Mr. Tact wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 08:38:

roguebanshee wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 08:10:
An older XKCD on the subject:

https://xkcd.com/1357/

As is often the case, xkcd nails it.

The guy is brilliant.
He always adds some hidden text to every image if you long press it.

this image says
I can't remember where i heard this but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession, you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.

Jivaro wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 18:46:
... It reminded me of my last year or so in Denmark, which was right before they joined the EU. At the time the big discussion wasn't just whether to join or not, it was whether to use the Euro or the Danish krone. I could listen to two different "experts" on the news with two different viewpoints use the same financial statistics to prove opposite points...

Welcome to economics, the "science" which most resembles voodoo. Economists often can't agree what happened economically, even decades later -- let alone accurately predict what will happen. Sometimes I think the purpose of economics is to prove math is useless...

I have always had a hard time discerning what from what when it came to Brexit. I would see the same statistics used to make opposite arguments. It reminded me of my last year or so in Denmark, which was right before they joined the EU. At the time the big discussion wasn't just whether to join or not, it was whether to use the Euro or the Danish krone. I could listen to two different "experts" on the news with two different viewpoints use the same financial statistics to prove opposite points. I didn't understand the Danish economy at any level at the time, I was not a economically informed individual, and I didn't have any money invested in Denmark that would be affected by conversion. If you are a British fishermen who used to fish waters that the French can only fish in now but Brexit promises to fix that, you are probably for Brexit even if you don't know anything else about it or how it will affect you because right now you know it's affecting your livelihood. I hope in the long term the UK gets what they want out of this because they are giving up quite a bit.

Scheherazade wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 14:42:
Brexit may yet end up being good for the UK. EU was very expensive for the UK. They paid in far more than they got, and they lost a lot in EU regulations imposed on the UK.

This is a myth, 99% of all UK gov expenses were due to local UK policies when it was part of the EU. It cost them "pennies", relatively speaking.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HDFegpX5gI

Scheherazade wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 14:42:
Plus the universal right to work and travel created a mass labor migration that saturated labor markets and depressed wages, while brain draining poorer EU member nations.

This also has downsides, like a shortage of health sector workers, nurses, doctors and specialists they didn't suffer from when part of the EU, and it's hitting them particularly hard right now during Covid.

For a source, the above video's channel ( Pindex, videos narrated by Stephen Fry ) has another video about this if I remember well. They have many myth busting Brexit videos.

Chipp0r wrote on Jan 10, 2021, 16:30:
We live in interesting times
- China is laughing at the western world for it's treatment and handling of the coronavirus which has brought huge expense and deaths due to a slow to react government and unwilling population to adhere to rules because we so used to being liberal and free.
- The strongest nation on earth elects a right wing narcissistic as president and is able to rile and maintain a loyal following.
- UK shot themselves in the foot with Brexit.

These make troubling times for western countries - As a string of bad decisions left up to the will of the people has caused all the above to happen and continue to persist. As social media continues to dominate and provide every person in every household their own echo-chambered view of life, these problems will deepen. We talk to people less to get other views, we understand less and less about the reality we live in thus we care less and ultimately, we'll be a race of selfish idiots being ruled by a rich elite and vain media superstars.

This is exactly like watching a Black Mirror episode and unless something is bravely done to take us off this path we're going then I do fear for the future.

Brexit may yet end up being good for the UK. EU was very expensive for the UK. They paid in far more than they got, and they lost a lot in EU regulations imposed on the UK.

(E.g. like fishing waters that were operated in by UK fishermen since time immemorial being assigned to other nations, putting coastal regions out of business).

Plus the universal right to work and travel created a mass labor migration that saturated labor markets and depressed wages, while brain draining poorer EU member nations.

I'm sure there will be at least a short term dip in UK markets, but long term it could go either way.

IIRC the UK also was not keen on dissolving their military and combining it with other nations into a singular EU military controlled from the EU. Once that happens there is no way to exit (because who will enforce the exit if the EU disagrees?). So the time to do it was before the military merger.

-scheherazade

Beamer wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 12:35:
Can we stop pretending Fox isn't "the mainstream media," and can we stop pretending that Trump doesn't frequently say "I heard" or "people are saying," with Fox then repeating ad nauseum?

99% of what Trump said about voter fraud was "people are saying that blah blah blah," which Fox absolutely ran with. Never proof, just "people are saying." That's objectively worse than an anonymous source.

The voter fraud was real, I looked into it... No really i did. I saw all the news about mail in ballots, noticed that I had not received my mail in ballot that FoxNews, OANN and NewsMAX promised me that I could commit fraud with and then found out that I had been removed from the voter rolls by Judicial Watch for being dead and illegal. It was a weird way to find out that I had died an illegal alien.

