7 ms·

1) People are actually a bit resistant to "Low-quality and misleading information". We can see people generally turning to higher quality sources than have prev

by roenxi 3y ago

1) People are actually a bit resistant to "Low-quality and misleading information". We can see people generally turning to higher quality sources than have previously been available which is why everything is getting fragmented. It is becoming impossible to maintain the fake illusion of consensus by the corporate media; the opposing voices are just too persistent and - in an uncomfortable number of cases - too reasonable no matter how much muck gets slung at them. 2) Special award for having a freely available 5,000 word pure-text article and being unable to display it without Javascript and 300kB of downloads. Cookie to the product manager, keeping devs employed. Probably have some wicked Kubernetes admin skills in their technical organisation to serve this small quantity of text.

mrangle 3y ago
The problem with "articles" such as the one under discussion is that information veracity is inherently subjective, assuming no true perfect framing of the information (such as is the case with history), and therefore the truth will be under the type of constant debate that breathes life into democratic societies. To my point and yours, such articles are unlikely to be referencing falsehoods presented by corporate media but instead contrary views. Which means that the hypothetical "ignoring" curriculum that the authors suggest would devolve into, if not start as, lessons in how to ignore most else but the corporate media view. Given the dogma that ostensibly serves to reinforce democracy in ideal conditions but has obviously instead enforced oppression in every other environment: that the media is the primary and honest arbiter of truth.
itsanaccount 3y ago
I'd agree lot of people have good skills to know what to ignore. Like knowing to go through a persons post history to get context on the kind of beliefs held that correlate with saying: >It is becoming impossible to maintain the fake illusion of consensus by the corporate media
- roenxi 3y ago
  Literally your last comment included a "At its worst its propoganda to convince people its ok to keep buying things and living as they currently do as the rich abscond with the profits." so it seems we're on a similar page about there being propaganda out there. Articulate your complaint here. I have, as advised, glanced at your comment history. I'm not sure what you don't like.
mcphage 3y ago
> people generally turning to higher quality sources than have previously been available Out of curiosity, what do you consider some examples of "higher quality sources" that people have started turning to?
- roenxi 3y ago
  The top one that springs to mind is the Joe Rogan Experience. Wildly popular, and reveals a massive market for long form in-depth discussion. If I look at a recent episode, he just had Tulsi Gabbard on - US Hose of Reps, endorsed Joe Biden now a Republican [0]. It isn't academic fare, but Tulsi Gabbard for 2.5 hours is a much more high-information look into US politics than anything that could be considered mainstream in the early 2000s. [0] My mistake, she's technically an independent. Should spend some time listening to Joe Rogan I suppose.
  - tonyponydong 3y ago
    [dead]
  - mcphage 3y ago
    > a much more high-information look into US politics than anything that could be considered mainstream in the early 2000s I think, given Joe Rogan's popularity these days, he is the mainstream.
    - telotortium 3y ago
      No, Joe Rogan (and most alt media) responds to the NYT, while the NYT doesn't respond to Joe Rogan except to smear him. That is the test of whether a media source is mainstream, or at least respectable - does the NYT cite it seriously or ignore it except to denigrate it?
      - mcphage 3y ago
        > That is the test of whether a media source is mainstream It is? Who says? > or at least respectable Well, that's a different matter entirely.
downWidOutaFite 3y ago
How would you know if the alternate sources are higher quality? How would you know if the new consensus isn't being manufactured by powerful interests or whatever gets the most clicks on social media?
superfrank 3y ago
> People are actually a bit resistant to "Low-quality and misleading information". We can see people generally turning to higher quality sources than have previously been available which is why everything is getting fragmented. Do you have anything to back this up or is this just your opinion on the situation? A lot of times when I see people online complaining about the mainstream media and talking about how alternative sources are better they end up linking to something that is way less trustworthy, but it aligns with their existing beliefs. Maybe it's just my experience, but I rarely see people going "CNN is shit, so here's a ProPublica article". It's usually "CNN is shit, so here's an article from truth-and-freedom.ru." I agree that the mainstream media isn't as high quality as they make it out to be, but, on average, I don't feel like alternative sources are any better.
- finite_depth 3y ago
  [dead]
- hamhock666 3y ago
  I don’t think it makes sense to trust any single organization, because there is usually some motive other than finding the truth (profit, reputation/fear, power). Rather find individuals/journalists who are searching for the truth and over the years don’t lie to your face. Social media censorship does not help with this problem, and if we want to live in a functioning democracy more real debate is needed.

