7 ms·

>but do you really want your search engine to default to providing results from someone with a very clear agenda and a history of abusing their influence to car

>but do you really want your search engine to default to providing results from someone with a very clear agenda and a history of abusing their influence to carry out that agenda Have you met the US media? If you don't look at this massive coordinated effort and smell something fishy, I just don't know what to say.

burnished 5y ago
So like, what, everyones keeping this big secret and its just schlubs like you and me kept in the dark?
- HideousKojima 5y ago
  It's not a conspiracy (few things are because they just don't scale well). It's more what I call "assholes with similar motives/incentives." It has a lot of the appearance of coordination without needing secret meetings in smoke-filled rooms. That said, sometimes it actually is coordination. Just look at the JournoList scandal.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    Isn't the "JournoList scandal" just "There was a Google Group that lots of journalists on the left subscribed to?" Journalists have always talked to each other. The fact that we have an auditable mailing list of one instance of it just tells us something we already know.
    - deltarholamda 5y ago
      >Isn't the "JournoList scandal" just "There was a Google Group that lots of journalists on the left subscribed to?" No, they were coordinating messaging to get the results they wanted. That's the scandal, because they were simultaneously presenting themselves as Objective Journalists.
    - HideousKojima 5y ago
      "If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them – Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares – and call them racists" Yes, that sounds like journalists just "talking to each other."
      - shadowgovt 5y ago
        It definitely sounds like off-the-record talk. Oh course, they forgot that everything on a mailing list is definitionally on-the-record.
- vkou 5y ago
  I don't think it's some kind of backroom secret that most media, US, Russian, or otherwise, is utter shit. It should be pretty evident from looking at its coverage of any subject of which you have a better-than-average understanding of, or from contrasting how media produced in different parts of the world looks at the same exact events. Or even from applying a little bit of critical thinking. From looking at what it gets right, what it gets wrong, and to what degree it is wrong. Unfortunately, the alternatives to mainstream media (Q-idiots, Zero Hedge, Info Wars, random dude with an opinionated blog, some pot comedian's podcast, viral memes on facebook, etc), tend to be even worse. And for every time they may occasionally be right about something, there's another dozen times when they are laughably, pants-on-head wrong. There's no easy solution to being informed... That you can just passively consume on your smartphone.
  - deltarholamda 5y ago
    >Unfortunately, the alternatives to mainstream media (Q-idiots, Zero Hedge, Info Wars, random dude with an opinionated blog, some pot comedian's podcast, viral memes on facebook, etc) The alternative to one source of dubious information is not another source of dubious information. The alternative is to have access to all sorts of information, and piece together what you think is true, using your own critical thinking skills and ability to sniff out BS. That used to be the Internet. It is not the Internet anymore, since the Internet has, for the first time I can think of, decided that This One Particular Country is uniquely bad, for Reasons, and should therefore be unpersoned; and also has the ability to squelch any dissent because so much of the Internet has become siloed in big corporations. It's really weird, and I find it suspicious.
    - empthought 5y ago
      > The alternative is to have access to all sorts of information, and piece together what you think is true, using your own critical thinking skills and ability to sniff out BS. This strategy is vulnerable to supply-chain attacks on your information sources... which is exactly what Russian information warfare carries out. The credibility of American and European "mainstream media" is oft-maligned but rarely actually demonstrated to be suspect at a large scale in the news departments. Editorial choices of what to cover and when are the most common complaint, which is a far cry from astroturfing and falsehoods made out of whole cloth that Russian sources typically engage in.
- Minor49er 5y ago
  It doesn't need to be a secret. If you have a megaphone that everyone hears all the time, you will simply have more influence than people who whisper quietly. 6 companies dominate the media [1] which together make up at least 90% of all media [2]. Note that this isn't limited to just news. [1] https://www.fool.com/investing/stock-market/market-sectors/communication/media-stocks/big-6/ https://www.fool.com/investing/stock-market/market-sectors/c... [2] https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4586162 https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4586162 Also, you might find this video either amusing or alarming https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo
archagon 5y ago
That's just dull contrarianism: suspecting "something fishy" just because everyone's opinions happen to line up. (As opposed to, I dunno, an obvious collective response to a nation doing something incontrovertibly wrong?)
- deltarholamda 5y ago
  >As opposed to, I dunno, an obvious collective response to a nation doing something incontrovertibly wrong? Can you explain how this is incontrovertibly different than other foreign war entanglements from the past few decades?
  - archagon 5y ago
    What was the last war that had such an overwhelming and unanimous international response?
    - deltarholamda 5y ago
      That is question-begging of the first order, and also circular logic. "A unanimous response is not fishy, because it is incontrovertibly wrong; it is incontrovertibly wrong because the response is unanimous." Very odd reply.
      - archagon 5y ago
        Not really. It is hard to get disparate nations to agree on anything, unless you suspect there is a secret, central party coordinating the response. Consensus of this unusual sort gives credence to the claims.
  - pie42000 5y ago
    When was the last time a sovereign, democratic, western nation invaded?
    - deltarholamda 5y ago
pie42000 5y ago
You realize there was also a massive coordinated effort by the media to defeat Nazi Germany, right? I know it's rare nowadays, but sometimes, gasp, large groups of people across organizations and industries can coordinate for a mutually beneficial and morally virtuous cause. At this point, I'm sure someone could start another massive genocide with HD livestreams of the gas chambers and some people would still be like "hmmm, this coordinated effort to stop Hitler 2.0 sure seems fishy". I've lost all hope.

burnished 5y ago

So like, what, everyones keeping this big secret and its just schlubs like you and me kept in the dark?

