RugbyRebels

It was unwise of her to engage the moron like that. No matter Harvard records show no attempt to enroll as a minority on Warren's part. Social meja has now taken over. It's impossible to get away from it. Note the spectacular lack of awareness of Trump tweeting "Thank you to the Cherokee Nation for revealing that Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to as Pocahontas, is a complete and total Fraud!" Condesceding racial slur. Nice work.

Twitter really is a fucking cancer.

morepork wrote:It was unwise of her to engage the moron like that. No matter Harvard records show no attempt to enroll as a minority on Warren's part. Social meja has now taken over. It's impossible to get away from it. Note the spectacular lack of awareness of Trump tweeting "Thank you to the Cherokee Nation for revealing that Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to as Pocahontas, is a complete and total Fraud!" Condesceding racial slur. Nice work.

Twitter really is a fucking cancer.

I wrote a fucking massive response to you on here a while back about having become a twitter-obsessed moron over the last year and how it's destroying my brain but I can't stop looking at it, then the train went into a tunnel as I hit post and it disappeared. I'm sure it saved everyone from reading a whole load of pointless dribble, but I do agree. Nuance has no place in social media but its many people's only news source now.

Mikey Brown wrote:

morepork wrote:It was unwise of her to engage the moron like that. No matter Harvard records show no attempt to enroll as a minority on Warren's part. Social meja has now taken over. It's impossible to get away from it. Note the spectacular lack of awareness of Trump tweeting "Thank you to the Cherokee Nation for revealing that Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to as Pocahontas, is a complete and total Fraud!" Condesceding racial slur. Nice work.

Twitter really is a fucking cancer.

I wrote a fucking massive response to you on here a while back about having become a twitter-obsessed moron over the last year and how it's destroying my brain but I can't stop looking at it, then the train went into a tunnel as I hit post and it disappeared. I'm sure it saved everyone from reading a whole load of pointless dribble, but I do agree. Nuance has no place in social media but its many people's only news source now.

Yep. I keep saying, history will not look kindly on social media. Much as I hate to admit it, I had to wean myself off Facebook. Once I realised that the longer you stay off the more emails they send you it turned in to a fun game. As you’ll be desperate to know, eight emails in one day was the record.

Mellsblue wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

morepork wrote:It was unwise of her to engage the moron like that. No matter Harvard records show no attempt to enroll as a minority on Warren's part. Social meja has now taken over. It's impossible to get away from it. Note the spectacular lack of awareness of Trump tweeting "Thank you to the Cherokee Nation for revealing that Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to as Pocahontas, is a complete and total Fraud!" Condesceding racial slur. Nice work.

Twitter really is a fucking cancer.

I wrote a fucking massive response to you on here a while back about having become a twitter-obsessed moron over the last year and how it's destroying my brain but I can't stop looking at it, then the train went into a tunnel as I hit post and it disappeared. I'm sure it saved everyone from reading a whole load of pointless dribble, but I do agree. Nuance has no place in social media but its many people's only news source now.

Yep. I keep saying, history will not look kindly on social media. Much as I hate to admit it, I had to wean myself off Facebook. Once I realised that the longer you stay off the more emails they send you it turned in to a fun game. As you’ll be desperate to know, eight emails in one day was the record.

Now, if only you could ditch the PORN.

morepork wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
I wrote a fucking massive response to you on here a while back about having become a twitter-obsessed moron over the last year and how it's destroying my brain but I can't stop looking at it, then the train went into a tunnel as I hit post and it disappeared. I'm sure it saved everyone from reading a whole load of pointless dribble, but I do agree. Nuance has no place in social media but its many people's only news source now.

Yep. I keep saying, history will not look kindly on social media. Much as I hate to admit it, I had to wean myself off Facebook. Once I realised that the longer you stay off the more emails they send you it turned in to a fun game. As you’ll be desperate to know, eight emails in one day was the record.

Now, if only you could ditch the PORN.

Struggling to see how it’s possible to turn that into a fun game.

Facebook and Twitter are largely pointless. I used to work in a company which employed a social media manager. She used to report monthly on the number of hits and likes, but there was never any substantial evidence that such activity improved the business or even paid her wages.

I use LinkedIn for business, but I avoid Facebook . I don’t care what someone has had for lunch, and if you take those sites as a source of news then have a word with yourself.

So many people do though mate.

morepork wrote:So many people do though mate.

Frightening. It’s like listening to the day gobshyte at the bar and taking him seriously.

mmmmmm.....
I'm going to have to give that one a hard no.

