Who is Q-Anon? (it's Ron Watkins) the surprising origin story of the Q scam, and the man who now seems to be in control of it

[may be rude]

won't be surprised if bannon is more of a player than people realize. 

 

i don't think enough people appreciate what cambridge analytica demonstrated. imagine being able to decide who gets power. this was a new force unleashed on earth: systemized psychological manipulation through the internet, at industrial scale, and able to deliver measurable results.

 

imagine being a political operator and seeing what happened. the world changed. 

 

the other thing to understand about this is that the tech is not proprietary. it's a methodology that can be mimicked and evolved. the russians were immediately fascinated by cambridge analytica. who else? we don't get to know who is behind influence operations all the time. but we get some info and we can deduce a lot.

 

american political action committees now do this kind of online manipulation. dump money in, narratives come out.

 

let me tell you one thing: oil power is greater than most people can fathom. and that industry faces a massive crash. in fact, it would have happened already, if not for the state of politics.

 

i have my limitted american perspective. but usa is the global superpower. i see the republicans shielding oil from urgently needed renewable energy policies. i see them propped up by info rushes. i see info rushes looking financed.

 

any q-holers out there may like to climb out that way. i am telling you the actual hand in the glove.

Edited December 7, 2021 by trying to be less rude

[Rubin Farr]

13 hours ago, trying to be less rude said:

won't be surprised if bannon is more of a player than people realize. 

 

i don't think enough people appreciate what cambridge analytica demonstrated. imagine being able to decide who gets power. this was a new force unleashed on earth: systemized psychological manipulation through the internet, at industrial scale, and able to deliver measurable results.

 

imagine being a political operator and seeing what happened. the world changed. 

 

the other thing to understand about this is that the tech is not proprietary. it's a methodology that can be mimicked and evolved. the russians were immediately fascinated by cambridge analytica. who else? we don't get to know who is behind influence operations all the time. but we get some info and we can deduce a lot.

 

american political action committees now do this kind of online manipulation. dump money in, narratives come out.

 

let me tell you one thing: oil power is greater than most people can fathom. and that industry faces a massive crash. in fact, it would have happened already, if not for the state of politics.

 

i have my limitted american perspective. but usa is the global superpower. i see the republicans shielding oil from urgently needed renewable energy policies. i see them propped up by info rushes. i see info rushes looking financed.

 

any q-holers out there may like to climb out that way. i am telling you the actual hand in the glove.

The power of misinformation was also weaponized, like a foreign country would do. The Right seized on this upon realizing what they had, and I don’t know if the genie can ever be put back in the bottle.

[may be rude]

5 hours ago, Rubin Farr said:

The power of misinformation was also weaponized, like a foreign country would do. The Right seized on this upon realizing what they had, and I don’t know if the genie can ever be put back in the bottle.

correct. in the early days of the internet, we didn't yet realize that the internet is poison. now we are aware of a new environmental hazard, and we are evolving norms for helping each-other to not wander into the toxic waste. or, if they have, to shout "you're in toxic waste."

 

this modern state will force us to refine our collective intellectual acuity. but this will happen through trial and error. 

 

we're in a significant sociological adaptation, dealing with truth and deception.

 

there were always tabloids. but we knew they were tabloids. the internet just flipped everything upside down, so people didn't know what anything was. is this real? is that real? now we are getting adjusted to it. we have to tell people: that is tabloid. this is how you recognize tabloid.

 

the tabloids are berserk. fox has decided to be a grotesquely oversized tabloid that's desperate not to lose power. i wish a couple more good lawsuits would knock them down a couple pegs.

 

fox is one of the larger forces contributing to alignments of narratives. that's an important aspect to the modern environment. fox can amplify a narrative for their own motivations, and the russians can amplify that same narrative for their own motivations, and alex jones and whatever dogshit internet blogs can amplify those narratives for their own motivations, and elected officials can pile onto whatever narratives for their own motivations. they all understand the strength of piling on and reinforcing each-other, thereby spoofing consensus. consensus spoofing has nullified consensus in america. we live in a heightened state of divergent realities. it's powered by this de-centralized incentive to cooperatively troll the truth. 

