may be rude

well now i'm sure he will end the trade war he started, in his last year, as he's being impeached. btw that was congressional legislation for which they had veto-proof majority. trump signing the bill means nothing in terms of his actual support of the democratic protestors. in fact he has been loudly cheering xi's brutal crack-down for months.

pls

informed observer and commentator as a gangster actor

honestly that partial stem is dope af

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s78hvV3QLUE

sorry, didn't mean to misstate your view. i understand your point now. yeah you're right, people are unmoored and maybe more likely to believe bullshit, consequently. i have noticed that. there used to be reputable sources of information in people's eyes, maybe, but now a lot of people honestly don't know where to look or how to begin sorting through the pile of crap, and there are now more angles going in more directions. is nyt leftish propaganda? what is the good news source? people do get swayed, though. i see people believing lies that were carefully crafted to be believed. the masses do not have the journalistic sense to look for source attribution in an article. they read an article and think "who knows," then they go by consensus. and if you're in a key district of a swing state and looking at facebook for an hour a day, you might think consensus is that hillary clinton was peeled off satan's ass. that's the thing that's so insidious about the new manipulation tools that are available, they are good enough to work. that's why christopher wylie went whistleblower, he thought the thing that he built was ethically wrong and that people needed to know about it. the dude who designed the algorithms spooked himself with how sophisticated and effective they are.

Nate Silver is making an evidentiary point. proving that case would take work but i think it's possible. it's noteworthy that cambridge analytica was owned by robert mercer at the time, a billionare trump supporter. i think CA only charged trump 5 million for their work, but i believe christopher wylie said trump received the benefit of far more of CA's work than that.

thanks, yeah. i've been reading christopher wylie's new book. it's good.

oh, yeah. i think the issue under discussion, with regard to facebook, right now, is mainly focused on their ad platform, because of how it allows sophisticated targetting that was successfully utilized by Cambridge Analytica in 2016 for both the UK Vote Leave campaign and the Trump campaign, in order to manipulate voters to support unpopular positions. Russians were engaging with CA at the same time as those campaigns, and were interested in suspiciously overlapping services as what those campaigns were interested in. and we know russia was running ad campaigns on FB, themselves, directly, in the US. so, in addition to the thing being a dangerously powerful manipulation weapon, it is already getting exploited as a national security vulnerability. but zuck is happy to rake in billions so he can own half a hawaiian island. he doesn't owe anything to america. let it crumble in confusion, that's someone else's problem.

i'm not aware of anyone suggesting automated solutions. i think people are suggesting a fact-checking department, like tv stations have, for political ads submitted to them.

fingchords ?????️??

the targetting, as cambridge analytica did it, looks for certain types of people that could be swayed by certain things (and then gives them those things, whether true or not). it can also target by state and area.

tv channels are required by regulation to fact check political ads. FCC i think. not that i want internet censorship. i think cohen is saying that at least the social norm should be expecting tech executives to respect public safety, with regard to the potential harm of disinfo. so, maybe not necessarily regulation. zuck should be setting the example. boycots are appropriate. and that capability facebook just makes available for whoever pays.

why would a comedian want stricter censorship?

I've been fascinated by this "greatest propaganda machine in history" era we're living in. Cohen, surprisingly and not surprisingly, does an excellent job formulating insightful, high-level observations about the information issue. I just wanted to share this excellent speech and I thought some WATMMers would like it.

hill just unsheathed a samurai sword and sliced through the gop, in her opening statement. holmes dropped some bombs in his, too. live now:

got some things needing names in here, @Sean Ae @Rob Ae

i just be upped a hello

nu abulum

elseq 1 notable for autechre's line dance song

cool art

the second week of public ukraine hearings: vindman and hill will be good, others may be, too. here are the first week's lawfare no-bull edits: ambassador taylor and dep asst sec state george kent amb marie yovanovich

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smK9dgdTl40

?????????????️?????????? same day as peel session 2 digis, too