3 ms·

> Constant propaganda by who? Where? And for the last 50-100 years? > That sounds absurd and conspiratorial. Also: > Not the OP, but this just refers to the g

by croon 6y ago

> Constant propaganda by who? Where? And for the last 50-100 years? > That sounds absurd and conspiratorial. Also: > Not the OP, but this just refers to the gradual erosion of many institutions in American society. Universities, media, political structures, etc. have all lost the trust of the populace over the last ~30 years, if not longer. Pot, meet kettle. Yours is an enormously unlikely conspiracy. Yellow journalism, ie constant propaganda (or charitably click bait) is exceedingly cheap to produce, and delegitimizing "everything" brings everything down to the same level, which has various win states. Universities, media, and political structures all have separate value functions that might or might not intersect over time (if we can be reductive enough to discuss them as monoliths). That they would be further reduced to one organism pushing a single agenda is, quite frankly, absurd.

keiferski 6y ago
You don’t seem to have understood my comment. I’m describing an observable phenomenon, not saying a there is a conspiratorial group which made it so. It has nothing to with agendas or ideologies.
- croon 6y ago
  I don't understand your comment. The comment you were responding to was also describing an observable phenomenon (regardless of intent). You were putting these against each other and ascribing intent (and attacking that) to one, but now ignoring it in yours. The internet is spammed daily by non-news "news sites" (usually behind privacy shield and without any about page, and no history to examine), blogs, tweets, facebook posts, emails attacking by misrepresenting established institutions. I get exposed to it constantly. I can't know who/where from or why, but I can definitely state that it happens. If we are merely stating observable phenomenons, then fine, but then I don't get the point of your original comment regardless.
  - keiferski 6y ago
    My point is that technology leads to change. I guess if you were the Catholic Church in 1650, you’d be complaining about all this new ‘misinformation’ being printed by Gutenberg presses and promulgated by Protestant preachers. And certainly in some cases you would be correct in calling it propaganda. In other cases you’d be wrong and your opponents would be justified in criticizing you. But that wouldn’t ultimately matter, at all, as we have seen in the last 400 years, these things cannot be controlled. The internet is like the printing press x1000. Understanding this dynamic is critical to understanding the future of information.
    - croon 6y ago
      > My point is that technology leads to change. Sure. > I guess if you were the Catholic Church in 1650, you’d be complaining about all this new ‘misinformation’ being printed by Gutenberg presses and promulgated by Protestant preachers. And certainly in some cases you would be correct in calling it propaganda. In other cases you’d be wrong and your opponents would be justified in criticizing you. I guess? But how is it relevant? > But that wouldn’t ultimately matter, at all, as we have seen in the last 400 years, these things cannot be controlled. Sure. Agreed. I just reject the comparison between the catholic church and universities/media (fuzzy definition)/government (agencies, departments, professionals that aren't politicians). If those parts of your comments by your own account doesn't matter, I don't understand why you'd add them. > The internet is like the printing press x1000. Fully agreed, the scale changes everything.
      - keiferski 6y ago
        I just think they are similar situations. The old controllers of information are being challenged by new technologies. Political forces are involved. It’s very similar to the 1600s. This is why any response that attempts to censor or refer to “authoritative” sources just isn’t going to work. Millions and millions of people in the US alone don’t trust the big media companies anymore and likely never will again. That will only increase abroad as social media tech becomes easier to implement and countries like India have homegrown alternatives. A Counter-Reformation of sorts amongst the media/universities/etc. might draw back some dissidents, but this is clearly not even being considered. I see no other outcome other than the one I referred to above: reputation-based individuals as sources of information.

by croon 6y ago

keiferski 6y ago

You don’t seem to have understood my comment. I’m describing an observable phenomenon, not saying a there is a conspiratorial group which made it so. It has nothing to with agendas or ideologies.

croon 6y ago
I don't understand your comment. The comment you were responding to was also describing an observable phenomenon (regardless of intent). You were putting these against each other and ascribing intent (and attacking that) to one, but now ignoring it in yours. The internet is spammed daily by non-news "news sites" (usually behind privacy shield and without any about page, and no history to examine), blogs, tweets, facebook posts, emails attacking by misrepresenting established institutions. I get exposed to it constantly. I can't know who/where from or why, but I can definitely state that it happens. If we are merely stating observable phenomenons, then fine, but then I don't get the point of your original comment regardless.
- keiferski 6y ago
  My point is that technology leads to change. I guess if you were the Catholic Church in 1650, you’d be complaining about all this new ‘misinformation’ being printed by Gutenberg presses and promulgated by Protestant preachers. And certainly in some cases you would be correct in calling it propaganda. In other cases you’d be wrong and your opponents would be justified in criticizing you. But that wouldn’t ultimately matter, at all, as we have seen in the last 400 years, these things cannot be controlled. The internet is like the printing press x1000. Understanding this dynamic is critical to understanding the future of information.
  - croon 6y ago
    > My point is that technology leads to change. Sure. > I guess if you were the Catholic Church in 1650, you’d be complaining about all this new ‘misinformation’ being printed by Gutenberg presses and promulgated by Protestant preachers. And certainly in some cases you would be correct in calling it propaganda. In other cases you’d be wrong and your opponents would be justified in criticizing you. I guess? But how is it relevant? > But that wouldn’t ultimately matter, at all, as we have seen in the last 400 years, these things cannot be controlled. Sure. Agreed. I just reject the comparison between the catholic church and universities/media (fuzzy definition)/government (agencies, departments, professionals that aren't politicians). If those parts of your comments by your own account doesn't matter, I don't understand why you'd add them. > The internet is like the printing press x1000. Fully agreed, the scale changes everything.
    - keiferski 6y ago
      I just think they are similar situations. The old controllers of information are being challenged by new technologies. Political forces are involved. It’s very similar to the 1600s. This is why any response that attempts to censor or refer to “authoritative” sources just isn’t going to work. Millions and millions of people in the US alone don’t trust the big media companies anymore and likely never will again. That will only increase abroad as social media tech becomes easier to implement and countries like India have homegrown alternatives. A Counter-Reformation of sorts amongst the media/universities/etc. might draw back some dissidents, but this is clearly not even being considered. I see no other outcome other than the one I referred to above: reputation-based individuals as sources of information.