ssaew333

>It has democratized thought so well such that people whose ideas are morally depraved have the same ability to reach an audience that those whose ideas are praiseworthy are.

I don't think a majority of people hold these views. What we're doing is amplifying vocal minorities and drowning out everyone else.

Granted, no communication mass platform is going to accurately reflect the public. That's why we hold media especially accountable for spreading falsehoods. We haven't seen that sort of criticism of Social Media, however, until very recently. Twitter, Facebook, etc make editorial decisions to make some content more visible than others, and they chose to reward this kind of crap. But because they outsource their decisions to an algorithm, we have treated them less like television channels and more like telephone companies (dumb pipes).

> You can choose to use your skills for good by doing things that are beneficial. You can work for a non-profit, a church, a community to connect, build-up, and support people.

I strongly agree. And tech skills aren't even necessary. Try to get involved with local politics, volunteer, give money to good causes, and help your neighbors and friends in need. It's the antidote to the division and loneliness in our world.

My search was on search.twitter.com I don't have a twitter account

The results have been changing. The newer you go, the more you see "radical vegan" and the less you see "jihad." That's... .encouraging.

Or, democracy and mob rule are not the same thing. And the internet (in it's current form) is better at promoting mob rule.

I thought it was clear from my post i was guesstimating. I don't typically do rigorous analysis of what I see in twitter results, so I'll just say, it seemed like a lot of right wing accounts implying that media was covering up the shooting, or that the shooter was actually motivated by radical islam.

I wasn't complaining about labeling. I was complaining because assertions that she was an NRA or ISIS supporter were false.

I believe my assertions were true. Here are the first two people I saw on my twitter search:

Jack Posobiec Wikipedia: "John Michael "Jack" Posobiec III (/pəˈsoʊbɪk/ pə-SOW-bik; born 1985) is an American alt-right[1][2][3] internet troll, conspiracy theorist,[4][5] and self-described journalist, known primarily for his controversial and pro-Donald Trump comments on Twitter."

He was claiming that google removed her videos from youtube as part of a coverup because she didn't fit the narrative of conservative white males causing mass shootings

Laura Loomer Wikipedia: "Laura Elizabeth Loomer is an alt-right[1] American political activist and Internet personality. She was a reporter for Canada's The Rebel Media during the summer of 2017, resigning that September.[2][3][4][5][6] Prior to June 2017, she worked for Project Veritas with James O'Keefe.[3]"

Her tweets are calling the youtube shooting "an act of jihad". Also made a tweet that seemed to imply, because the shooter has an androgynous name and muscular build, that she could be trans. As if that has anything to do with it.

Yeah Mark's getting older, and we all know young people are just smarter. Time to shake things up. /s

If you search her name on twitter, around 40% of what you see is right wing conspiracy theorists who assert, without evidence, that she was a member of ISIS. I also noticed a smaller percentage of people asserting, again without evidence, that she was an NRA member. And neither appear to be true.

How do these get spread on Twitter? Are partisans mindlessly voting them up? Are bots behind this?

Man, do I feel stupid for thinking the internet would be a force for good. That it would promote democracy, free speech, and critical thinking.

I look at Facebook and Twitter, and the bad greatly outweighs the good. I chose a career in web dev, thinking I would be doing something beneficial, but everything we've done amounts to nothing.

I didn't have contact with any Russians,

but if I did, they were completely proper,

and if they weren't, then their efforts didn't influence the election

and if they did, Why shouldn't I do everything it takes to win?

Is this really a technique? I thought it was a core concept of argumentation: don't unnecessarily cede ground.

Oh goody, more javascript. Infinite scroll. Less room for content, more room for sidebars and doohickeys.

The internet is a huge pile of garbage.

Look what I found at the bottom of the article: "Released under Creative Commons NoDerivatives License 4.0"

So you can distribute this freely, as long as you acknowledge the author. And since it's content, not software, it's not imperative to allow modification. (Fair use still applies to critical responses)

You're being way too picky.

> I would like to question the "most" there though.

Good point! Definitely had blinders on when I wrote that.

Musician here.

For most local bands, nobody discovers you on Spotify. People find out about your band because you shared a show with another band they like.

After you are discovered by the new fan, they may later search for you on Spotify. But Bandcamp is more likely.

That assumes they even remember who you are. You have to play multiple shows in some areas, make a big impact on the audience, maybe have your stuff played on the local college station and then, just maybe, people will give a shit about you.

Lots of good music on bandcamp with less than 30 plays, and that's why.

> If you want to go to a cheap concert, become a fan of artists that people richer than you don't like.

This contradicts the egalitarian ethos most musicians and their fans espouse.

Move fast. Break things.