 

anyone who tells you "don't listen to the msm" is someone who is not trying to help you, or doesn't know how to help you. the fundamental thing is to seek information from differing sources, and compare and focus on the discrepancies. you don't have to believe everything from the "msm," but to barricade yourself from reporting from establishment journalism is to make yourself vulnerable to being infected by information contagion. you need differing info, and if you really want the truth then you need to spend the time identifying and resolving discrepancies between different sources. how do they arrive at different messages? how did that happen? 

 

that's sometimes called media literacy, and it's something that should maybe be taught in school more, these days.

Edited December 8, 2021 by trying to be less rude

[chronical]

my qAnon roommate's new facebook profile picture

[zero]

43 minutes ago, trying to be less rude said:

correct. in the early days of the internet, we didn't yet realize that the internet is poison. 

*waxes nostalgic for 2400 bps, chatrooms, Netscape, and Prodigy*

early internet days were so peaceful. exploring the world wide web very s l o w l y. there was no social media. THAT imo is what led to the snowballing mis-information quagmire we are currently experiencing. social media is where it all went wrong. now markyburg is on a quest to hack into our brains with meta so we can never leave the la la land.

[EdamAnchorman]

It would be interesting to study how susceptible people are to the kind of misinformation that brought about this army of Q-nuts, as a function of developed vs. underdeveloped countries.

Of course there's the factor of access to information, internet, etc., but I'm guessing that a lot of the people in the underdeveloped world are too busy thinking about sustaining food and shelter or worrying about their unstable government / social systems that they have no time for these BS conspiracy theories.  1st world problems.

[brian trageskin]

31 minutes ago, chronical said:

my qAnon roommate's new facebook profile picture

a true photoshop wizard. impressive.

[chronical]

17 minutes ago, brian trageskin said:

a true photoshop wizard. impressive.

Truly. If only he used those skills to hone his critical thinking.

[Rubin Farr]

1 hour ago, chronical said:

my qAnon roommate's new facebook profile picture

 

[beerwolf]

11 minutes ago, Rubin Farr said:

 

Flol  

[chenGOD]

On 12/7/2021 at 4:29 PM, trying to be less rude said:

i don't think enough people appreciate what cambridge analytica demonstrated. imagine being able to decide who gets power.

I think you're wildly overstating the "power" that cambridge analytica had.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/17138854/cambridge-analytica-facebook-data-trump-campaign-psychographic-microtargeting

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/cambridge-analytica-and-the-perils-of-psychographics

And i think this article makes a very good point, which is that the potential harms from CA and the big hack do take away from the real issue, which is economic inequality and lack of opportunity.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-technology-breakingviews-idINKCN1UE1NL

7 hours ago, trying to be less rude said:

media literacy, and it's something that should maybe be taught in school more, these days.

This is a very good point, and it (media literacy) should be taught in conjunction with more critical thinking classes.

[may be rude]

4 hours ago, chenGOD said:

On 12/7/2021 at 4:29 PM, trying to be less rude said:

i don't think enough people appreciate what cambridge analytica demonstrated. imagine being able to decide who gets power.

I think you're wildly overstating the "power" that cambridge analytica had.

i didn't state that CA decided who got power, and that was not an accident. i was not making that claim. i came close to that, because i was being evocative, so i don't blame you for interpretting it that way. I was suggesting it's possible that the kind of methodology demonstrated may have that power. 

 

i'm aware that people debate how effective internet manipulation is. it's a complex topic and there are fundamental challenges when it comes to how to measure impact. 

 

if it didn't work then why would people spend money on it? the saudis moderate public sentiment with paid trolls. kashoggi was working on it when he was killed. china, known for censoring the internet, also engages in significant amounts of putting out fake content. engineered narrative seeding is done because it produces results.

Edited December 9, 2021 by trying to be less rude

[chenGOD]

1 hour ago, trying to be less rude said:

if it didn't work then why would people spend money on it? the saudis moderate public sentiment with paid trolls. kashoggi was working on it when he was killed. china, known for censoring the internet, also engages in significant amounts of putting out fake content.

CA had a remarkably good marketing campaign. 
what they are alleged to have done is quite different from seeding social media with disinformation and propaganda. 