Mikey Brown wrote:I wrote a fucking massive response to you on here a while back about having become a twitter-obsessed moron over the last year and how it's destroying my brain but I can't stop looking at it, then the train went into a tunnel as I hit post and it disappeared. I'm sure it saved everyone from reading a whole load of pointless dribble, but I do agree. Nuance has no place in social media but its many people's only news source now.

Hit the nail on the head there Mikey.

Its even got to the point where Tweets make the news in lieu of being able to get a direct quote from someone. When a celebrity passes away, or something happens in the entertainment world, news agencies add Tweets to the story and that kind of mentality is seeping into political news as well.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Twitter is perfect for Trump and tbh, I don't think he's that clever to work that out. He is just being a big headed, egocentric, gobby bigot having his say and not having to deal directly with opposing views and facts.

morepork wrote:mmmmmm.....

Screen Shot 2018-10-17 at 3.35.33 PM.png

I'm going to have to give that one a hard no.

What are the Dems doing to win seats, or are they counting on Trump losing votes for the GOP?

It didn't work last time.

I'd love to see someone show some initiative.

Beto seems a good candidate and it would be great to see him beating Cruz in Texas, but that's a big ask.

Not sure if anyone else has seen this clip...ignore the music, the message and common sense approach is what counts:


I'm not sure if the question and response was prepared, but well done that man!

WaspInWales wrote:

morepork wrote:mmmmmm.....

Screen Shot 2018-10-17 at 3.35.33 PM.png

I'm going to have to give that one a hard no.

What are the Dems doing to win seats, or are they counting on Trump losing votes for the GOP?

It didn't work last time.

I'd love to see someone show some initiative.

Beto seems a good candidate and it would be great to see him beating Cruz in Texas, but that's a big ask.

Not sure if anyone else has seen this clip...ignore the music, the message and common sense approach is what counts:


I'm not sure if the question and response was prepared, but well done that man!

I'm going to guess that it wasn't a complete set-up, because he spent a good 20 seconds at the beginning reiterating the question and ambling about as he desperately tried to get his thoughts in order to make his answer right and unimpeachable. Very good speaking though - if he beats Cruz, you'd have to think he'll be destined for higher honours further down the line.

Puja

FFS. Geriatric Mutant Ninja Turtle Mitch McConnell is making a hard play for social security and medicaid on the basis of "entitlements" being responsible for a 1.6 trillion deficit increase, after the corporate tax rate was slashed, and these fuckheads agonise over a few brothers not standing for the National Dirge?

We are fucked.

Sandydragon wrote:I don’t care what someone has had for lunch, and if you take those sites as a source of news then have a word with yourself.

I'm not sure exactly what you're picturing here, but I'm talking about it being a far quicker and more direct source of lots of different news outlets. You can follow the journalists and publications directly. It often arrives ages before anything appears on the BBC (for example) and it's quite helpful to see the skew/bias when comparing the same story coming from different angles.

The problem is there being no clear line between that and the ramblings of somebody who's either very (twitter) famous or simply said something so insane or outrageous that it's spreads like wildfire.

A lot of legit news is now just as much about regurgitating tweets as it is the other way round. It's created this odd situation where an actual fact or incisive bit of reporting might be considered total bollocks by many (I get the sense you are one) purely because it's a screenshot with a blue box around it. Equally you can just take the loudest, most obnoxious, ill-informed voice from the opposing side and use that to represent the entirety of people that disagree with you (or your news station) to get everyone all fired up and retarded.

So I definitely think it has a lot to offer, but people are too fucking stupid and impressionable to not get wrapped up in the vortex of hyperbole and misinformation.

Sorry. Yeah, Trump. What a fucking arsehole.

Haven't seen much of Coco recently?

Mikey Brown wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:I don’t care what someone has had for lunch, and if you take those sites as a source of news then have a word with yourself.

I'm not sure exactly what you're picturing here, but I'm talking about it being a far quicker and more direct source of lots of different news outlets. You can follow the journalists and publications directly. It often arrives ages before anything appears on the BBC (for example) and it's quite helpful to see the skew/bias when comparing the same story coming from different angles.

The problem is there being no clear line between that and the ramblings of somebody who's either very (twitter) famous or simply said something so insane or outrageous that it's spreads like wildfire.

A lot of legit news is now just as much about regurgitating tweets as it is the other way round. It's created this odd situation where an actual fact or incisive bit of reporting might be considered total bollocks by many (I get the sense you are one) purely because it's a screenshot with a blue box around it. Equally you can just take the loudest, most obnoxious, ill-informed voice from the opposing side and use that to represent the entirety of people that disagree with you (or your news station) to get everyone all fired up and retarded.

So I definitely think it has a lot to offer, but people are too fucking stupid and impressionable to not get wrapped up in the vortex of hyperbole and misinformation.

But.....

