Jeff Matthews Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 5 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said: I agree with what was presented but I gather we are interpreting the data differently. What they showed was two-fold: 1) Evidently the for-profit instigators they were talking about were trying to disrupt the status quo by sowing discontent and that didn't serve the side that was predicted to win up until the very voting day. 2) Only one of the political campaigns went to the trouble of hiring an "owners manual" because they were going to spend "100 million dollars on Facebook. What the documentary exposed was that several groups learned how to game Facebook and the media into making people think a lot of eventful things were happening that were propaganda generated--One of the things I learned from the documentary (and lends to why oldtimer views it as "evil") was that insiders at Facebook, 3rd party marketers (i.e., Cambridge Analytica), and operatives from one party were in cahoots to fund this discontent. This aspect of their business model was admitted to be a flaw by those interviewed from Facebook. Btw, I am not saying all were doing so knowingly but they were against one candidate which was brought out by Frontline. And the $100 million "genius" you are referring to admits, himself, that he wasn't the super-hero innovator you guys see him to be. He admits to copying from others. Don't you remember all the scare about death panels and so on? Do you remember all the scare about how one party is going to take over so they can start a global war and end life on Earth? This stuff has been going on for a long time. People love conspiracies. Everyone is kind of on to the game, now. And they enjoy it. They keep reading. I wonder what form it will take next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted November 25, 2018 Author Share Posted November 25, 2018 11 hours ago, TubeHiFiNut said: Exactly! And the "news feeds" and "comments" on fb are populated and driven by the same surrogates who submit Letters to the Editor and other submissions to newspapers. Did you watch the documentary? What you describe above is old school and isn't what was presented in Frontline's piece. Having followed this topic since prior to the election will also suggest reading up on some of the links provided earlier in the thread dealing with Cambridge Analytica and others. Honestly, some of that would be hard to get into without appearing political but there is a lot of information out there along with indictments and others coming...Stay tuned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 1 minute ago, Zen Traveler said: along with indictments and others coming...Stay tuned. I don't know. Lies to investigators? Yes. Money laundering? Yes. Bribery? Yes. Tax evasion? Yes. Fake news? First Amendment. I just have a hard time seeing what crime they could define that wouldn't violate free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted November 25, 2018 Author Share Posted November 25, 2018 1 minute ago, Jeff Matthews said: And the $100 million "genius" you are referring to admits, himself, that he wasn't the super-hero innovator you guys see him to be. Again--I gather we took his words differently. He actually said the other side used it effectively to win an election, while he otoh, REALLY wanted to know how it works and could be manipulated. His role was magnified/enhanced by the other shenanigans going on (collusion or not) and what Facebook changed with that cycle is trying not to let "Fake News" and propaganda drive their platform. 1 minute ago, Jeff Matthews said: He admits to copying from others. Don't you remember all the scare about death panels and so on? Yes. 1 minute ago, Jeff Matthews said: Do you remember all the scare about how one party is going to take over so they can start a global war and end life on Earth? This stuff has been going on for a long time. People love conspiracies. Everyone is kind of on to the game, now. And they enjoy it. They keep reading. I wish I could post the thread I started on November 1, 2016 entitled Russia and WikiLeaks because back then none of you guys were so certain--In fact, you didn't even think it was a problem yet it was that material we were discussing as "news" and important since the start of that election because y'all brought it up. Gilbert didn't seem to understand that one of the values of putting your thoughts in writing is that they can be scrutinized at a later date for accuracy and/or relevance. 1 minute ago, Jeff Matthews said: I wonder what form it will take next. I hope that all of this talk of what is actual news and facts gets resolved because we are living in the Information Age and no one is communicating using social media and the actual media more than the current POTUSA...In fact, ever since you and I have been discussing him it's been HIS words I've brought up and not what the media was saying about him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted November 25, 2018 Author Share Posted November 25, 2018 12 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said: I just have a hard time seeing what crime they could define that wouldn't violate free speech. Who they were talking to and if any money changed hands or promises made would be a good place to start. 