The New Age of shamelessness

[bigfield]

Yes, rich people get signal boosted more than poor people. But that's because more people care what they have to say.

That's some LinkedIn bullshit.

 

[RVonse]

There's something that worries me about today's world. I'm just throwing it out there to see if it resonates with anyone here.

The left has collapsed into ever increasing morally high positions and seems more about passing judgement on whoever isn't perfect, rather than helping those who are struggling, and given them tools to help to include them into the prospering wider community. Which I thought was the one unique selling point of the left. Oh, no. All they seem to care about not having to take responsibility and pronouns.

While the right has become a charicature of populism. It reminds me of Germany when nobody took Hitler seriously, but voted for him anyway, because at least he wasn't a communist. We have a similar situation now, when the left has gone increasingly loony and the right are just talking shit.

I'm not saying politics was ever free from bullshit. But right now politics seems to have become completely rediculous. Any option to vote for seems completely divorced from what they may or may not do. Dan Harmon once made a funny comment on his podcast, about how he relentlessly criticised Obama for being such a slick snake, and couldn't be trusted. When Trump was in office Harmon regretted being so cynical about Obama.

I'm primarily thinking about the political climate in Scandinavia. But I have an impression it's the same all over. It just seems to be more bullshit faux issues than ever before.

What do you think about today's political climate? Do you also find it difficult to understand what political candidates are promising?

I didn't make up the title. It's a Slavoy Zizek quote.

The US (and most everywhere else) is rapidly approaching a decline stage of excessive debt to GDP. This decline stage has repeated over and over throughout history, where society inherently feels like something is horribly wrong but can not put their finger on it. This causes everyone (both left and right) to argue and fight with each other over trivial matters because they are in fear and have absolutely no idea how their worldview can actually be resolved. This is how humans and other animals act instinctively, the last time this happened was in the 1930's after the great depression. When people are in fear of drowning in water that person will kill whoever tries to rescue them by drowning them too.

There is a 2% probability that the US will fix its debt to GDP problem and that probability is so low.... simply because we will not get along well enough with each other to put in place ALL the deleveraging solutions (in equal measure), to wit:

1) Fiscal discipline and austerity (poor and middle class won't let this happen)
2) Debt restructuring - writing down debts (banks won't let this happen)
3) Wealth redistribution - Tax the rich, government stimulus checks, etc. (rich won't let this happen)
4) Modest money printing - Giving the allusion of prosperity (this is easy for politicians but will not work unless used with other solutions. By itself will only result in hyperinflation)

The US was able to recover using the aforementioned deleveraging after WW2 but this was a very rare event of history. The 98% probability is that we will continue to fight more and more with other not resolving anything at all. And then enter our final stage of debt crises similar (but not exactly) what was experienced in Germany during its hyperinflation event. An exact repeat of the 2008 banking crises which was never fully resolved at all. Except that this time around there will be no one including the US federal reserve able to bail out the failed banking institutions.

This is when the really bad things will happen to society.

 

[laughing dog]

There's something that worries me about today's world. I'm just throwing it out there to see if it resonates with anyone here.

The left has collapsed into ever increasing morally high positions and seems more about passing judgement on whoever isn't perfect, rather than helping those who are struggling, and given them tools to help to include them into the prospering wider community. Which I thought was the one unique selling point of the left. Oh, no. All they seem to care about not having to take responsibility and pronouns.

While the right has become a charicature of populism. It reminds me of Germany when nobody took Hitler seriously, but voted for him anyway, because at least he wasn't a communist. We have a similar situation now, when the left has gone increasingly loony and the right are just talking shit.

I'm not saying politics was ever free from bullshit. But right now politics seems to have become completely rediculous. Any option to vote for seems completely divorced from what they may or may not do. Dan Harmon once made a funny comment on his podcast, about how he relentlessly criticised Obama for being such a slick snake, and couldn't be trusted. When Trump was in office Harmon regretted being so cynical about Obama.

I'm primarily thinking about the political climate in Scandinavia. But I have an impression it's the same all over. It just seems to be more bullshit faux issues than ever before.

