Trump

[SuperMappy]

I have nothing but respect for that officer at 13:34. As far as I know he had every right to draw his sidearm for defensive reasons.

I honestly do not know what stopped Pence from knocking Trumps block off when they met again.

[merman]

Ted Cruz. Dumb, travelling to Mexico with his daughters while Texas froze.

[F-ZeroOne]

Not Trump per se, but remember QANON believing school-shooting denier congresswoman? She continues to seem nice.

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula ... or-greene/

[F-ZeroOne]

The last President would like to take this opportunity to remind you what a whiny petulant manchild he was:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 15553.html

[F-ZeroOne]

Rudy Giuliani has had his law license suspended:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 72209.html

Though to be honest he always felt a bit like one of the reasons given why the Allies never assassinated Hitler; he was doing more damage to his own side.

[F-ZeroOne]

So what do you call it when a (self-proclaimed) billionaire launches his own social media platform? Big Hair Transplant?:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58990330

And if you're guessing that its already been hacked...

[Mayhem]

Someone has already registered liesociai.com as well.

The most oxymoronic title ever, neither truth nor social. It's just going to become an echo chamber for conspiracy nuts to tear each other apart on...

[tufty]

So what do you call it when a (self-proclaimed) billionaire launches his own social media platform

Also, the man who told over 30,000 verifiable lies over the 4 years he was in office, launches a social media platform called "Truth".

[PFVA]

The first thing that came to my mind when I read that was Hitler, Goebels, nazism. I find it worrying. Of course times are different. I'm seeing here in this country the still small but increasing support for the racist right politicians.

[KlaxonCow]

Also, the man who told over 30,000 verifiable lies over the 4 years he was in office, launches a social media platform called "Truth".

Which is why I never took the moral hysteria over "fake news" so seriously as everyone else did.

The man who coined the term is the incarnation of "fake news". He is "fake news" personified. Not even his skin colour or hair are remotely real - you're just staring into the deep abyss of a living fake. His waxworks look more real than he does.

Why the hell was anyone ever entertaining or indulging this idiot for a split-second with his "fake news" moaning, when in the very next sentence, he'd use another 3 or 4 lies himself?

(Of course, "fake news" is a thing that exists. But it always has. There's honestly no more "fake news" today than in the past. Per America's "open government", the Gulf of Tonkin incident was "fake news". The first engagement was America being aggressive, to prompt a response, to give them the excuse. The second "incident" reported? Never even happened. Totally made up. And America totally used this complete lie as a pretext to go to war. It's on official record now - they made it up, it never happened and it was just to dupe the American people into accepting a war that they'd never have endorsed without the outright lies.

The Internet has not made this shit any worse. On the contrary, it makes it all the more obvious when they're bullshitting us. Alternative voices - ordinary people - can make their objections known, in the face of the propaganda machine. And THAT is really why governments want this crusade against "fake news" on social media. The Internet means that they lose control of the narrative, and they want that power back.

Yes, there are idiots and conspiracy nuts out there. But there always have been. That's not the real threat to truth. The real threat is governments getting their hands on the mechanisms of universal censorship. Some nutter with a blog about UFOs or 5G viruses is not the real danger. The real danger is governments using an "online hate bill" and "cracking down on fake news" to re-gain control of the narrative and, you know, beam propaganda at us that they didn't absolutely atrociously fuck up the pandemic response and let some 140K people die so far. That sort of shit.

A terrorist can take some lives in an attack. A government can ruin them all.

That's the real threat, the real danger. Because even the worst of it - religious extremism killing an MP - is just one man, while Boris happily lets almost 200 people die every single day. And let's remember Jo Cox - because Brexit propaganda and extremism currently has the same death count. But, no, they didn't put up a statue or make a town into a city in her honour, did they? Indeed, it was barely mentioned that her killer shouted "Britain First" as he murdered her. At least "Allahu akbar" has a more poetic and non-parochial ring to it.)

[Harlequin]

The man who coined the term is the incarnation of "fake news".…

[Detail from The Fin de Siècle Newspaper Proprietor, an illustration featured in an 1894 issue of Puck magazine. Amid the flurry of eager paper-clutching public, one holds a publication brandished with the words "Fake News".]

