RugbyRebels

Mikey Brown wrote:Yeah it doesn't appear Bloomberg actually gives a shit about winning, it's just easily worth $500m to him to keep the most right wing candidates in the race.

Mikey Brown wrote:What is it you're actually referring to with the "Trumpian" Bernie supporters? I'm also very curious about this 'literal blood feud' that Sanders started with Warren?

Mikey Brown wrote:

morepork wrote:That video of Biden could only be improved if had forgotten to put on some trousers before stepping on stage.

Fuck Twitter

Whilst I do actually agree it’s a mess and destroying people’s brains (see any of my other posts in this thread) I’m not sure what time it is you’re harking back to where the general public were more discerning about the information they consume?

Unless there is some mystical source of news, under no outside influence/funding and deemed unbiased by all I don’t see what difference it will make at this point.

Twitter is weird because you’ve suddenly brought the comments sections of the guardian and the daily mail together in one place. It sends some people further into the wormhole to be exposed to so much dodgy rhetoric and disinformation, but for some it’s the only time they will see an opinion/fact contrary to theirs.

There are people who are able to look at this stuff and decide for themselves what they believe or trust, and those who are just looking to reaffirm their existing prejudices. I don’t imagine that’s ever been different or ever will be, whether it’s people reading Breitbart or just chatting to some randomer in the pub. These people will always exist.

It’s a grim situation and I don’t know what the answer is. Are we not just seeing the effect of people that are having fewer real world experiences/interactions, relying more and more on (and being manipulated by) sensationalist media of every kind?

Digby wrote:We can still take action against the new media and online empires, if someone actually has some good ideas on what that should mean and be able to drive implementation. I don't know how much I'd actually blame legislators not being ready in advance for changes very few predicted accurately, and certainly not in such a timely fashion you could consider and pass decent legislation

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:We can still take action against the new media and online empires, if someone actually has some good ideas on what that should mean and be able to drive implementation. I don't know how much I'd actually blame legislators not being ready in advance for changes very few predicted accurately, and certainly not in such a timely fashion you could consider and pass decent legislation

They should have. If the tech nerds that created it could see it coming, and why would they have invested in/lobbied for it so hard if they didn't, then why couldn't legislators? There is still time to cut some of it off. Every converted physicist and statistician that traded in science for financial algorithms can still see it happening.

morepork wrote:I'm not harking back to any time, I'm pissed off that social media wasn't reigned in before it owned personal data on 3/4 of the population of the earth. It is a virulent strain of pathogen that now infects everything, including elections. The public at large are not the root of the problem. It is the amplification of misinformation on such a massive scale that is the problem. We are stuck with it now and it will dictate most things from here on in, including public health and elections. It's totally FUBAR and wankers like that oversized baby with a receding hairline that owns Facebook sit back and play faux concern on the surface but behind the scenes know they hold massive amounts of data that gives the highest bidder access to do what ever the fuck they want to just about any body they want. If you could reset contemporary tech history, would you not try and prevent something like the anti-vax nonsense, or a world leader using the platform for everything from petty personal insults to threatening nuclear annihilation over a twitter spat?

Mikey Brown wrote:Pence refuses to answer reporters questions whether uninsured people can get tested for Coronovirus. I'd post the video but I don't want to get told off. Was there any clarification given on this?

morepork wrote:
Meanwhile, in Orange Narnia, this sage wisdom on the WHO prediction of world wide mortality rates has been offered on national television:

"Well, I think the 3.4 percent is really a false number. Now, and this is just my hunch, and — but based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people that do this. Because a lot people will have this and it's very mild. They'll get better very rapidly. They don't even see a doctor. They don't even call a doctor,"

"You never hear about those people. So you can't put them down in the category of the overall population in terms of this corona flu and — or virus. So you just can't do that," he continued. "So if, you know, we have thousands or hundreds of thousands of people that get better, just by, you know, sitting around and even going to work — some of them go to work but they get better."

"But again, they don't know about the easy cases because the easy cases don't go to the hospital. They don't report to doctors or the hospital, in many cases," Trump said. "So I think that that number is very high. I think the number, personally, I would say the number is way under 1 percent."

morepork wrote:
Asymptomatic carriers: just go to work. I have a hunch that there is, like, a tremendously small chance of, you know, getting other people infect.

Banquo wrote:Warren gone.................

gransoporro wrote:

Banquo wrote:Warren gone.................

But Gabbard is still in!

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:We can still take action against the new media and online empires, if someone actually has some good ideas on what that should mean and be able to drive implementation. I don't know how much I'd actually blame legislators not being ready in advance for changes very few predicted accurately, and certainly not in such a timely fashion you could consider and pass decent legislation

They should have. If the tech nerds that created it could see it coming, and why would they have invested in/lobbied for it so hard if they didn't, then why couldn't legislators? There is still time to cut some of it off. Every converted physicist and statistician that traded in science for financial algorithms can still see it happening.

I don't know how many of those physicists you've met but I wouldn't bet the bank on their predictions (or ask them about their algorithms), also I doubt anyone setting up Google, Facebook or Twitter had any idea we'd end up where we have, just as I doubt Microsoft truly saw the big picture looking to the future.

morepork wrote:When you make Mike "Conversion Therapy" Pence look stately, you know you are in trouble.

Somewhat related....how dirty are fucking cruise ships? Get thousands of people from all parts of the globe together in a confined space, let them infect each other, then let them off en-masse to nice places like Venice. I wonder what the STD rates are on one of those repulsive floating petri dishes?