Online all new sources appear to be equally authentic. I know that’s bollocks as well as you do, but it’s painfully clear many aren’t so sure.

Of course all media outlets have bias. But traditional media needs to be fairly sure of its facts or face legal action. Many alt news outlets don’t have that same degree of scrutiny and post all kinds of shyte. And that’s before we get onto the topic of troll farms.

Using news apps to get a wide input of new stories is one thing, but using Facebook or twitter as your sole means of getting information risks the inability to differentiate between fact and nonsense. Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting you can’t make that judgement. But, equally many people appear to struggle online on this.

Sandydragon wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:I don’t care what someone has had for lunch, and if you take those sites as a source of news then have a word with yourself.

I'm not sure exactly what you're picturing here, but I'm talking about it being a far quicker and more direct source of lots of different news outlets. You can follow the journalists and publications directly. It often arrives ages before anything appears on the BBC (for example) and it's quite helpful to see the skew/bias when comparing the same story coming from different angles.

The problem is there being no clear line between that and the ramblings of somebody who's either very (twitter) famous or simply said something so insane or outrageous that it's spreads like wildfire.

A lot of legit news is now just as much about regurgitating tweets as it is the other way round. It's created this odd situation where an actual fact or incisive bit of reporting might be considered total bollocks by many (I get the sense you are one) purely because it's a screenshot with a blue box around it. Equally you can just take the loudest, most obnoxious, ill-informed voice from the opposing side and use that to represent the entirety of people that disagree with you (or your news station) to get everyone all fired up and retarded.

So I definitely think it has a lot to offer, but people are too fucking stupid and impressionable to not get wrapped up in the vortex of hyperbole and misinformation.

But.....

Online all new sources appear to be equally authentic. I know that’s bollocks as well as you do, but it’s painfully clear many aren’t so sure.

Of course all media outlets have bias. But traditional media needs to be fairly sure of its facts or face legal action. Many alt news outlets don’t have that same degree of scrutiny and post all kinds of shyte. And that’s before we get onto the topic of troll farms.

Using news apps to get a wide input of new stories is one thing, but using Facebook or twitter as your sole means of getting information risks the inability to differentiate between fact and nonsense. Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting you can’t make that judgement. But, equally many people appear to struggle online on this.

It’s also very likely to be an echo chamber.

Sandydragon wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:I don’t care what someone has had for lunch, and if you take those sites as a source of news then have a word with yourself.

I'm not sure exactly what you're picturing here, but I'm talking about it being a far quicker and more direct source of lots of different news outlets. You can follow the journalists and publications directly. It often arrives ages before anything appears on the BBC (for example) and it's quite helpful to see the skew/bias when comparing the same story coming from different angles.

The problem is there being no clear line between that and the ramblings of somebody who's either very (twitter) famous or simply said something so insane or outrageous that it's spreads like wildfire.

A lot of legit news is now just as much about regurgitating tweets as it is the other way round. It's created this odd situation where an actual fact or incisive bit of reporting might be considered total bollocks by many (I get the sense you are one) purely because it's a screenshot with a blue box around it. Equally you can just take the loudest, most obnoxious, ill-informed voice from the opposing side and use that to represent the entirety of people that disagree with you (or your news station) to get everyone all fired up and retarded.

So I definitely think it has a lot to offer, but people are too fucking stupid and impressionable to not get wrapped up in the vortex of hyperbole and misinformation.

But.....

Online all new sources appear to be equally authentic. I know that’s bollocks as well as you do, but it’s painfully clear many aren’t so sure.

Of course all media outlets have bias. But traditional media needs to be fairly sure of its facts or face legal action. Many alt news outlets don’t have that same degree of scrutiny and post all kinds of shyte. And that’s before we get onto the topic of troll farms.

Using news apps to get a wide input of new stories is one thing, but using Facebook or twitter as your sole means of getting information risks the inability to differentiate between fact and nonsense. Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting you can’t make that judgement. But, equally many people appear to struggle online on this.

I'd say that's all fair enough. I suppose the rabid extremes are easy to spot but there are a lot of smart, influential not-quite-journalists out there who appear pretty legit.

We're in agreement I think, just get rid of all people and social media won't be an issue anymore.