👀 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 1 minute ago, Zen Traveler said: Quote Do you remember all the scare about how one party is going to take over so they can start a global war and end life on Earth? This stuff has been going on for a long time. People love conspiracies. Everyone is kind of on to the game, now. And they enjoy it. They keep reading. I wish I could post the thread I started on November 1, 2016 entitled Russia and WikiLeaks because back then none of you guys were so certain--In fact, you didn't even think it was a problem yet it was that material we were discussing as "news" and important since the start of that election because y'all brought it up. It is difficult to ascertain the falsity of certain publications. For example, do you recall the recent thread I posted on Dr. Burzynski, inviting input? I am sure you realize that liars don't lie 100% of the time. This is why the former Facebook head of security guy being interviewed admits that attempts to censor will lead us to a dark place (his words, not mine). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted November 25, 2018 Author Share Posted November 25, 2018 There are two things to consider with what we learned about Facebook and other things involving this "Free Speech" issue: 1) Realizing the danger of an unregulated platform that can be manipulated without the participants really understanding what's going on 2) Trying to make a goal with the people we choose to encounter to have a civil, thought-provoking discussion with facts instead of ranting and using Fake media as a source to justify ones own prejudices...Fwiw, that is why I engage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 7 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said: 21 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said: I just have a hard time seeing what crime they could define that wouldn't violate free speech. Who they were talking to and if any money changed hands or promises made would be a good place to start. 👀 How would it matter? Ads cost money. Journalism costs money. Of course, you have to pay people to work for you and advertise for you. Why do you think the attempt to paint Cambridge Analytica as a criminal enterprise have pretty much fizzled? Fake news abounds in the MSM, too, Zen. Keep your eye out for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted November 25, 2018 Author Share Posted November 25, 2018 1 minute ago, Jeff Matthews said: This is why the former Facebook head of security guy being interviewed admits that attempts to censor will lead us to a dark place (his words, not mine). I'm not talking about censorship. What I am advocating is that internet sources should be scrutinized and reputable sources (ones with fact-checking editors) should be considered more than those that appear (and are proven) to be from ones that are not. Propaganda is not information and we do live in an age where it can be differentiated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 3 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said: There are two things to consider with what we learned about Facebook and other things involving this "Free Speech" issue: 1) Realizing the danger of an unregulated platform that can be manipulated without the participants really understanding what's going on You call it "danger." I call it, "politics." It is what it is. Elvis is Alive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 Just now, Zen Traveler said: I'm not talking about censorship. What I am advocating is that internet sources should be scrutinized and reputable sources (ones with fact-checking editors) should be considered more than those that appear (and are proven) to be from ones that are not. Propaganda is not information and we do live in an age where it can be differentiated. Why don't you see this has been happening for along time? It was going on when we were talking about people like Glenn Beck and Alex Jones. Debunking is really an organic process. It's not going to work as a controlled process. All control will do is get you censorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted November 25, 2018 Author Share Posted November 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said: How would it matter? Ah....I think we are talking about two different things. The point I'm making is that words do matter. There is no such thing as alternative facts. That said, the reason I started the WikiLeaks and Russia thread was because I thought our discussions in the other place focused around extraneous topics that really had no importance but we/I was forced to discuss them because the were in "the Media." 😒 Keep in mind I started that thread when everyone thought the election was going to come out differently--I really couldn't imagine that it would turn into the Mueller investigation and what I found troubling was the propaganda that was being passed off as "News." I remember vividly asking the question why so many white dudes in our group seemed to care about racial matters and what you brought up a couple posts back IS the reason those things were discussed--It was by design and THAT is what this documentary exposed and Facebook admitted inadvertently happened... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 3 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said: I really couldn't imagine that it would turn into the Mueller investigation and what I found troubling was the propaganda that was being passed off as "News." Yes! On the other side, we heard stories about Russian prostitutes giving out golden showers, etc. All those fake stories compelled a special prosecution. The prosecutor got some bad guys, but it wasn't because of what the fake news portrayed. It's just more a matter of what turns up when authorities go on fishing expeditions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted November 25, 2018 Author Share Posted November 25, 2018 13 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said: You call it "danger." I call it, "politics." It is what it is. Elvis is Alive! Well. We have once again come full circle to where you and I have historically disagreed. You enter these discussions as entertainment while I think they are more important. 