Frederick Burr Opper has unfortunately been an ex-cartoonist since before WWII.

Personally, I first encountered the term before the prospect of an orange U.S. President had entered my consciousness. It occurred in articles from an apparently Russian-connected site called The Canary to which friends had posted links on Facebook. The phrase was primarily used in reference to what the site called "Mainsteam Media" (or "MSM"), particularly any news source that did not acknowledge the divinity of Jeremy Corbyn.

(Of course, "fake news" is a thing that exists. But it always has.…

Indeed.

The Internet has not made this shit any worse. On the contrary, it makes it all the more obvious when they're bullshitting us. Alternative voices - ordinary people - can make their objections known, in the face of the propaganda machine.…

… The real threat is governments getting their hands on the mechanisms of universal censorship.…

… because Brexit propaganda and extremism currently has the same death count.…

While I am wary of all censorship, Government or otherwise, I would not be so certain that the Internet has not had a major part to play in a more efficient and convincing spread of misinformation. People generally mistrusted politicians anyway, at least in the U.K. While certain countries appear to have discovered in 'social media' a way to finally enact plans to hoist liberal democracies upon their own free-speech petards, most people now have their own friends and families sending, tweeting and posting to their timelines headlines and image macros they have never bothered to check or further investigate, merely because they provoke outrage or support their less popular feelings. Would the Brexit propaganda have been so successful, or the current polarisation of populations so extreme, without the Internet or similar technology?

[KlaxonCow]

I would not be so certain that the Internet has not had a major part to play in a more efficient and convincing spread of misinformation.

I would want actual evidence that demonstrates that this is genuinely a real problem, before I start waving placards in protest that it should be fixed.

I'm thinking, for example, about anti-vax nonsense, 5G viruses and all that. This was a worry that misinformation would disrupt the vaccination campaign.

But, looking at the stats, of those eligible, 86.3% of the population has had the 1st dose and 79.1% the second dose.

If broken down by age group, then the older folks have an even better take-up rate and this is being dragged down by the youngsters.

These figures do not suggest there is a problem (as you're simply NEVER going to get 100% and approaching 90% overall and over 90% in the most vulnerable age groups is realistically the most amazing take-up that we could ever plausibly expect, and which easily beats into submission any other comparable campaign in history).

Before you propose "solutions", please first demonstrate that there actually is a problem.

By the way, I'm not saying that there aren't real problems out there. Of course not. Indeed, many of my long posts are all about what's horridly wrong with the world.

But when I say "prove it", this is the correct application of scepticism - as in, I'll believe it, once it's shown to be true and not beforehand - and not of cynicism. I do believe that, yes, in many cases, you or someone else could exactly demonstrate to me that there really is a problem. I don't doubt that is the case. But what I'm saying is that something is not a problem because the mainstream media or people on Facebook moan about it, it's a problem once - and only if - it is actually shown by the evidence to be problematic.

I'm wary of this shit because I've seen "moral panics" rise and fall, and people propose "solutions". But with two crucial elements missing: first, prove that there really is a problem there in the first place. Two, prove that your proposed "solution" actually solves said problem.

I remember, as crime rates fell under Blair (though, I don't believe this was anything really to with him or Brown - crime rates fall in booms and rise in busts, and New Labour enjoyed existing at the same time as a global boom), then he started talking about getting "tough" on "the fear of crime". This is Orwellian nonsense.

An open confession that there really isn't any great problem to be solved here, but let's start fighting non-existent boogeymen instead.

Indeed - and this is why we need to demand evidence that a problem exists before subscribing to its proposed "solution" - because if you start "fixing" that which isn't, in fact, even broken, then you'll start breaking an actual working system. Enacting "solutions" to non-problems is, in fact, a method of creating problems in the first place.

But, most of all, when solutions are proposed, the real thing that's insane is that the effectiveness of these solutions is rarely, if ever, assessed.

Is there any evidential proof that CCTV ever cut crime rates? I remember the "moral panic" that called for them in the '80s. Well, we're some 40 years later. We have oodles of data now. Did it actually work? Was it worth it? Does the "solution" actually have a significant effect?

