"contradicted" by maga / qanon accounts. there have even been conspiracies where people shared old videos of drones that are "apparently" used to set the fires "on purpose" (which is done strategically in some areas). All the news I have seen of this refuting the evidence points to sites like gatewaypundint and other rightwing garbage.
If anybody really wanted to know "who started the fires," that's easy: It was you, driving that car of yours, running that air conditioner, heater, stove, fridge, washer/dryer, buying those products, living your life. Not a mystery. But nobody wants to know that. Consider each downvote a confirmation of that last sentence.
But the oil companies that lobbied to prevent any action on climate change, to make sure oil subsidies remain and renewable subsidies don't come to pass, that funded FUD research on climate change when their own confidential, internal research said it was a problem, they are completely blameless.
It is individual consumers, whose every attempt at organized action has been sabotaged, that are to blame.
I don't see it as an either/or situation. Also it's really not worth all the histrionics. It's a fact, it's happening, I'm contributing to it right now by continuing to not kill myself.
If carbon dioxide brought the bark beetle to our shores, then forced the federal and state agencies to not treat the resulting megatons of dried out trees as the emergency they were, then ok.
But you're going to have to explain how that works, because I'm not seeing it.
Sure, climate change is a real and increasingly urgent problem. And you can make a case that it made the situation worse; fine.
But the bark beetle was both necessary, and sufficient, to cause the crisis we're seeing. I've seen estimates of 30% kill rates in Western forests over the past five years.
Here is how it works: "Many species, such as the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) attack and kill live trees. Most, however, live in dead, weakened, or dying hosts."
You do realize the Native Americans used controlled burns for many centuries, as a way to prevent mass fires? The government hasn't been doing that, and the amount of combustible material on the ground has accumulated to dangerous levels as a result. Just some food for thought.
Yes, I've heard about that. Definitely important, though for the record I was talking more about things like the hundred-degree temperatures, bone-dry humidity and the unusual wind event last week (kind of like Santa Ana winds except in Oregon/Washington). But strictly in terms of wildfire suppression, there are people "voting" to keep doing it, whether it's the people who have claimed property and built structures in the forested areas; or ones who, voting with their wallets via the corporations they buy from, want those trees for building houses elsewhere or making paper products; or (ironically) the people who pushed for strict environmental laws, some of which now effectively prevent that kind of controlled burning. Sprinkle the usual "uninformed dust" on top for both voters and their reps, and there you have it! Maybe this kind of event will shove things in a better direction.
Political extremists did not start the fires. But decades of the political status quo in both dominant parties led to mismanagement that led to the current situation. Are any of the "corrections" correcting that omission?
We are about 10 miles from the fire and about 5 miles from people who have been evacuated.
Frustratingly, one of the best sources of information about the fires has been community meetings and content posted on Facebook by the agencies involved. Often those same community meetings and PSAs about the fire have been bracketed by non-stop streams of people reposting this same bullshit about the fires.
In general, I think posting siloed content is really bad policy by government agencies, but in this case it's particularly bad. I don't see this as a failure of the fire agencies—it's not their job to be a platform for delivering content. The problem is our government lacks effective channels for delivering this content outside of these silos.
Facebook removes lots of truthful stuff, so that says nothing about the validity of it. It does tell us that Facebook employees dislike the information.
What do you mean? Does crossing state lines with a gun in the middle of protests protect you from attack, so he couldn't have been attacked?
Or did you perhaps intend to say the attack against him was justified, because he was carrying a gun?
But then, wasn't one of the attackers also armed? But, maybe he didn't cross state lines, so that's what made his behavior justified, and Kyle's unjustified?
Which "he", and "went" where? You mean why Kyle crossed a state line, why he went to the riot, or...?
Kyle crossed a state line to go to work. He had a job as a lifeguard at the YMCA. After work, he stopped to help a group of people cleaning graffiti off of the local high school. (there are photos) He then, with his local friends, responded to a business owner who wanted help guarding property. Those friends supplied the rifle.