What do you think about today's political climate? Do you also find it difficult to understand what political candidates are promising?

I didn't make up the title. It's a Slavoy Zizek quote.

The US (and most everywhere else) is rapidly approaching a decline stage of excessive debt to GDP. This decline stage has repeated over and over throughout history, where society inherently feels like something is horribly wrong but can not put their finger on it. This causes everyone (both left and right) to argue and fight with each other over trivial matters because they are in fear and have absolutely no idea how their worldview can actually be resolved. This is how humans and other animals act instinctively, the last time this happened was in the 1930's after the great depression. When people are in fear of drowning in water that person will kill whoever tries to rescue them by drowning them too.

There is a 2% probability that the US will fix its debt to GDP problem and that probability is so low.... simply because we will not get along well enough with each other to put in place ALL the deleveraging solutions (in equal measure), to wit:

1) Fiscal discipline and austerity (poor and middle class won't let this happen)
2) Debt restructuring - writing down debts (banks won't let this happen)
3) Wealth redistribution - Tax the rich, government stimulus checks, etc. (rich won't let this happen)
4) Modest money printing - Giving the allusion of prosperity (this is easy for politicians but will not work unless used with other solutions. By itself will only result in hyperinflation)

The US was able to recover using the aforementioned deleveraging after WW2 but this was a very rare event of history. The 98% probability is that we will continue to fight more and more with other not resolving anything at all. And then enter our final stage of debt crises similar (but not exactly) what was experienced in Germany during its hyperinflation event. An exact repeat of the 2008 banking crises which was never fully resolved at all. Except that this time around there will be no one including the US federal reserve able to bail out the failed banking institutions.

This is when the really bad things will happen to society.

Where does your 2% probability come from?

 

[bilby]

Where does your 2% probability come from?

The same orifice as the rest of that tripe.

The debt "problem" was a fiction designed to sell austerity, further to even more tax cuts. Until Trump took a wrecking-ball to international confidence in the US economy, there was no problem at all.

Which didn't stop a bunch of catastrophist bloggers with an agenda to cut taxes and redistrubute wealth to the wealthy from loudly proclaiming one.

RVonse has a history of believing things that are not evidenced outside the conspiracist bubble, with the lack of evidence in the "mainstream media" viewed as compelling evidence for a cover-up.

It's as daft as it is tedious.

 

[RVonse]

There's something that worries me about today's world. I'm just throwing it out there to see if it resonates with anyone here.

The left has collapsed into ever increasing morally high positions and seems more about passing judgement on whoever isn't perfect, rather than helping those who are struggling, and given them tools to help to include them into the prospering wider community. Which I thought was the one unique selling point of the left. Oh, no. All they seem to care about not having to take responsibility and pronouns.

While the right has become a charicature of populism. It reminds me of Germany when nobody took Hitler seriously, but voted for him anyway, because at least he wasn't a communist. We have a similar situation now, when the left has gone increasingly loony and the right are just talking shit.

I'm not saying politics was ever free from bullshit. But right now politics seems to have become completely rediculous. Any option to vote for seems completely divorced from what they may or may not do. Dan Harmon once made a funny comment on his podcast, about how he relentlessly criticised Obama for being such a slick snake, and couldn't be trusted. When Trump was in office Harmon regretted being so cynical about Obama.

I'm primarily thinking about the political climate in Scandinavia. But I have an impression it's the same all over. It just seems to be more bullshit faux issues than ever before.

What do you think about today's political climate? Do you also find it difficult to understand what political candidates are promising?

I didn't make up the title. It's a Slavoy Zizek quote.

The US (and most everywhere else) is rapidly approaching a decline stage of excessive debt to GDP. This decline stage has repeated over and over throughout history, where society inherently feels like something is horribly wrong but can not put their finger on it. This causes everyone (both left and right) to argue and fight with each other over trivial matters because they are in fear and have absolutely no idea how their worldview can actually be resolved. This is how humans and other animals act instinctively, the last time this happened was in the 1930's after the great depression. When people are in fear of drowning in water that person will kill whoever tries to rescue them by drowning them too.