I emailed them, and was told that I wasn't a dead illegal alien I could reregister because i live in a state that allows you to register and vote in the same day. Then i heard that registering and voting in the same day was 100% for sure fraud. soooo fuck...

Can we stop pretending Fox isn't "the mainstream media," and can we stop pretending that Trump doesn't frequently say "I heard" or "people are saying," with Fox then repeating ad nauseum?

99% of what Trump said about voter fraud was "people are saying that blah blah blah," which Fox absolutely ran with. Never proof, just "people are saying." That's objectively worse than an anonymous source.

Benzer wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 10:30:
There is no problem using an anonymous source.
When a major story is published by a media outlet using an anonymous source, typically a second media outlet will attempt to verify the story using their sources. It is actually the independent verification of the story by the second, third, fourth group that provides the credibility.
This is what you need to pay attention to. This happens all of the time in mainstream media. Not so much with fox news.

That's true, but also media relies on anonymous sources too much, and the sources abuse it to message without accountability.

She argued that there is a big difference between a national security article that cannot be written with on-the-record sources and stories which allow unnamed government officials “to use the press as a megaphone, to float politically sensitive trial balloons, or to disparage their enemies without accountability.”

D-Rock wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 08:42:

Saboth wrote on Jan 10, 2021, 14:14:
If we go that route, then I'd also argue Fox, Newsmax, OANN, and the others need massive oversight and regulation. If you purport to be news, you should employ journalists with actual degrees and experience in journalism, be held to some kind of journalistic standards, have to provide at least some kind of sources for your "stories" (other than "some people believe"), etc. Hell, we also need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine that Reagan scrapped that paved the way for these political propaganda outlets.

What you've described is an issue that applies to all media. Prior to the election the left media constantly cited 'anonymous sources' for their big 'stories'. An anonymous source is not a source. That's just one example of the left's integrity issues. If you want to regulate it has to apply to everyone.

Good luck finding actual fact checkers that are not biased though...

There is nothing wrong with anonymous sources, they are a career check for the journalist, the editor and fact checking. There is a process involved and it is one we have trusted for a long time. The reputation of the organization is on the line and it is taken seriously by real news organizations. Your distrust of it is unreasonable unless you getting your information from places you do not trust and if that's the case, I think you need to ask yourself where the problem really lies.

You talk about integrity issues on the left as well which is kind of disingenuous when most of the right wing media in this country has descended into fantasy fiction. As a nearly lifetime Conservative I am very careful where I get my news. I tend to pay for reputable news from real organizations like the New York Times. I don't go there expecting my ego to be stroked or my opinion to be coddled, I read it for the news. People cry about bias but I see opposition editorials in every reputable newspaper I read. And if I am really feeling sensitive I just avoid the op-eds. I get very little news from television. Fox News has few reputable journalists on staff and is mostly a glorified op-ed/propaganda machine. Likewise I find CNN to be a glorified entertainment network. I don't even need to mention OAN or Newsmax, if you think those are reputable sources of information then you need to further educate yourself. The idea that "conservative news" is somehow even different than regular news is silly to me. News is news.

We've allowed the demonization of journalism which has destroyed trust in an institution that is a critical pillar of society. We also have too many people in this country who do not use their critical thinking skills or lack them entirely. I get relatives sending or telling me the most ridiculous things that do not survive even a cursory credulity check, let alone a fact check. The overwhelming majority of the time when I ask them where they heard it, it is from right wing media sources. Most of them never bother to source what they hear which is also distressing. People claim they don't have time to look things up yet they always seem to have time to endlessly regurgitate crap online.

D-Rock wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 08:42:

What you've described is an issue that applies to all media. Prior to the election the left media constantly cited 'anonymous sources' for their big 'stories'. An anonymous source is not a source.

Really dude? Did you think this through for even one second? An anonymous source isn't a source? (Hint: They are anonymous to you, not to the reporter writing the piece.)

Reporters rely on people whose information has checked out in the past, and without anonymity, they would immediately be burned and useless. The truth isn't possible without anonymity, because the repercussions for getting identified are too high. Who is going to blow the whistle if they are never going to be able to work again? Nobody. Virtually every major cabinet resignation/firing in the Trump administration was called days or weeks ahead of time by "anonymous sources" all the while Trump supporters accused the media of just making up drama out of thin air.

Go back to the Obama administration and it's the same thing. Anonymous sources checked out far more often than they didn't. Anonymous sources are a cornerstone of journalism, and an absolute necessity.

That is, unless you support vindictive reprisal actions against whistleblowers, in which case anonymity is bad. Do you support burning whistleblowers and people trying to get information out there that they think the public needs to know?

