4 ms·
The difference between ads and news is that people will pay to publish ads and they will pay to keep news quiet. It seems that we've built quite a capable ad m
by __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
The difference between ads and news is that people will pay to publish ads and they will pay to keep news quiet.
It seems that we've built quite a capable ad machine. I wonder what it would look like if we built something for news. Certainly there would be less of this nonsense going on.
Like, kudos to those standing up to Appin, but the fact that facing down a bully is necessary at all is a design failure that I'd like to work to rectify.
- hosteur 3y ago> It seems that we've built quite a capable ad machine. I wonder what it would look like if we built something for news. Like Wikileaks?
- babypuncher 3y agoYes, but without the Kremlin dictating which content is actually worth leaking.
- BlueTemplar 3y agoThe Kremlin ?
- toss1 3y agoYes, the Kremlin. Assange may have started out with pure intentions, but as he ran out of money, the only funding became available from the Kremlin. The cover for funding him was his show on RT, the Kremlin-funded English-language television station. You might recall that Assange bragged about a huge dump of info about Putin and other Russian leaders/oligarchs that was soon to be dropped. It never did. It was either entirely BS from the start to provide cover, or existed but was withheld to keep happy his new sponsors. You also may recall that the Wikileaks dumps of info stolen by Russian hackers on Hillary Clinton was miraculously released within hours of Trump's "I grabbed her by the pussy" tapes. A classic Russian disinformation move to distract the media, which was quite successful. That's just glancing at a few highlights. By the time Wikileaks became significant, it was a straight-up Russian operation. It would have been a far better life decision for Assange to simply quit when he ran out of funds, than to sell out. Sad
- whatshisface 3y agoIt is surprising to hear that Russia is doing something good for America.
- ethanbond 3y agoSee, it works!
- whatshisface 3y agoOr is it the "Russia's behind it" narrative working the other way, to convince Americans that what's good for them is, somehow, bad for them?
- lukan 3y agoThe FSB might have had more means to convince Assange, than just money. But from what I remember with a interview with him, he seemed to entrench himself with the narrative that the US as superpower number 1, is the evil empire number 1 ( he has a anarchist, anti state background). So blinded by fanatism would be my assumption. So blinded, that he does not mind the open power abuse by those new allies. It is a phenomen, I often witnessed. More so now, with the various alternative rebells, against globalisation, power abuse etc. - and then finding all sorts of wild justifications for Putins Invasion in Ukraine. Black and white thinking, combined with double think, in all its glory.
- Terr_ 3y agoIn stark contrast: > #29: The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more, no less. -- The Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries
- halostatue 3y agoGood old Howard Tayler and Schlock Mercenary.
- 3y ago
- shadowgovt 3y agoThe Kremlin.
- __MatrixMan__ 3y agoSomewhat. Though I hope it wouldn't have to work through an ad network to reach us, or depend on money: just participation.
- staplers 3y agoPeople also pay to publish ads disguised as news.