HideousKojima 5y ago
It's not a conspiracy (few things are because they just don't scale well). It's more what I call "assholes with similar motives/incentives." It has a lot of the appearance of coordination without needing secret meetings in smoke-filled rooms. That said, sometimes it actually is coordination. Just look at the JournoList scandal.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Isn't the "JournoList scandal" just "There was a Google Group that lots of journalists on the left subscribed to?" Journalists have always talked to each other. The fact that we have an auditable mailing list of one instance of it just tells us something we already know.
  - deltarholamda 5y ago
    >Isn't the "JournoList scandal" just "There was a Google Group that lots of journalists on the left subscribed to?" No, they were coordinating messaging to get the results they wanted. That's the scandal, because they were simultaneously presenting themselves as Objective Journalists.
  - HideousKojima 5y ago
    "If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them – Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares – and call them racists" Yes, that sounds like journalists just "talking to each other."
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      It definitely sounds like off-the-record talk. Oh course, they forgot that everything on a mailing list is definitionally on-the-record.
vkou 5y ago
I don't think it's some kind of backroom secret that most media, US, Russian, or otherwise, is utter shit. It should be pretty evident from looking at its coverage of any subject of which you have a better-than-average understanding of, or from contrasting how media produced in different parts of the world looks at the same exact events. Or even from applying a little bit of critical thinking. From looking at what it gets right, what it gets wrong, and to what degree it is wrong. Unfortunately, the alternatives to mainstream media (Q-idiots, Zero Hedge, Info Wars, random dude with an opinionated blog, some pot comedian's podcast, viral memes on facebook, etc), tend to be even worse. And for every time they may occasionally be right about something, there's another dozen times when they are laughably, pants-on-head wrong. There's no easy solution to being informed... That you can just passively consume on your smartphone.
- deltarholamda 5y ago
  >Unfortunately, the alternatives to mainstream media (Q-idiots, Zero Hedge, Info Wars, random dude with an opinionated blog, some pot comedian's podcast, viral memes on facebook, etc) The alternative to one source of dubious information is not another source of dubious information. The alternative is to have access to all sorts of information, and piece together what you think is true, using your own critical thinking skills and ability to sniff out BS. That used to be the Internet. It is not the Internet anymore, since the Internet has, for the first time I can think of, decided that This One Particular Country is uniquely bad, for Reasons, and should therefore be unpersoned; and also has the ability to squelch any dissent because so much of the Internet has become siloed in big corporations. It's really weird, and I find it suspicious.
  - empthought 5y ago
    > The alternative is to have access to all sorts of information, and piece together what you think is true, using your own critical thinking skills and ability to sniff out BS. This strategy is vulnerable to supply-chain attacks on your information sources... which is exactly what Russian information warfare carries out. The credibility of American and European "mainstream media" is oft-maligned but rarely actually demonstrated to be suspect at a large scale in the news departments. Editorial choices of what to cover and when are the most common complaint, which is a far cry from astroturfing and falsehoods made out of whole cloth that Russian sources typically engage in.
Minor49er 5y ago
It doesn't need to be a secret. If you have a megaphone that everyone hears all the time, you will simply have more influence than people who whisper quietly. 6 companies dominate the media [1] which together make up at least 90% of all media [2]. Note that this isn't limited to just news. [1] https://www.fool.com/investing/stock-market/market-sectors/communication/media-stocks/big-6/ https://www.fool.com/investing/stock-market/market-sectors/c... [2] https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4586162 https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4586162 Also, you might find this video either amusing or alarming https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo

archagon 5y ago

That's just dull contrarianism: suspecting "something fishy" just because everyone's opinions happen to line up. (As opposed to, I dunno, an obvious collective response to a nation doing something incontrovertibly wrong?)

deltarholamda 5y ago
>As opposed to, I dunno, an obvious collective response to a nation doing something incontrovertibly wrong? Can you explain how this is incontrovertibly different than other foreign war entanglements from the past few decades?
- archagon 5y ago
  What was the last war that had such an overwhelming and unanimous international response?
  - deltarholamda 5y ago
    That is question-begging of the first order, and also circular logic. "A unanimous response is not fishy, because it is incontrovertibly wrong; it is incontrovertibly wrong because the response is unanimous." Very odd reply.
    - archagon 5y ago
      Not really. It is hard to get disparate nations to agree on anything, unless you suspect there is a secret, central party coordinating the response. Consensus of this unusual sort gives credence to the claims.
- pie42000 5y ago
  When was the last time a sovereign, democratic, western nation invaded?
  - deltarholamda 5y ago

pie42000 5y ago

You realize there was also a massive coordinated effort by the media to defeat Nazi Germany, right? I know it's rare nowadays, but sometimes, gasp, large groups of people across organizations and industries can coordinate for a mutually beneficial and morally virtuous cause. At this point, I'm sure someone could start another massive genocide with HD livestreams of the gas chambers and some people would still be like "hmmm, this coordinated effort to stop Hitler 2.0 sure seems fishy". I've lost all hope.