3 ms·

"The media" and "social media" may not be controlled by a single actor, but it's common knowledge that large enough chunks of both can be and often are. For ex

"The media" and "social media" may not be controlled by a single actor, but it's common knowledge that large enough chunks of both can be and often are. For example, the conspiracy theory that Russia rigged the 2016 election for Trump is based on this premise. There is also a widely-accepted partisan divide between the encumbent news sources on the left, and Fox and newer so-called "fringe" or "alt" news sources on the right. These in fact aren't correctly fringe or alt - at least in the US - as clearly very close to or more than half of the US population for the past decade has indicated they have political beliefs aligned with them. It's therefore as disingenuous to attempt to delegitimize "alt right" media by referring to it thusly, just as it may br for right-leaning media to do the same by referring to the left as "fake news". With this example, both sides are behaving in uniform ways exactly typical of unified, single-actor control, respective to each. If the Russian conspiracy is true, the premise that single-actor control is possible is accepted, as it therefore happened with enough force to alter a major an election. If it isn't, then half of the US is legitimately right-leaning, making the labelling of their mainstream news sources as "fringe" or "alt" or "extreme" indeed tantamount to "fake news". Either way, it's mistaken to believe it impossible for the control of single actor to be enacted upon a large enough portion of the media to achieve widespread adoption of their agenda. In effect, your last paragraph directly contradicts your first.

pjc50 6y ago
> both sides are behaving in uniform ways exactly typical of unified, single-actor control, respective to each. If you're alleging single-actor control you need to have some idea of who that single actor allegedly is. A lot of this stuff is simply .. more chaotic. That goes for the question of Russian involvement. Reducing it to a single yes/no binary doesn't help; it's almost certainly not true that Putin has been personally, directly issuing orders to Trump, but there definitely have been a lot of Trump associates who also associated with Russians, in some cases took money from them, lied to Federal investigators about it, and as a result were jailed or at least indicted. https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-cases-factbox/factbox-guilty-pleas-indictments-abound-in-trump-russia-probe-idUSKCN1RT1X3 https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-cases-fac...
- mistermann 6y ago
  > If you're alleging single-actor control you need to have some idea of who that single actor allegedly is. Why? Do you apply this same standard when debugging software, or do you discard the realization of all observed patterns for which you lack an immediate explanation? It's interesting to observe how the manner in which logic is executed changes when the topic of conversation changes in various ways.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    Are multiple phenomena the same bug or different bugs? Until you've traced the root cause this can be hard to tell.
    - mistermann 6y ago
      It is often unknown, as are many things in reality. What's interesting is that IT folks are typically rather curious about mysterious behaviors in software, but this curiosity often vanishes when it comes to the real world (but only on certain topics). Regardless, back to my question: >> If you're alleging single-actor control you need to have some idea of who that single actor allegedly is. > Why? Why is it ok to discuss theories about some portions of reality, but not others? I'm not insisting that we must, I would just like some day for people that assert or imply that we cannot, to explain (in logically consistent detail, using objectively true statements) why we cannot (or will not). But to be crystal clear, I'd never insist that the majority needs to explain or justify their behavior or unwritten rules, here or elsewhere - I realize this is simply one of the fringe benefits of being the majority.

pjc50 6y ago

> both sides are behaving in uniform ways exactly typical of unified, single-actor control, respective to each. If you're alleging single-actor control you need to have some idea of who that single actor allegedly is. A lot of this stuff is simply .. more chaotic. That goes for the question of Russian involvement. Reducing it to a single yes/no binary doesn't help; it's almost certainly not true that Putin has been personally, directly issuing orders to Trump, but there definitely have been a lot of Trump associates who also associated with Russians, in some cases took money from them, lied to Federal investigators about it, and as a result were jailed or at least indicted. https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-cases-factbox/factbox-guilty-pleas-indictments-abound-in-trump-russia-probe-idUSKCN1RT1X3 https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-cases-fac...

mistermann 6y ago
> If you're alleging single-actor control you need to have some idea of who that single actor allegedly is. Why? Do you apply this same standard when debugging software, or do you discard the realization of all observed patterns for which you lack an immediate explanation? It's interesting to observe how the manner in which logic is executed changes when the topic of conversation changes in various ways.
- pjc50 6y ago
  Are multiple phenomena the same bug or different bugs? Until you've traced the root cause this can be hard to tell.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    It is often unknown, as are many things in reality. What's interesting is that IT folks are typically rather curious about mysterious behaviors in software, but this curiosity often vanishes when it comes to the real world (but only on certain topics). Regardless, back to my question: >> If you're alleging single-actor control you need to have some idea of who that single actor allegedly is. > Why? Why is it ok to discuss theories about some portions of reality, but not others? I'm not insisting that we must, I would just like some day for people that assert or imply that we cannot, to explain (in logically consistent detail, using objectively true statements) why we cannot (or will not). But to be crystal clear, I'd never insist that the majority needs to explain or justify their behavior or unwritten rules, here or elsewhere - I realize this is simply one of the fringe benefits of being the majority.