There is a 2% probability that the US will fix its debt to GDP problem and that probability is so low.... simply because we will not get along well enough with each other to put in place ALL the deleveraging solutions (in equal measure), to wit:

1) Fiscal discipline and austerity (poor and middle class won't let this happen)
2) Debt restructuring - writing down debts (banks won't let this happen)
3) Wealth redistribution - Tax the rich, government stimulus checks, etc. (rich won't let this happen)
4) Modest money printing - Giving the allusion of prosperity (this is easy for politicians but will not work unless used with other solutions. By itself will only result in hyperinflation)

The US was able to recover using the aforementioned deleveraging after WW2 but this was a very rare event of history. The 98% probability is that we will continue to fight more and more with other not resolving anything at all. And then enter our final stage of debt crises similar (but not exactly) what was experienced in Germany during its hyperinflation event. An exact repeat of the 2008 banking crises which was never fully resolved at all. Except that this time around there will be no one including the US federal reserve able to bail out the failed banking institutions.

This is when the really bad things will happen to society.

Where does your 2% probability come from?

It is the math carefully calculated by billionaire hedge fund manager Ray Dalio. Taking all the governments throughout history with debt to GDP over 130% and still surviving without civil unrest. The 2% is incredibly rare but this amount deleveraging without civil unrest did actually happen with the US right after WW2.

 

[RVonse]

Where does your 2% probability come from?

The same orifice as the rest of that tripe.

The debt "problem" was a fiction designed to sell austerity, further to even more tax cuts. Until Trump took a wrecking-ball to international confidence in the US economy, there was no problem at all.

Which didn't stop a bunch of catastrophist bloggers with an agenda to cut taxes and redistrubute wealth to the wealthy from loudly proclaiming one.

RVonse has a history of believing things that are not evidenced outside the conspiracist bubble, with the lack of evidence in the "mainstream media" viewed as compelling evidence for a cover-up.

It's as daft as it is tedious.

I'm not even the only one on this board who thinks the US has a debt problem. It is a very real issue that is taking the US down as we speak. But it won't be resolved by austerity alone. Nor will it be resolved by taxation of the rich or wealth redistribution by itself alone. The deleveraging will take a shared sacrifice by everyone to work. A shared sacrifice which is guaranteed not to take place during today's political and self centered climate.

 

[Swammerdami]

What do you know about the editors of the publications you trust?

I know that they are able to rise to the position of editor of a trusted institution, which is highly degensive of its reputation (because that's its entire value), and has a long track record of carefully vetting editors to defend that reputation.

Do you even know who they are?

Why would it matter who they are? It's the system that matters, not the individuals. Everyone in the system is providing checks and balances against anyone who would harm that reputation.

This is a key point, a reason human society prospered and advanced for thousands of years. This important feature of civilization has been diminishing recently; and youngsters may not even know what bilby is talking about.

In a small town everybody knows the mayor and the dentist, or at least knows somebody who knows somebody who knows them. People strove to earn a good reputation. In a large country, everyone did not know everyone else, but they knew somebody who knew somebody who knew that mayor with a good reputation.

The elite of Manhattan are a bit like a small town. All the elite knew somebody who knew somebody who knew Donald Trump. They all knew he was a pussy-grabbing fraudster not qualified for high office; this includes even his top supporters like Steve Bannon and Sheldon Adelson. Bannon and Adelson were happy to foist this incompetent man on the country because it served their purpose.

Many who knew Trump ranted against him on newspapers and talk shows, but in our Brave New "Information" Age, fact and fiction cannot be distinguished. Perhaps Walter Cronkite, "the most trusted man in America," would have been listened to, but he died in 2009. Dan Rather, a possible successor to Cronkite, was taken out by the Killian documents scandal. It has been suggested that that scandal was devised by the disinformation artists Karl Rove and/or Roger Stone but nothing has been proven. Nowadays, what once required the "supreme talents" of crooks like Rove or Stone can be done by any teenager with a laptop.

