7 ms·

> the NYT isn't highly likely to publish things that source to Russian propaganda ops, The people who lied us into Iraq?

shadowgovt 6y ago
Yes, those people. As I said, they get tripped from time-to-time, but they modify their process when it happens. In that case, they had multiple intelligence agency sources feeding them the same bad data, so their cross-checks failed. They've down-sampled the reliability of those sources in subsequent years.
- rmrfstar 6y ago
  Everything about your response screams "naivete". The NYTimes role in society is packaging official narratives for mass consumption. Their MO is mindlessly repeating whatever the IC tells them. This is not a new concept [1]. [1] https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/orwells-proposed-introduction-to-animal-farm https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/orwells-proposed-introduc...
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    How are alternatives working out? Because we're watching people worry so much about an Orwellian future that they're running headlong into a Stephensonian future.
    - rmrfstar 6y ago
      The difference between Orwell and Stephenson is that Orwell spent time as a police officer in Burma, and a solider in Spain. Stephenson does not understand the corrupting influence of power the way Orwell does. And the alternatives are fantastic, for those who chose to use them intelligently.
      - shadowgovt 6y ago
        If we're going to require intelligence for the whole system to succeed, we're setting ourselves up for failure. Half of everyone is below average. > The difference between Orwell and Stephenson is that Orwell spent time as a police officer in Burma, and a solider in Spain. Stephenson does not understand the corrupting influence of power... So you're saying Orwell has practical experience, such that one should weigh his musings on the subject more highly, while Stephenson is some rando expositing from a place he doesn't understand? Fascinating. What happens if a bunch of people just disagree with your argumentum ab auctoritate and accept Stephenson's musings anyway? That would result in a bad outcome? Should we have a mechanism in place to tilt people towards Orwell's interpretation over Stephenson (such as, hypothetically, putting one and not the other on the required reading curricula of schools)? If not, what happens if the Stephensonian interpretation of risks wins out?
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    If this were true, Trump wouldn’t have so much trouble with them.
    - rmrfstar 6y ago
      Them is the IC right?
      - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
        Not sure who the IC is, but I thought we were talking about the New York Times.
        rmrfstar 6y ago
        The "Intelligence Community". That massive (and growing) unaccountable bureaucracy with secret law that types up the talking points the NYT helpfully launders into national security "journalism".
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]

shadowgovt 6y ago

Yes, those people. As I said, they get tripped from time-to-time, but they modify their process when it happens. In that case, they had multiple intelligence agency sources feeding them the same bad data, so their cross-checks failed. They've down-sampled the reliability of those sources in subsequent years.

rmrfstar 6y ago
Everything about your response screams "naivete". The NYTimes role in society is packaging official narratives for mass consumption. Their MO is mindlessly repeating whatever the IC tells them. This is not a new concept [1]. [1] https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/orwells-proposed-introduction-to-animal-farm https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/orwells-proposed-introduc...
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  How are alternatives working out? Because we're watching people worry so much about an Orwellian future that they're running headlong into a Stephensonian future.
  - rmrfstar 6y ago
    The difference between Orwell and Stephenson is that Orwell spent time as a police officer in Burma, and a solider in Spain. Stephenson does not understand the corrupting influence of power the way Orwell does. And the alternatives are fantastic, for those who chose to use them intelligently.
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      If we're going to require intelligence for the whole system to succeed, we're setting ourselves up for failure. Half of everyone is below average. > The difference between Orwell and Stephenson is that Orwell spent time as a police officer in Burma, and a solider in Spain. Stephenson does not understand the corrupting influence of power... So you're saying Orwell has practical experience, such that one should weigh his musings on the subject more highly, while Stephenson is some rando expositing from a place he doesn't understand? Fascinating. What happens if a bunch of people just disagree with your argumentum ab auctoritate and accept Stephenson's musings anyway? That would result in a bad outcome? Should we have a mechanism in place to tilt people towards Orwell's interpretation over Stephenson (such as, hypothetically, putting one and not the other on the required reading curricula of schools)? If not, what happens if the Stephensonian interpretation of risks wins out?
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  If this were true, Trump wouldn’t have so much trouble with them.
  - rmrfstar 6y ago
    Them is the IC right?
    - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
      Not sure who the IC is, but I thought we were talking about the New York Times.
      - rmrfstar 6y ago
        The "Intelligence Community". That massive (and growing) unaccountable bureaucracy with secret law that types up the talking points the NYT helpfully launders into national security "journalism".
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]