There is no problem using an anonymous source.
When a major story is published by a media outlet using an anonymous source, typically a second media outlet will attempt to verify the story using their sources. It is actually the independent verification of the story by the second, third, fourth group that provides the credibility.
This is what you need to pay attention to. This happens all of the time in mainstream media. Not so much with fox news.

D-Rock wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 08:42:

Saboth wrote on Jan 10, 2021, 14:14:
If we go that route, then I'd also argue Fox, Newsmax, OANN, and the others need massive oversight and regulation. If you purport to be news, you should employ journalists with actual degrees and experience in journalism, be held to some kind of journalistic standards, have to provide at least some kind of sources for your "stories" (other than "some people believe"), etc. Hell, we also need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine that Reagan scrapped that paved the way for these political propaganda outlets.

What you've described is an issue that applies to all media. Prior to the election the left media constantly cited 'anonymous sources' for their big 'stories'. An anonymous source is not a source. That's just one example of the left's integrity issues. If you want to regulate it has to apply to everyone.

Good luck finding actual fact checkers that are not biased though...

Nothing you just said is accurate.

For fucks sake, remember Deep Throat? Nixon was brought down by an anonymous source!

What you said is not reality, and an absolute lack of understanding of history.

Read a book. Learn what media is. Maybe it will help you pick better media. If you think you can "both sides" between OANN calling for a coup and the New York Times reporting, well, you belong on the block list, because by choice or nature you're incapable of adding value to these discussions

D-Rock wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 08:42:
What you've described is an issue that applies to all media. Prior to the election the left media constantly cited 'anonymous sources' for their big 'stories'. An anonymous source is not a source. That's just one example of the left's integrity issues. If you want to regulate it has to apply to everyone.

Uh, read your own first sentence. You think right leaning media never uses unnamed sources? Clearly doing so, on either side, is something that can be easily abused, by either side. That said, it is often the nature of the news business and even more so in the political world, that sometimes people want to give out information but don't want it known they provided the information. Sometimes, like in whistle blower situations, it is actually necessary to keep the source secret. Do you oppose all whistle blower protection laws? I certainly don't. Basically, you just have to keep track of each organization and see how often their unnamed sources turn out of have been correct. Unfortunately, that takes time and effort, so it is something most people aren't willing to do.

Saboth wrote on Jan 10, 2021, 14:14:
If we go that route, then I'd also argue Fox, Newsmax, OANN, and the others need massive oversight and regulation. If you purport to be news, you should employ journalists with actual degrees and experience in journalism, be held to some kind of journalistic standards, have to provide at least some kind of sources for your "stories" (other than "some people believe"), etc. Hell, we also need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine that Reagan scrapped that paved the way for these political propaganda outlets.

What you've described is an issue that applies to all media. Prior to the election the left media constantly cited 'anonymous sources' for their big 'stories'. An anonymous source is not a source. That's just one example of the left's integrity issues. If you want to regulate it has to apply to everyone.

Good luck finding actual fact checkers that are not biased though...

roguebanshee wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 08:10:
An older XKCD on the subject:

https://xkcd.com/1357/

As is often the case, xkcd nails it.

Jonjonz wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 06:38:
News flash for Trumpoloons:

Free speech existed for centuries before social media platforms and representative government did just fine.

Free speech does not mean free from liability.

Any sane person is going to shut up and lock up anyone shouting fire in crowded theatres when there is no fire.

Tough toenails if civilization steps on you if you break the law, or advocate sedition or treason.

An older XKCD on the subject:

https://xkcd.com/1357/

the Supreme Court has already set the legal threshold for prosecution when it comes to inciting a riot -- and that the president went well beyond it.

"The federal criminal code (18 USC 373) makes it a crime to solicit, command, induce or 'endeavor to persuade' another person to commit a felony that includes the threat or use of physical force. Simply put, it is a crime to persuade another person, or a mob of several thousand, to commit a violent felony,"

It's clear by the Secret Service investigation that was conducted those platforms are knowing being used as recruitment for violent extremists.
He 'can claim' it (he frequently claims crazy shit all the time) was First Amendment but he will be denied.

News flash for Trumpoloons:

Free speech existed for centuries before social media platforms and representative government did just fine.

Free speech does not mean free from liability.

Any sane person is going to shut up and lock up anyone shouting fire in crowded theatres when there is no fire.

Tough toenails if civilization steps on you if you break the law, or advocate sedition or treason.

You don't have to be white to get banned... Check out the documentary Uncle Tom.

Whenever someone talks about "conservative voices" being cancelled or censored or whatever, I have to wonder why they can never show me an example of say, a supply-side economics subreddit getting banned, or a flat tax rate Twitter account getting shut down, or some YouTube channel about why business regulation is bad getting closed or demonetized.

Why are these things, despite allegedly being conservative cornerstones, never banned? Could it instead be because white identity politics is bad for business?