Strong systems do not allow individuals to be important. Cults of personality are weak, and need constant shoring up (usually through violently coercive means).

That's one major reason why dictatorships are shitholes.

 

[Swammerdami]

There's something that worries me about today's world. I'm just throwing it out there to see if it resonates with anyone here.

The left has collapsed into ever increasing morally high positions and seems more about passing judgement on whoever isn't perfect, rather than helping those who are struggling, and given them tools to help to include them into the prospering wider community. Which I thought was the one unique selling point of the left. Oh, no. All they seem to care about not having to take responsibility and pronouns.

I live in Thailand with a completely different set of problems from the USA. What little I know of US politics is from self-selected anecdotes. I think Bill Maher agrees with Dr Z, but I'm ridiculed for saying I watch a few Maher excerpts. A few years ago I had a conversation with a young US man visiting Chiang Mai with his Thai father. He parroted right-wing lies to an extent that left me totally astounded.

While the right has become a charicature of populism. It reminds me of Germany when nobody took Hitler seriously, but voted for him anyway, because at least he wasn't a communist. We have a similar situation now, when the left has gone increasingly loony and the right are just talking shit.

Dr. Z is almost correct here. Calls to "defund the police," for example, do push centrists away from "the left" I think.

I'm not saying politics was ever free from bullshit. But right now politics seems to have become completely rediculous.

The US (and most everywhere else) is rapidly approaching a decline stage of excessive debt to GDP.

As I say, I'm out of touch. Is the 20th-century phrase "You sound like a broken record" still in vogue?

This decline stage has repeated over and over throughout history, where society inherently feels like something is horribly wrong but can not put their finger on it. This causes everyone (both left and right) to argue and fight with each other over trivial matters because they are in fear and have absolutely no idea how their worldview can actually be resolved. This is how humans and other animals act instinctively, the last time this happened was in the 1930's after the great depression. When people are in fear of drowning in water that person will kill whoever tries to rescue them by drowning them too.

There is a 2% probability that the US will fix its debt to GDP problem ... this time around there will be no one including the US federal reserve able to bail out the failed banking institutions.

This is when the really bad things will happen to society.

Where does your 2% probability come from?

It is the math carefully calculated by billionaire hedge fund manager Ray Dalio. Taking all the governments throughout history with debt to GDP over 130% and still surviving without civil unrest. The 2% is incredibly rare but this amount deleveraging without civil unrest did actually happen with the US right after WW2.

Dalio is definitely worth listening to, but it sure sounds like he came up with 2% the same way that Dr. Richard Carrier PhD invented a fake probability for Jesus' historicity.

One thing Dalio stresses is that US Treasury debt is just part of the problem. Corporations have massive debts; households and students have debts. Other countries have debt: Japan, Singapore, Greece and Italy all have higher debt/GDP ratios than the US (with 121%); France, Canada and the UK also all have ratios above 100%.

Central banks around the world try to stabilize the financial system with "Forex reserves" -- by holding each others' paper. 54% of the world's Forex reserves are held in the form of US Treasury debt. One reason why the 54% figure is an under-statement is the US's foreign reserves. The US is the world's biggest economy, and its central bank has huge assets, but the US has ZERO dollars in its Forex reserves by definition: The "For" in "Forex reserves" stands for Foreign.

In other words, the world is dependent on the dollar. If it is permitted to crumble, the whole house of cards comes crumbling down. However much the world hates the fascist regime that has taken over our once-great country, the world is motivated to keep propping up the dollar.

RVonse is correct that debt is a problem -- one of MANY problems the US faces. But the screeches one hears from QOPAnon politicians and YouTubers -- and which taint the thinking of gullible right-wingers like RVonse -- are NOT part of a solution.

 

[KCFlyer]

It sounds like you are arguing against this freedom, for our own good?