I ask this because I know, during "austerity", it was reported in the local newspaper that the local council was saving money by, like, not bothering to fully operate the CCTV in the town. Yes, they actually openly announced this in the local newspaper. They told would-be criminals that the cameras would be turned off to save money. This would be an insane thing to do, if the CCTV actually did anything.

But this is the open secret. There was no "crime wave" that prompted their installation. There was no spike nor dip in the crime rates when they were installed. And they're happy to openly announce that they've turned them off to save cash... because it had no real effect on anything whatsoever, and they know it.

Three simple words: "Nullius in verba". On the words of no-one.

The motto of the Royal Society - under which Newton and Darwin laboured - to remind them of that simple scientific philosophy that something is never true just because someone said it was. It is only true when actual reality says it is. Basically, empiricism.



I see a million theories offered. Every day we have a new "moral outrage". Everyone pushing agendas in all directions.

Empiricism is the only solution. Test which theories are actually true, and which theoretical solutions actually work. Test the validity of people's gripes - you really should do this, as a quick browse of the stats nearly almost always demonstrates it's actually complete bollocks.

You shouldn't believe in anything or believe anyone. You should demand to KNOW. Granted, we're imperfect beings living in an environment of imperfect knowledge, so we can't entirely avoid having to believe some things - but reduce that set, wherever possible, to as close to zero as you can.

As I like to say, whilst "correlation does not mean causation", what you absolutely can't have - where that logical error originates from - is causation without any correlation at all. If "X causes Y" and you have loads of X, then you must have loads of Y. You can't have "X causes Y" being true, that there's loads of X but, oh look, sod all Y. Then X clearly does not cause Y at all, does it?

So, simply, if the Internet is this cesspit of misinformation, then demonstrate where in reality this has had actual significant effect on anything?

I don't believe you. But I'm always willing to accept evidence that demonstrates you're right. Show it to me. That's all. And if you are right, then this should really not prove to be any great hindrance.

Would the Brexit propaganda have been so successful, or the current polarisation of populations so extreme, without the Internet or similar technology?

By the polling that was done up to and after the referendum, Leave only won by a stroke of good timing. They would have lost any time up until the week of the referendum, and they would have lost in the weeks thereafter.

By horrible coincidence, the referendum landed exactly as there was a "migrant crisis" hitting Europe and that twat Farage was doing this:



Of course, if you dig into it, the image doesn't show what it purports to show (I mean, how could it be an image of a migrant "invasion" that Farage was suggesting was going to come, but which had not actually happened yet? Farage is able to source images from the future somehow?).

Despite all that "will of the people" crap, Leave barely won. It scraped over the line. And it did so - as the polling up to the referendum indicates - because the vote landed, unfortunately, in the midst of a "migrant crisis" panic in Europe. They were told that a "flood" was coming, and they voted to close the floodgates.

If you listen to Leave voters - such as on James O'Brien's LBC show - their talking points are about "EU laws". Though none of them can tell you what laws they actually objected to. These lies have been in existence and peddled by the right-wing tabloids for decades, long before anyone was ever talking about this on social media.

When we listen to the Leave voters, what we hear is not "social media misinformation" being regurgitated back at us. We hear "straight bananas", which was a lie that Boris Johnson made up in his newspaper columns.

The evidence does not bear out that social media had any significant role in this. Leave voters talk about "straight bananas" - a very old lie from Boris in a newspaper - they talk about the big lie on the side of the red bus about money for the NHS, they talk about Farage standing in front of that scare-mongering poster (which was a traditional media photo op).

But, yes, this is what I'm asking for. Bring me the example of where social media provably caused real world problems. This is, indeed, an often-cited example but the facts don't bear out the conclusion.

Perhaps the one possible example was President Trump dog-whistling for an insurrection. But he was the President. Yes, he did this on Twitter. But he also did it on TV, he did it at White House press conferences, he did it in interviews. Indeed, most of that dog whistling was by traditional media, not Twitter. And as we're talking about a President tweeting, I'd say that counts as the government controlling the narrative - and it just so happens to be using social media to do it - and not that social media itself was the cause.

I love nothing more than to talk about solutions to problems. You know this. You've read my long posts sometimes.

But I want proof - up front - that there is a problem to be solved in the first place, before I listen to a single proposed "solution". Non-problems do not require solutions. And when someone suggests a solution, I'm not going to believe it actually works, until the real world data proves it.

