Demonizing every non-leftist opponent as a deplorable, mouth-breathing, lying Nazi.
Why not embrace your Republic, and let your states be different? You might be right about everything; your opponents might be right, too — see how it turns out for y’all in a generation two, and let your kids decide where they would rather live and work.
Or, continue to berate each-other, and force your respective utopian views on unwilling participants.
Your choice.
I don’t think the recent decades’ explosion in federal and executive authority (and hence the increased power of “The President”) is working out well for you; perhaps it’s time to release some power back to the states, and maybe “live and let live”?
Or, maybe y’all are looking forward to a civil war?
Could you help me understand which parts of the article seemed to you to be "demonizing every non-leftist opponent as a deplorable, mouth-breathing, lying Nazi"?
You’re conflating Donald a Trump with someone who actually supports states rights and supports “live and let live policies”. Speaking of deliberate misinformation..
I’m not sure that each “side”, when they are in power, hasn’t sought to increase the centralization of power in their hands — and then laments that the next “bad guy” has too much power.
Again, as a Canadian libertarian, I’m not sure where you got the idea that I’m “conflating Donald Trump” with anything; perhaps you’re “projecting”?
As a Canadian libertarian... I’m not sure why you say that. I don’t have a dog in this fight; I just pray that neither “side” down there gets what they think they want.
I wish Journalism could spring back to being more professional where they were a) not so damn partisan and b) actually investigating and not just tossing out wild conspiracy theories as a form of propaganda.
The Atlantic holds zero credibility anymore. It was always a partisan rag, but sometimes had interesting articles. Now, like all "news" it is simply trash.
I laugh at how the New Yorker always injects anti-conservative messaging in its articles because they know their readership desires confirmation bias. It's sick, though. I don't think even Goebbels could have imagined how far this nonsense could be taken and be successful.
The case of Li Wenliang is really sad. He knew about the Corona virus epidemic at an early stage and tried to raise the alarm. He posted about it on social media. Police showed up and arrested him for spreading "false" rumors.
After a while he was released but it was too late. The situation was out of control. He got the virus himself and died.
It really scares me that increasing numbers of developers write software enabling tyranny and abuse like this.
We must not censor the rumors, but give people the tools to evaluate for themselves what the truth really is.
> The Chinese military surgeon who exposed the government’s cover-up of the the severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) epidemic in 2003 has been under de facto house arrest since last year, according to his friends and family.
Meanwhile the Iowa opposition party cannot properly run an election with software produced by members of their own party.
The only disinformation campaign that will re elect trump are the Democratic candidates themselves. They're so boring and drab that it'll be unsurprising when Trump wins again.
It's a very interesting long-form article about disinformation warfare. Not just in the US but also around the whole world. I wish things like these weren't so divisive. I'm sure most who decided to flag this article did so without even having read it.
I agree it’s interesting but I’m guessing the flagging is because this cuts too close to the no politics rule for submissions. Even quite neutral posts often turn into political argument in the comments, so one that could easily be seen as anti-Trump is going to attract too much mud slinging.
I was also expecting to find concrete examples of disinformation in the article. For most of the article, the writer does not go into any detail, and simply explains that they personally found these nebulous videos disturbing. But when we do get concrete examples, they fail to prove much. For example, when the writer cites an alleged attempt to suppress voter turnout by claiming Clinton called a voting demographic 'super predators', I expected to find that this was either not true or taken out of context. Instead, I found that it was true and not out of context: in fact BLM had criticized her for these comments.
I don't find microtargeting true facts to be 'disinformation.'
There are a few verifiable examples, but most of them are not nearly as black-and-white as the writer pretends.
This reads as essentially a hit piece against Parscale. This isn't a surprise, since it begins with the framing of Internet advertising being 'used by dictators', whereas it is also of course used worldwide by non-dictators, where it passes mostly without comment, or sometimes with laudatory comments. Even in US eelctions this has been the case - campaigns have done their best to use all the technology available to them at the time on both sides, and will do so for the indefinite future.