12 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said: Why don't you see this has been happening for along time? It was going on when we were talking about people like Glenn Beck and Alex Jones. Debunking is really an organic process. Why is it that Conservative outlets I've had to argue against are the only ones getting debunked? Remember our interaction about Breitbart? 12 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said: It's not going to work as a controlled process. All control will do is get you censorship. I'm not seeing it as cut-n-dry as you seem to be. I don't want censorship but easier access to understand news from opinion--That is what I am applauding Facebook for. They don't censor what I post from Breitbart but they do let others clicking on my link understand their history--Before they looked like a respectable news organization if folks didn't research like we did on those two you brought up above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 Just now, Zen Traveler said: You enter these discussions as entertainment while I think they are more important. I know you do. I am well-convinced that the aristocracy will keep things working in good order. Politicians must be beholden to them to survive. Plus, they have an entire network in place which manages the status quo. This is what qualified people do. This is why we aren't falling off a precipice in the annals of global history as some would have us fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted November 25, 2018 Author Share Posted November 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said: Yes! On the other side, we heard stories about Russian prostitutes giving out golden showers, etc. All those fake stories compelled a special prosecution Jeff. please don't get this thread shut down. I didn't bring up those incidents and it was the POTUSA's actions that brought about that Republican lead investigation and NOT what you focused on above. That said, some of the crimes you mentioned before do seem to be relevant, but too much for this topic not to be censored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 3 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said: Quote It's not going to work as a controlled process. All control will do is get you censorship. I'm not seeing it as cut-n-dry as you seem to be. I don't want censorship but easier access to understand news from opinion--That is what I am applauding Facebook for. They don't censor what I post from Breitbart but they do let others clicking on my link understand their history--Before they looked like a respectable news organization if folks didn't research like we did on those two you brought up above Here's my point. If Facebook becomes the de facto arbiter of what is unreliable news, Facebook, itself, will devolve into a propaganda machine. The "organic process" which I refer to is Facebooks users. As long as they have free speech, they will call BS on Facebook, if need be. That is, in fact, what is going on now. The chase for truth in politics is not unlike the chase between hackers and network security. It is perpetual. It is not a controlled environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 3 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said: 9 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said: Yes! On the other side, we heard stories about Russian prostitutes giving out golden showers, etc. All those fake stories compelled a special prosecution Jeff. please don't get this thread shut down. Myeh. That's just your way of deflection. You know I'm right. 😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 The catalyst for 'Fake News' was first noted in the 1940's, as far as I can determine. The people that were the stimuli for todays growth of 'Fake News' reproduced, giving us what is todays masses of people that consume, and believe, information that is unreliable, or even 'Fake". Todays massive consumption creates a demand which is the driver for 'Fake News'. Although thought antiquated now, there is a simple explanation as to why this 'Fake News' is successful. That success is dependent upon a certain segment of society that has yet to figure out the simple explanation as to how to determine the difference between truth and 'Fake New'. I will attach a very short video that will, in seconds, help those that have still been unable to easily determine the difference. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 6 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said: it was the POTUSA's actions that brought about that Republican lead investigation and NOT what you focused on above. Oh, of course! NOT what I focused on. Of course! lol. Apparently, we see the world from different spheres. I see people lopping on fake news atop of suspicion - getting the opponents in a whirlwind of a tizzy. The only thing left to do is to resolve it once and for all with... yep... an investigation by an impartial special prosecutor. Gotta make it "official," you know. Much ado about nothing. The only thing we learned is everyone's a criminal, and a fishing expedition can expose your crimes. But we knew that, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts