3 ms·
Your original post is a huge tangent from the topic of discussion. That article is pure fearmongering and is exactly the type of propagandized information that
by bmadden 13y ago
Your original post is a huge tangent from the topic of discussion. That article is pure fearmongering and is exactly the type of propagandized information that stifles innovation.
Obviously it makes sense to talk about the ramifications of new technology, but the article you linked is doing this in a heavy-handed way to get people to read the article. The result is disproportionate value being placed on that idea for the average reader of dailymail, which necessarily detracts from the discussion of balance surrounding this research.
- vixen99 13y agoNo article stifles innovation unless some idiot reads it as scripture! Meanwhile what do you know about the average Daily Mail reader? Presumably you've researched the around 70 million readers (an exaggeration to be sure but it's a lot of people) who take a daily look at this popular newspaper. I rather think not. But that doesn't stop people like you making predictable and patronizing observations of this kind at every opportunity. No need to comment. We can all 'read' and draw our own conclusions.
- bmadden 13y agoI'm lumping "average daily mail reader" with average person. Surely you are not ignorant to the effects that propaganda can have on the population. The linked article does nothing but narrowly discuss one possible consequence of this type of technology in a manner meant to illicit fear or general negative association. This is by definition propaganda and it detracts from a thoughtful analysis of the larger topic of discussion. I'm not patronizing anyone by drawing attention to the idea that plenty of people use news articles as end points for information; I'm simply drawing the connection between that phenomenon and the type of biased reporting seen in the article above.