It might be for our own good. But I prefer the messiness. I don't have a good argument. I base my opinion on ideology, ie liberal values. Rather than what I identify as.. a pragmatic. Which is hypocritical of me. But it feels right. No, I don't have a good argument for the current mess

In a perfect world I would agree. But the sad fact is that the vast majority of people are lazy. They see something that is utter bullshit, but confirms their view, which is also utter bullshit, so they "share" it. And for fun, look at how many Facebook friends you have, then look at how many friends those friends have and if some bullshit is "shared" it goes "viral" very quickly. And the rise of AI created bullshit makes it even worse. It doesn't make it any more true, it just spreads it farther until it reaches a point where it becomes the "alternative fact". The internet is a tool, and despite the information it makes available, I still say we are the least informed society int he world.

 

[KCFlyer]

Yup. I found it particularly disheartening when I learned that most young people eschew mainstream news media and prefer social media to get their news.

This is the problem right here.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It sounds like you are arguing against this freedom, for our own good?

It might be for our own good. But I prefer the messiness. I don't have a good argument. I base my opinion on ideology, ie liberal values. Rather than what I identify as.. a pragmatic. Which is hypocritical of me. But it feels right. No, I don't have a good argument for the current mess

In a perfect world I would agree. But the sad fact is that the vast majority of people are lazy. They see something that is utter bullshit, but confirms their view, which is also utter bullshit, so they "share" it. And for fun, look at how many Facebook friends you have, then look at how many friends those friends have and if some bullshit is "shared" it goes "viral" very quickly. And the rise of AI created bullshit makes it even worse. It doesn't make it any more true, it just spreads it farther until it reaches a point where it becomes the "alternative fact". The internet is a tool, and despite the information it makes available, I still say we are the least informed society int he world.

Ok. So what legally binding system to you propose to fix this?

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's not about having access to information, it's about which information you access and which information you trust. I could give plenty of examples, but I think you all get the point. Ok. I'll give one example.

There are plenty of sites that give false information about medical conditions, medications, supplements etc. You have to know which sources of information are fairly reliable and which are nothing but scams. If I'm looking for information regarding medical conditions, I only visit sites like the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, Emory or Harvard Medical school etc. Then I compare what I've read to see if there is a lot of agreement and research to back up the claims and information. It's great to have such easy access to such information, but what if someone only gets medical information from people like Dr. Oz and other scam artists? There's another one who sells lots of supplements, but I can't think of his name right now. People are gullible and they want to believe what they read, even if there is no scientific evidence to support the trash these people sell.

Yup. I found it particularly disheartening when I learned that most young people eschew mainstream news media and prefer social media to get their news.

You sound like a dinasaur. Yes, that's how people get news today. That doesn't mean quality of news is lower. It's just the channel upon which we get links to that which we then read.

I don't know if you've looked at the news on TV lately. It's packaged for retards. I think it always was. Why would anyone with any brains put up with that? Isn't it better to get it packaged via the many news packaging services?

I have friends who work as investment bankers. Correctly understanding the effect of world events on markets is their job. They primarily get their news from social media. The problem isn't that it's social media. But what type of social media.

 

[pood]

54 percent of Americans Get (Mis)informed by Social Media

You don’t need to be a “dinosaur” to understand that this is an absolute disaster. Journalists, especially in traditional print media, are trained to get the facts and report then as accurately as possible, Highly competent, educated and well-trained editors vet the jobs reporters do. Social media has none of this. It is vast cesspool of lies. The best newspapers are local. They are vanishing across the country because of the rise of the internet and social media, and because those local papers are being gobbled up by conglomerates that could not care less about the information needs of the local residents that these papers used to serve. This is a disaster and probably is the reason that we have a criminal con artist as president. A Donald Trump as president would have been unthinkable 50 years ago. We did have a criminal as president, Nixon, but he was nowhere near as corrupt as Trump and, unlike Trump, he was highly intelligent. He was also brought down by journalists — specifically by The Washington Post, which today is owned by and being destroyed by a corrupt billionaire.