Kyle brought a medical kit and helped bandage a rioter who got an injured foot.
At a gas station, rioters set a fire in a wheeled dumpster. It seems they intended to push it toward the police. Kyle is seen in video running with a fire extinguisher. Somebody then used the fire extinguisher to put out the fire, enraging the rioters.
So I think it is obvious that Kyle was trying to save people and property. You might find that unbelievable, but some people feel a duty to do that kind of thing. It's notable that he only shot people who were actively attacking him. Former attackers and armed potential attackers were not shot at. It's a surprising amount of restraint.
> In another video recorded before the shootings, a teen who appears to be Rittenhouse describes himself as a member of a local militia that was effectively protecting businesses in Kenosha.
A third video again shows the teen armed with a gun and strolling among what appear to be uniformed police officers.
My goodness you are slippery. Let me speed things along - you are trying to imply he went with the intent of shooting someone. For the sake of argument, lets assume that's true.
Now his attackers were also armed - lets assume that, unlike Kyle, their motive in bringing guns to a protest was self-defense.
Despite all of this, there's video showing he wasn't the first to shoot, was running away, and was on the ground being kicked and hit in the head when he shot the second time.
You are saying that, despite this exculpatory video evidence, the mere fact he went to the protest with a gun is so damning, he simply must be guilty? That he must have done something, not caught on video (such as threatening the protesters with his rifle), that justified their attack? Not could have, but must have, since if it was a mere 'could have', then you wouldn't find his self-defense claim so unbelievable.
Because he had the wrong reason for coming, he simply couldn't have been attacked?
And none of this logic applies to the protesters who also brought guns?
According to Kyle's lawyer, that never happened. The gun never crossed a state line, not that it matters. The lawyer is a reputable source. See what happens when information is suppressed? You didn't know that fact.
I'm highly suspect of any legal team containing a QAnon extremist, and I'm not using that word lightly or attempting to smear, "the other side." QAnon is a conspiracy that launders traditional blood libel myths with a desired end goal of having Trump lock up the political opposition. You can't be a reputable source and adhere to those beliefs.
At what point do you stop believing in titles society gives people such as Judge, Doctor, Lawyer, and start to fill in your own narrative because it's simply convenient?
> At what point do you stop believing in titles society gives people such as Judge, Doctor, Lawyer
The judicial system is, in effect, highly dependent upon good faith. This can be seen with parking tickets being paid by the wealthy or not stalling the lawsuit until the opposition runs out of money.
So, if a person acts in bad faith against such an incredibly fragile system, then I don't think their title ought to be recognized. And, in my eyes, hoping that the president extra-judicially locks up half of hollywood and his opposition, and then ships them to guantanamo bay, qualifies as acting in bad faith, as it seems to overturn the judicial system.
> start to fill in your own narrative because it's simply convenient?
I'm sure I'm the one seeking convenient narratives, not the group of people who believe in satanic ritual abuse is being conducted by their political enemies because of a guy who used to post semi-anonymously on 8chan. There's not much nuance to be had in that belief system
So now we believe that lawyers and judges act in good faith even though we have seen statistically that for instance the “War on Drugs” is biased toward minorities by prosecutors (lawyers) and judges?
What next? We should also trust the police - video evidence to the contrary?
You are essentially arguing against “innocent until proven guilty” and implying it’s okay for a global corporation to take a public stance against a minor before his court case is even finished. Deleting only the content suggesting he might be innocent will significantly affect public opinion, regardless of the final outcome of the case. If it turns out he is innocent then this is going to be the Nicholas Sandmann situation all over again.
> You are essentially arguing against “innocent until proven guilty” and implying it’s okay for a global corporation to take a public stance against a minor before his court case is even finished.
Their platform, their rules. Vote with your dollar, support their competitors, etc. Facebook isn't the judicial system, though, and it's ridiculous to even imply it is.
> Deleting only the content suggesting he might be innocent will significantly affect public opinion, regardless of the final outcome of the case.
First were talking, "innocent until proven guilty," now were talking public opinion? You're confusing the judicial system for hearts and minds.