The complaint appears to boil down to 'a politician I don't like used technology, so we should shut it down.' I think it deserves flagging. A more thoughtful and substantive article on the same subject might not.
"In a speech at Georgetown University, [Zuckerberg] argued that his company shouldn’t be responsible for arbitrating political speech, and that because political ads already receive so much scrutiny, candidates who choose to lie will be held accountable by journalists and watchdogs."
"In the 10 weeks after the House of Representatives began its impeachment inquiry, the Trump campaign ran roughly 14,000 different ads containing the word impeachment. Sifting through all of them is virtually impossible."
Sifting through that volume of ads seems like a problem that would benefit from at least partial automation.
Does anyone here know of any (preferably open source) efforts in this space?
26 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 70.4 ms ] threadWhy not embrace your Republic, and let your states be different? You might be right about everything; your opponents might be right, too — see how it turns out for y’all in a generation two, and let your kids decide where they would rather live and work.
Or, continue to berate each-other, and force your respective utopian views on unwilling participants.
Your choice.
I don’t think the recent decades’ explosion in federal and executive authority (and hence the increased power of “The President”) is working out well for you; perhaps it’s time to release some power back to the states, and maybe “live and let live”?
Or, maybe y’all are looking forward to a civil war?
Again, as a Canadian libertarian, I’m not sure where you got the idea that I’m “conflating Donald Trump” with anything; perhaps you’re “projecting”?
I think you've fallen sick with hatred - and that's not an insult, if you can find it in yourself to believe it's not.
The Atlantic holds zero credibility anymore. It was always a partisan rag, but sometimes had interesting articles. Now, like all "news" it is simply trash.
I laugh at how the New Yorker always injects anti-conservative messaging in its articles because they know their readership desires confirmation bias. It's sick, though. I don't think even Goebbels could have imagined how far this nonsense could be taken and be successful.
After a while he was released but it was too late. The situation was out of control. He got the virus himself and died.
It really scares me that increasing numbers of developers write software enabling tyranny and abuse like this.
We must not censor the rumors, but give people the tools to evaluate for themselves what the truth really is.
> The Chinese military surgeon who exposed the government’s cover-up of the the severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) epidemic in 2003 has been under de facto house arrest since last year, according to his friends and family.
* https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/09/sars-whistlebl...
The only disinformation campaign that will re elect trump are the Democratic candidates themselves. They're so boring and drab that it'll be unsurprising when Trump wins again.
Yeah, maybe they ought to try a little of that clown makeup on to try and distract from their obvious incompetence.
In the end, 'no politics' is a great rule for HN.
For example, the article cites discredited bot research.
https://michaelkreil.github.io/openbots/
I was also expecting to find concrete examples of disinformation in the article. For most of the article, the writer does not go into any detail, and simply explains that they personally found these nebulous videos disturbing. But when we do get concrete examples, they fail to prove much. For example, when the writer cites an alleged attempt to suppress voter turnout by claiming Clinton called a voting demographic 'super predators', I expected to find that this was either not true or taken out of context. Instead, I found that it was true and not out of context: in fact BLM had criticized her for these comments.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/aug/28/reince-pri...
I don't find microtargeting true facts to be 'disinformation.'
There are a few verifiable examples, but most of them are not nearly as black-and-white as the writer pretends.
This reads as essentially a hit piece against Parscale. This isn't a surprise, since it begins with the framing of Internet advertising being 'used by dictators', whereas it is also of course used worldwide by non-dictators, where it passes mostly without comment, or sometimes with laudatory comments. Even in US eelctions this has been the case - campaigns have done their best to use all the technology available to them at the time on both sides, and will do so for the indefinite future.
The complaint appears to boil down to 'a politician I don't like used technology, so we should shut it down.' I think it deserves flagging. A more thoughtful and substantive article on the same subject might not.
"In the 10 weeks after the House of Representatives began its impeachment inquiry, the Trump campaign ran roughly 14,000 different ads containing the word impeachment. Sifting through all of them is virtually impossible."
Sifting through that volume of ads seems like a problem that would benefit from at least partial automation.
Does anyone here know of any (preferably open source) efforts in this space?