 

[DrZoidberg]

4 percent of Americans Get (Mis)informed by Social Media

You don’t need to be a “dinosaur” to understand that this is an absolute disaster. Journalists, especially in traditional print media, are trained to get the facts and report then as accurately as possible, Highly competent, educated and well-trained editors vet the jobs reporters do. Social media has none of this. It is vast cesspool of lies. The best newspapers are local. They are vanishing across the country because of the rise of the internet and social media, and because those local papers are being gobbled up by conglomerates that could not care less about the information needs of the local residents that these papers used to serve. This is a disaster and probably is the reason that we have a criminal con artist as president. A Donald Trump as president would have been unthinkable 50 years ago. We did have a criminal as president, Nixon, but he was nowhere near as corrupt as Trump and, unlike Trump, he was highly intelligent. He was also brought down by journalists — specifically by The Washington Post, which today is owned by and being destroyed by a corrupt billionaire.

ChatGPT wasn't in that study. I wonder how high that rate is. Any time I search for anything with ChatGPT that I know well, it's so riddled with errors, it's barely usable.

I think the old political elites and pre-Internet journalism was a conspiracy. They both liked having a simple world with simple narratives. Hitler = bad. Inspirational (and bullshit) stories of how someone, against all odds, made it = Good. That was basically the, forever repeated, story. The span of opinions was vanishingly thin. All players in the conspiracy belonged to the uppe middle class. All went to the same schools. All were friends.

I think what Trump represents is a questioning of the old order. It doesn't seem to matter that he's a narcissitic habitually lying loon. Just the fact that he's an outsider to the conspiracy. I think his supporters are those that have traditionally always been talked down to by members of the old political and media elite. It's not just USA. It's all over Europe as well. Brexit is a prime example. As well as the rise of authoritarian populist politicians all over the democratic world.

I don't think it's that people genuinely are more fascist. They just want something new. They want the old order to just fucking die. They don't want to be talked down to anymore.

I think it's just that.

I don't know what will come next. It's just going to be something new. My tribe is the old upper middle class elite. So I doubt me and my people will come out on top.

My personal chrystal ball says that automation will keep accelerating. Wealth will continue to be concentrated by people (IT billionaires) who couldn't give less of a shit whose in power. And I think we're heading towards communism. I can see all the same tendencies we had at the end of the 19th century. I also don't know if that's a good or a bad thing. But the extreme rates of unemployment as a result of automation, didn't end well back then. It probably won't this time around either.

Basically... I disagree. I think what you are having a problem with is that media narratives are less streamlined now. For good or for ill. Dumb people will get dumber. Smart people smarter.

 

[KCFlyer]

It sounds like you are arguing against this freedom, for our own good?

It might be for our own good. But I prefer the messiness. I don't have a good argument. I base my opinion on ideology, ie liberal values. Rather than what I identify as.. a pragmatic. Which is hypocritical of me. But it feels right. No, I don't have a good argument for the current mess

In a perfect world I would agree. But the sad fact is that the vast majority of people are lazy. They see something that is utter bullshit, but confirms their view, which is also utter bullshit, so they "share" it. And for fun, look at how many Facebook friends you have, then look at how many friends those friends have and if some bullshit is "shared" it goes "viral" very quickly. And the rise of AI created bullshit makes it even worse. It doesn't make it any more true, it just spreads it farther until it reaches a point where it becomes the "alternative fact". The internet is a tool, and despite the information it makes available, I still say we are the least informed society int he world.

Ok. So what legally binding system to you propose to fix this?

Can't do anything really... we are basically screwed. There is no gatekeeper for the author of an "article" who can tell them "uh, that's not exactly right". We leave it up to self fact checking. I'm sorry, but I don't consider fact checking to be "censorship". Right now there are people all over the world who say the earth is flat. They have tons of links to sites "proving" that the earth is flat. There is no need to look any further because they have their proof. Articles stating the the earth is round is dismissed as "fake news". The internet makes so much data available, but look at what "news" sources are - "tweets", memes and videos. They are quick. They are easy. They are little more than an electronic "op/ed" page. And in an alarming number of cases, they are utter bullshit. But in the name of "free speech" we can't even identify it as wrong. This is life today, and it's one more thing that proves that Idiocracy was a documentary.