Asymmetrical warfare. Truth can never win. Fact checking is akin to boiling the ocean.
Just require attribution and real names.
Then ban algorithmic newsfeeds, targeted advertising, and bots.
Sure, let the Freedom Speeches™ trolls keep their conspiracy theories and hoaxes. Anything approaching omission will trigger the cancel culture keyboard commandos. And who needs that heart ache?
But ffs stop promoting it. And if it's not signed with a real name, don't pass it off as any thing more than it is.
PS- I'm open towards banning likes and retweets. I haven't dug into the data, but I'm reasonably sure they're part of the dopamine addiction too. And if these obvious, common sense, proven remedies are not enough, start adding other frictions to the feedback loops.
I think another underrated solution may be geographically restricted posting. Someone else was talking about massive amounts of trolls flooding local groups that try to inform people about the fire, so why not have a feature where communities are effectively GPS locked down to some radius.
More likely that they'll just become cynical and stop believing everything altogether. Marking a post as a lie doesn't educate the user how, or give them the tools they need to independently confirm the truth of a post.
It's worth noting that the "misinformation" cited by Facebook regards the attribution of the fires to particular groups, and that they are not disputing that some of the fires may have been intentional. They are not claiming that all of the fires are natural, or that people have not been arrested for arson, just that those arrested are not shown to be associated with the particular groups that are being accused. This page has details on six individuals who have in fact been arrested for setting recent West Coast fires: https://thatoregonlife.com/2020/09/signs-in-oregon-fire-zone....
This trouble for Facebook and well anyone attempting to combat misinformation is that the falsehood can be created in seconds. The clever ones are designed to be hard to fully disprove, or at least seem that way.
Everyone else has to then scramble and spend hours, days or more gathering evidence to prove lies are incorrect. It's a denial of truth attack that is impossible to police fairly on a time scale that matters.
42 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 83.8 ms ] threadHere we have a distraught witness: https://www.bitchute.com/video/tNgWGZBxPtGx/
Also, even if her claim is true, there is no evidence that the people involved had any affiliation with antifa or proud boys.
e.g.:
https://nitter.net/AwakenedOutlaw/status/1305234813234933760...
https://nitter.net/sandy1schneider/status/130472396024075878...
https://nitter.net/fukushimaexpos2/status/130454846635014963...
It is individual consumers, whose every attempt at organized action has been sabotaged, that are to blame.
Some sources:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/20/oil-company...
https://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations/
But you're going to have to explain how that works, because I'm not seeing it.
Sure, climate change is a real and increasingly urgent problem. And you can make a case that it made the situation worse; fine.
But the bark beetle was both necessary, and sufficient, to cause the crisis we're seeing. I've seen estimates of 30% kill rates in Western forests over the past five years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bark_beetle#Ecology
Frustratingly, one of the best sources of information about the fires has been community meetings and content posted on Facebook by the agencies involved. Often those same community meetings and PSAs about the fire have been bracketed by non-stop streams of people reposting this same bullshit about the fires.
In general, I think posting siloed content is really bad policy by government agencies, but in this case it's particularly bad. I don't see this as a failure of the fire agencies—it's not their job to be a platform for delivering content. The problem is our government lacks effective channels for delivering this content outside of these silos.
Such as? Examples would be appreciated.
All https://JoeBiden.info/ links are banned. It's 100% truthful, with citations, and unmodified video that you can watch with your own eyes.
Or did you perhaps intend to say the attack against him was justified, because he was carrying a gun?
But then, wasn't one of the attackers also armed? But, maybe he didn't cross state lines, so that's what made his behavior justified, and Kyle's unjustified?
Kyle crossed a state line to go to work. He had a job as a lifeguard at the YMCA. After work, he stopped to help a group of people cleaning graffiti off of the local high school. (there are photos) He then, with his local friends, responded to a business owner who wanted help guarding property. Those friends supplied the rifle.
Kyle brought a medical kit and helped bandage a rioter who got an injured foot.