by roenxi 3y ago

mrangle 3y ago

The problem with "articles" such as the one under discussion is that information veracity is inherently subjective, assuming no true perfect framing of the information (such as is the case with history), and therefore the truth will be under the type of constant debate that breathes life into democratic societies. To my point and yours, such articles are unlikely to be referencing falsehoods presented by corporate media but instead contrary views. Which means that the hypothetical "ignoring" curriculum that the authors suggest would devolve into, if not start as, lessons in how to ignore most else but the corporate media view. Given the dogma that ostensibly serves to reinforce democracy in ideal conditions but has obviously instead enforced oppression in every other environment: that the media is the primary and honest arbiter of truth.

itsanaccount 3y ago

I'd agree lot of people have good skills to know what to ignore. Like knowing to go through a persons post history to get context on the kind of beliefs held that correlate with saying: >It is becoming impossible to maintain the fake illusion of consensus by the corporate media

roenxi 3y ago
Literally your last comment included a "At its worst its propoganda to convince people its ok to keep buying things and living as they currently do as the rich abscond with the profits." so it seems we're on a similar page about there being propaganda out there. Articulate your complaint here. I have, as advised, glanced at your comment history. I'm not sure what you don't like.

mcphage 3y ago

> people generally turning to higher quality sources than have previously been available Out of curiosity, what do you consider some examples of "higher quality sources" that people have started turning to?

roenxi 3y ago
The top one that springs to mind is the Joe Rogan Experience. Wildly popular, and reveals a massive market for long form in-depth discussion. If I look at a recent episode, he just had Tulsi Gabbard on - US Hose of Reps, endorsed Joe Biden now a Republican [0]. It isn't academic fare, but Tulsi Gabbard for 2.5 hours is a much more high-information look into US politics than anything that could be considered mainstream in the early 2000s. [0] My mistake, she's technically an independent. Should spend some time listening to Joe Rogan I suppose.
- tonyponydong 3y ago
  [dead]
- mcphage 3y ago
  > a much more high-information look into US politics than anything that could be considered mainstream in the early 2000s I think, given Joe Rogan's popularity these days, he is the mainstream.
  - telotortium 3y ago
    No, Joe Rogan (and most alt media) responds to the NYT, while the NYT doesn't respond to Joe Rogan except to smear him. That is the test of whether a media source is mainstream, or at least respectable - does the NYT cite it seriously or ignore it except to denigrate it?
    - mcphage 3y ago
      > That is the test of whether a media source is mainstream It is? Who says? > or at least respectable Well, that's a different matter entirely.

downWidOutaFite 3y ago

How would you know if the alternate sources are higher quality? How would you know if the new consensus isn't being manufactured by powerful interests or whatever gets the most clicks on social media?

superfrank 3y ago

> People are actually a bit resistant to "Low-quality and misleading information". We can see people generally turning to higher quality sources than have previously been available which is why everything is getting fragmented. Do you have anything to back this up or is this just your opinion on the situation? A lot of times when I see people online complaining about the mainstream media and talking about how alternative sources are better they end up linking to something that is way less trustworthy, but it aligns with their existing beliefs. Maybe it's just my experience, but I rarely see people going "CNN is shit, so here's a ProPublica article". It's usually "CNN is shit, so here's an article from truth-and-freedom.ru." I agree that the mainstream media isn't as high quality as they make it out to be, but, on average, I don't feel like alternative sources are any better.

finite_depth 3y ago
[dead]
hamhock666 3y ago
I don’t think it makes sense to trust any single organization, because there is usually some motive other than finding the truth (profit, reputation/fear, power). Rather find individuals/journalists who are searching for the truth and over the years don’t lie to your face. Social media censorship does not help with this problem, and if we want to live in a functioning democracy more real debate is needed.