There are plenty of "solutions" out there which are demonstrably horse shit. For example, Marx's Communism proposed a solution to the problem of the Robber Barons. Did it actually work? Many a Tory would have you believe that the free market solves everything. Has that actually proved true in reality?

People propose "solutions" all over the place to everything. We need a filter to weed out the wheat from the chaff. And that filter must be empiricism - evidence from the real world must prove to us that there's a problem in the first place. Evidence from the real world must prove to us that the proposed solution is actually doing what it claims to do.

[Harlequin]

I would not be so certain that the Internet has not had a major part to play in a more efficient and convincing spread of misinformation.

Before you propose "solutions", please first demonstrate that there actually is a problem.

Was I proposing solutions?

But when I say "prove it", this is the correct application of scepticism - as in, I'll believe it, once it's shown to be true and not beforehand - and not of cynicism.

It is for similar reasons that I am wary of seemingly unproved statements like "The Internet has not made this shit any worse". I might be more willing to accept something more along the lines of "nobody has yet empirically proved that the Internet has made this shit any worse".

I don't believe you. But I'm always willing to accept evidence that demonstrates you're right. Show it to me. That's all. And if you are right, then this should really not prove to be any great hindrance.

I think I made very few assertions beyond apparent historical fact, personal experience and personal perceptions. Which of my statements do you not believe?

Do you disbelieve that most people are seeing bullshit shared by friends and family on social media? I confess, I should probably have specified that my assumptions about their reasons for not subjecting it to further scrutiny probably applies only to some sharers rather than my implication of all of them. I hope that my slight hyperbole in describing The Canary's attitude to Jeremy Corbyn was read with its intended humour.

I think that 'social media' is a tool that may (and, I feel, is likely to) have improved the efficiency of certain causes of problems; not that it has necessarily been a cause of them unto itself. I am also sceptical of any knee-jerk reactions to contemporary scares (and what was the Conservative Government's legal reaction to the killing of the non-Conservative MP, Jo Cox?), which tend to lack research and often seem to be means to push indirectly connected pre-existing agendas. I have already mentioned my general dislike of censorship, which leads me against supporting such actions as YouTube's recent ban of anti-vaccination videos.

[KlaxonCow]

Florida man accused of breaking Mastodon's open-source license with botched social network launch

Golf enthusiast given 30 days to cough up code

(Yes, the whole article refuses to name Trump directly - to not give him any search-engine-friendly publicity - but drops more than enough hints as to who they're talking about.)

It seems Trump has simply taken the open-source Mastodon source code and tried modifying it to disguise its origins (though nowhere near well enough that it's bloody obvious he's half-inched it), to avoid complying with its licence's requirements to make publicly available the source code of any modifications.

He has 20 seconds to comply - sorry, I mean, he has 30 days to comply - before legal action is taken (by the Software Freedom Conservancy, who's also launched a lawsuit against TV manufacturer, Vizio, for breaking the GPL too).

We, of course, should not have expected anything less. Of course Trump didn't pay to develop his own social media software, but just paid some people to hack some open source software to make things look more impressive than they are.

And so, to serve his ego, he tried to hide that he'd done this, instead of simply, you know, openly admitting that it's based on Mastodon and including a link to the source code.

If he just did that, then all would be well. You are perfectly allowed to take it, modify it and attempt to launch your own failure of a social network using it, if you like. Just don't lie about where it comes from, and contribute your modifications back into the pool (on the off-chance one of his coders did do something interesting and useful that could be folded back to the main project upstream - which seems unlikely, perhaps, as it's probably all just branding and nothing else, but that is the underlying point of GPL-like licences that you're allowed to take, as long as you give back anything useful you might do).

"lmao", as the youngsters like to say.

[merman]

Significant that Congress has declared Steve Bannon in contempt of the Supreme Court, for failing to appear at the inquiry into the Capitol Riots.

Especially when so many of the reports and statements relating to Bannon contain the fact he mentioned something was going to happen on his radio show the day before it happened.

If he sings, Trump is toast.
Even if he doesn’t, it will have a big effect on those Republicans who still support Trump - they will want to dump any association with Bannon and most of that was through Trump.