At a gas station, rioters set a fire in a wheeled dumpster. It seems they intended to push it toward the police. Kyle is seen in video running with a fire extinguisher. Somebody then used the fire extinguisher to put out the fire, enraging the rioters.
So I think it is obvious that Kyle was trying to save people and property. You might find that unbelievable, but some people feel a duty to do that kind of thing. It's notable that he only shot people who were actively attacking him. Former attackers and armed potential attackers were not shot at. It's a surprising amount of restraint.
Isn’t that called vigilantism?
https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racia...
> In another video recorded before the shootings, a teen who appears to be Rittenhouse describes himself as a member of a local militia that was effectively protecting businesses in Kenosha.
A third video again shows the teen armed with a gun and strolling among what appear to be uniformed police officers.
Now his attackers were also armed - lets assume that, unlike Kyle, their motive in bringing guns to a protest was self-defense.
Despite all of this, there's video showing he wasn't the first to shoot, was running away, and was on the ground being kicked and hit in the head when he shot the second time.
You are saying that, despite this exculpatory video evidence, the mere fact he went to the protest with a gun is so damning, he simply must be guilty? That he must have done something, not caught on video (such as threatening the protesters with his rifle), that justified their attack? Not could have, but must have, since if it was a mere 'could have', then you wouldn't find his self-defense claim so unbelievable.
Because he had the wrong reason for coming, he simply couldn't have been attacked?
And none of this logic applies to the protesters who also brought guns?
I'm highly suspect of any legal team containing a QAnon extremist, and I'm not using that word lightly or attempting to smear, "the other side." QAnon is a conspiracy that launders traditional blood libel myths with a desired end goal of having Trump lock up the political opposition. You can't be a reputable source and adhere to those beliefs.
The judicial system is, in effect, highly dependent upon good faith. This can be seen with parking tickets being paid by the wealthy or not stalling the lawsuit until the opposition runs out of money.
So, if a person acts in bad faith against such an incredibly fragile system, then I don't think their title ought to be recognized. And, in my eyes, hoping that the president extra-judicially locks up half of hollywood and his opposition, and then ships them to guantanamo bay, qualifies as acting in bad faith, as it seems to overturn the judicial system.
> start to fill in your own narrative because it's simply convenient?
I'm sure I'm the one seeking convenient narratives, not the group of people who believe in satanic ritual abuse is being conducted by their political enemies because of a guy who used to post semi-anonymously on 8chan. There's not much nuance to be had in that belief system
What next? We should also trust the police - video evidence to the contrary?
No. In fact, I specifically listed instances where they didn't.
Their platform, their rules. Vote with your dollar, support their competitors, etc. Facebook isn't the judicial system, though, and it's ridiculous to even imply it is.
> Deleting only the content suggesting he might be innocent will significantly affect public opinion, regardless of the final outcome of the case.
First were talking, "innocent until proven guilty," now were talking public opinion? You're confusing the judicial system for hearts and minds.
Johnnie Cochran also said OJ wasn’t guilty.....
Just require attribution and real names.
Then ban algorithmic newsfeeds, targeted advertising, and bots.
Sure, let the Freedom Speeches™ trolls keep their conspiracy theories and hoaxes. Anything approaching omission will trigger the cancel culture keyboard commandos. And who needs that heart ache?
But ffs stop promoting it. And if it's not signed with a real name, don't pass it off as any thing more than it is.
PS- I'm open towards banning likes and retweets. I haven't dug into the data, but I'm reasonably sure they're part of the dopamine addiction too. And if these obvious, common sense, proven remedies are not enough, start adding other frictions to the feedback loops.
Otherwise agreed with all the points.
Mark them as lies and don't let the writer modify or delete them.
Once people see they have been upvoting lies, some might reconsider next time.
I don't get how Facebook can say with certainty this is misinformation? It's information that hasn't been verified. There is an important difference.
Everyone else has to then scramble and spend hours, days or more gathering evidence to prove lies are incorrect. It's a denial of truth attack that is impossible to police fairly on a time scale that matters.