 

[KCFlyer]

We did have a criminal as president, Nixon, but he was nowhere near as corrupt as Trump and, unlike Trump, he was highly intelligent. He was also brought down by journalists — specifically by The Washington Post, which today is owned by and being destroyed by a corrupt billionaire.

If he had known that all he needed to do was proclaim 'fake news' and Watergate might never have happened.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We did have a criminal as president, Nixon, but he was nowhere near as corrupt as Trump and, unlike Trump, he was highly intelligent. He was also brought down by journalists — specifically by The Washington Post, which today is owned by and being destroyed by a corrupt billionaire.

If he had known that all he needed to do was proclaim 'fake news' and Watergate might never have happened.

It wasn't Nixon, it was the GOP, they weren't going to do what the 2020 GOP did for Trump.

 

[pood]

It sounds like you are arguing against this freedom, for our own good?

It might be for our own good. But I prefer the messiness. I don't have a good argument. I base my opinion on ideology, ie liberal values. Rather than what I identify as.. a pragmatic. Which is hypocritical of me. But it feels right. No, I don't have a good argument for the current mess

In a perfect world I would agree. But the sad fact is that the vast majority of people are lazy. They see something that is utter bullshit, but confirms their view, which is also utter bullshit, so they "share" it. And for fun, look at how many Facebook friends you have, then look at how many friends those friends have and if some bullshit is "shared" it goes "viral" very quickly. And the rise of AI created bullshit makes it even worse. It doesn't make it any more true, it just spreads it farther until it reaches a point where it becomes the "alternative fact". The internet is a tool, and despite the information it makes available, I still say we are the least informed society int he world.

Ok. So what legally binding system to you propose to fix this?

Can't do anything really... we are basically screwed. There is no gatekeeper for the author of an "article" who can tell them "uh, that's not exactly right". We leave it up to self fact checking. I'm sorry, but I don't consider fact checking to be "censorship". Right now there are people all over the world who say the earth is flat. They have tons of links to sites "proving" that the earth is flat. There is no need to look any further because they have their proof. Articles stating the the earth is round is dismissed as "fake news". The internet makes so much data available, but look at what "news" sources are - "tweets", memes and videos. They are quick. They are easy. They are little more than an electronic "op/ed" page. And in an alarming number of cases, they are utter bullshit. But in the name of "free speech" we can't even identify it as wrong. This is life today, and it's one more thing that proves that Idiocracy was a documentary.

Exactly right. I read that over half the public regularly gets “news” from social media — places like X, YouTube, TikTok and Instagram. No, they are not getting “news” from any of these. They are getting lies, memes, tweets, gossip, and whatever idiot “social media influencer” feels like stuffing down their gullible gobs. Social media “influencers” are a thing! Imagine that! Social media “influencers:” are not journalists. Journailsm is a profession, and it is dying. This is already having monumental consequences. Because of this, among other things, we have a corrupt and narcissistic sexual predator in the White House an antih-vaxxer as head of HHS!

 

[ZiprHead]

I think the old political elites and pre-Internet journalism was a conspiracy. They both liked having a simple world with simple narratives. Hitler = bad. Inspirational (and bullshit) stories of how someone, against all odds, made it = Good. That was basically the, forever repeated, story. The span of opinions was vanishingly thin. All players in the conspiracy belonged to the uppe middle class. All went to the same schools. All were friends.

Talk about conspiracy theories. You believe some weird shit.

 

[pood]

I think the old political elites and pre-Internet journalism was a conspiracy. They both liked having a simple world with simple narratives. Hitler = bad. Inspirational (and bullshit) stories of how someone, against all odds, made it = Good. That was basically the, forever repeated, story. The span of opinions was vanishingly thin. All players in the conspiracy belonged to the uppe middle class. All went to the same schools. All were friends.

‘
Beliaeving in bullshit like this would probably make you a successful social media “influencer”