntbnmpls 6y ago
Vox is hardly a reliable source. It's as trustworthy as the memes that you fear.
- dijit 6y ago
  Citation please. Vox media has a left bias but is mostly factual[0]. And, like I said, at least their identity is tied to their statements, so if something is false it has the possibility of being called out, and you notice when they spew a lot of content with the same idea. You can't do a media bias fact check with memes. [0]: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/
  - dntbnmpls 6y ago
    > Citation please. "Vox media has a left bias...". > And, like I said, at least their identity is tied to their statements Right. So you know that they are not reliable and untrustworthy. > You can't do a media bias fact check with memes. Sure you can. Just like you can for any media. > [0]: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/ Mediabiasfactcheck, snope, etc are even more untrustworthy than vox. This is the circular joke that the media is. Since nobody trusts them, they create "fact checkers" to create an illusion of objectivity. They'd be better off creating another award named after a fake news king like Pulitzer. Let me guess you think foxnews is the bastion of truth?
    - dijit 6y ago
      I think you're proving my point here a little bit. Fox News have an identity tied to their media output, therefore if they consistently put out bad faith or incorrect representations of information then they will be identified and mentally blacklisted. Fox News in particular has a wikipedia page dedicated to it[0] The idea that "Snopes and media fact check are biased and inaccurate" is bordering on the insane. If you can't trust the media _and_ you can't trust the people who keep an eye on the media, who can you trust? Deplatforming all media sources and those that seek to keep them in check just leaves you vulnerable to people who do not identify themselves feeding you biased information. I don't trust myself, I can apply some amount of critical thinking to new information as it is presented but I can't be everywhere at once nor can I be an expert on all things. If you depose all your information sources you will be left with information coming from unofficial sources, and that is not better because "unofficial" generally just means "unaccountable". [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies
      - dntbnmpls 6y ago
        > Fox News have an identity tied to their media output, therefore if they consistently put out bad faith or incorrect representations of information then they will be identified and mentally blacklisted. Just like vox. > Fox News in particular has a wikipedia page dedicated to it[0] Right and you can write a wiki article for vox and every other media outlet as well. > The idea that "Snopes and media fact check are biased and inaccurate" is bordering on the insane. No. You are right. They are unbiased. There are also, right-leaning fact checkers as well. Are they unbiased? > If you can't trust the media _and_ you can't trust the people who keep an eye on the media, who can you trust? Yourself. That's it and your ability to reason. Your ability to see vox, foxnews, nytimes, wapo, cnn, etc as propaganda sites and decipher the propaganda as best as you can. > Deplatforming all media sources and those that seek to keep them in check just leaves you vulnerable to people who do not identify themselves feeding you biased information. Your vox mentality is showing. Who is talking about deplatforming anyone? I'm pro-free speech and pro-free press. I don't want anyone deplatformed or censored. Oddly, the biggest champions of deplatforming are vox, cnn and most likely your favorite "news" sources. > I don't trust myself, I can apply some amount of critical thinking to new information as it is presented but I can't be everywhere at once nor can I be an expert on all things. Nobody at vox is an expert at anything. That much you can be absolutely sure about. > If you depose all your information sources you will be left with information coming from unofficial sources, and that is not better because "unofficial" generally just means "unaccountable". Actually, the authoritative/official sources are unaccountable as they have all the power. The "official" sources have started wars with their lies and led to millions of innocent people's deaths. Do they get held accountable? No, they get shifted to other "authoritative/official" sources like pedophiles priests get shifted to other diocese. It's amazing how oblivious you are. You do realize that fox news is an "authoritative/official" source.