It's a completely deregulated free for all. Moon landing conspiracies are one thing, but shit like pseudoscience (anti vaccine nutters) and unofficial statements from officials that are germane to policy making are not OK. Social media siphons screeds of data from the public with impunity then profits off selling that data to the highest bidder. What is that bidder happens to be a body of people seeking election, or an elected body of people unduely influenced by lobbyists with vested interest that has the potential to impact on health or sensitive foreign policy? This is fucking insanity. Regulate it. Now.

morepork wrote:It's a completely deregulated free for all. Moon landing conspiracies are one thing, but shit like pseudoscience (anti vaccine nutters) and unofficial statements from officials that are germane to policy making are not OK. Social media siphons screeds of data from the public with impunity then profits off selling that data to the highest bidder. What is that bidder happens to be a body of people seeking election, or an elected body of people unduely influenced by lobbyists with vested interest that has the potential to impact on health or sensitive foreign policy? This is fucking insanity. Regulate it. Now.

How?

Puja

Phuck nose. Its not even clear to me how these entities collect data, so it doesn't make sense to let them do as they please with it. It literally influences elections.

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
I'm not sure exactly what you're picturing here, but I'm talking about it being a far quicker and more direct source of lots of different news outlets. You can follow the journalists and publications directly. It often arrives ages before anything appears on the BBC (for example) and it's quite helpful to see the skew/bias when comparing the same story coming from different angles.

The problem is there being no clear line between that and the ramblings of somebody who's either very (twitter) famous or simply said something so insane or outrageous that it's spreads like wildfire.

A lot of legit news is now just as much about regurgitating tweets as it is the other way round. It's created this odd situation where an actual fact or incisive bit of reporting might be considered total bollocks by many (I get the sense you are one) purely because it's a screenshot with a blue box around it. Equally you can just take the loudest, most obnoxious, ill-informed voice from the opposing side and use that to represent the entirety of people that disagree with you (or your news station) to get everyone all fired up and retarded.

So I definitely think it has a lot to offer, but people are too fucking stupid and impressionable to not get wrapped up in the vortex of hyperbole and misinformation.

But.....

Online all new sources appear to be equally authentic. I know that’s bollocks as well as you do, but it’s painfully clear many aren’t so sure.

Of course all media outlets have bias. But traditional media needs to be fairly sure of its facts or face legal action. Many alt news outlets don’t have that same degree of scrutiny and post all kinds of shyte. And that’s before we get onto the topic of troll farms.

Using news apps to get a wide input of new stories is one thing, but using Facebook or twitter as your sole means of getting information risks the inability to differentiate between fact and nonsense. Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting you can’t make that judgement. But, equally many people appear to struggle online on this.

It’s also very likely to be an echo chamber.

It definitely is that. Although that’s a new version of an old problem, I don’t think many people have actively sought out opposing views, the internet makes it easier to find like minded souls.

morepork wrote:Phuck nose. Its not even clear to me how these entities collect data, so it doesn't make sense to let them do as they please with it. It literally influences elections.

Partly becaue users stupidly provide it, partly down to behaviour analysis, which is more than a bit Orwellian.

GDPR might help but enforcement is a huge problem.

morepork wrote:Phuck nose. Its not even clear to me how these entities collect data, so it doesn't make sense to let them do as they please with it. It literally influences elections.

It would be nice if @jack isn't reluctant to shut down and deplatform nazi cunts. When Alex Jones was being shut down across social media, for a while, Twitter was the last one standing.

It's also a fact that fash-bashing is working, in that a lot of these shits are afraid to be seen in public without protection. Hell, the second Unite The Right Rally this year was a wash, finishing 15 minutes before it was scheduled to start because only about 20 people turned up, and they scattered as soon as they saw the antifa counterprotest that had convened, which dwarfed their number considerably.

The major issue is that people buy into this pyrrhonist bullshit about "both sides being equal" or whatnot, which leads to so-called free speech advocates that naively call for the quivering cesspool of racists, misogynists and fascists that calls itself the "alt-right" to be given a platform so we can debate hate speech and destroy them with pure lojikz or some shit, but that requires the following

1. The alt-right to debate in good faith. They never fucking do, ever.
2. Their viewpoints to actually be equivalent. One side is about rejecting their racism, misogyny, homophobia and transphobia, among other things, the other is calling for them to be stripped of their right to exist, and in some cases, to be exterminated. Like fuck those are equivalent.
3. For this appeasement to actually work. Because, you know, we all look at Chaimberlain and say "yeah, what a cool and good guy, that Nev." Deplatforming them and making them terrified to be outed as alt-right is what has historically worked, and calling for a decorum and a polite debate is naive at best, fucking stupid at worst, and if anyone sees a fascist getting his head kicked in, and thinks "oh, that poor fascist, let's hear him out because I'm sure he has some valid points to make," then yeah, they were probably a closet-fash to begin with. I mean, the Battle of Cable Street was won through friendly and polite discussion about the merits or lack thereof of fascism, right?

Are Americans, in general, aware of the of the ballot rigging going on in places like N Dakota and Georgia I read and see what's going on and I really don't know weather to point and laugh or feel scared