 

1 hour ago, trying to be less rude said:

engineered narrative seeding is done because it produces results.

This is not in dispute. Manufacturing Consent remains as relevant as ever. 
CA did not engage in “engineered narrative seeding” (just say propaganda) though.

[may be rude]

1 hour ago, chenGOD said:

2 hours ago, trying to be less rude said:

if it didn't work then why would people spend money on it? the saudis moderate public sentiment with paid trolls. kashoggi was working on it when he was killed. china, known for censoring the internet, also engages in significant amounts of putting out fake content.

CA had a remarkably good marketing campaign. 
what they are alleged to have done is quite different from seeding social media with disinformation and propaganda. 

 

2 hours ago, trying to be less rude said:

engineered narrative seeding is done because it produces results.

This is not in dispute. Manufacturing Consent remains as relevant as ever. 
CA did not engage in “engineered narrative seeding” (just say propaganda) though.

 

wylie describes the CA service as payload, targetting and delivery. a complete weapons system. they constructed rabbit holes, designed them to be as spready and motivating as possible, and delivered them to the people who would be the most susceptible to them, and who would share them the most. 

seems like you're factually off on what CA did. seeding narratives in an engineered way, call it propaganda, is something they did.

 

'Cambridge Analytica planted fake news'

A former employee of London-based political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica has said the company "absolutely" planted fake news.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-43472347

 

[zlemflolia]

let's not uphold the nonexistent glory of the pre-internet past.  the internet is determined to exist because it is math.  every species will eventually invent it.  the same with cryptocurrencies, VR, social media, machine learning, algorithms to manipulate social media, etc.  we used to have deep neural networks manipulating media centuries ago too.  it was called human brains

buy books made out of paper and read them, preferably the best old books that have filtered through time.  i know i need to follow this motto more than I do

Edited December 9, 2021 by ilqx hermolia xpli

[zero]

9 hours ago, ilqx hermolia xpli said:

the internet is determined to exist because it is math.  every species will eventually invent it.  the same with cryptocurrencies, VR, social media, machine learning, algorithms to manipulate social media, etc. 

you lost me man...what? every species will eventually invent what, the internet? p sure dogs could sit on this planet for billions of years, and they ain't comin up with pornhubs and shit like that...

[cichlisuite]

14 hours ago, trying to be less rude said:

if it didn't work then why would people spend money on it? the saudis moderate public sentiment with paid trolls. kashoggi was working on it when he was killed. china, known for censoring the internet, also engages in significant amounts of putting out fake content. engineered narrative seeding is done because it produces results.

this is actually going on in all "first world countries" on a regular basis, especially the last few years. But engineering the public opinion has been going on since the TV became a household item.

[ignatius]

1 hour ago, cichlisuite said:

this is actually going on in all "first world countries" on a regular basis, especially the last few years. But engineering the public opinion has been going on since the TV became a household item.

since before. advertising existed already... newspapers were a thing everyone read. manipulation was happening. the history of journalism in america is littered with pushes one way or another.. just check out william randolph hearst, yellow journalism, spanish american war, his war on jazz and black people and cannabis etc etc . 

that doesn't mean what we're dealing w/now is the same thing.. it is and it isn't. i mean.. the ideas have taken on a life of their own. someone births a virus into the social media platforms and it infects people who then evolve and mutate it into something else. results are unpredictable. also, social media and the various platforms have  addictive qualities that people cannot easily break free from. 

i guess this is starting to morph into the "social media's effects on our lives" thread. 

[chenGOD]

13 hours ago, trying to be less rude said:

 

wylie describes the CA service as payload, targetting and delivery. a complete weapons system. they constructed rabbit holes, designed them to be as spready and motivating as possible, and delivered them to the people who would be the most susceptible to them, and who would share them the most. 

seems like you're factually off on what CA did. seeding narratives in an engineered way, call it propaganda, is something they did.

 

'Cambridge Analytica planted fake news'

A former employee of London-based political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica has said the company "absolutely" planted fake news.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-43472347

 

Seems like we're differing in our definition. I'm talking about creating actual disinformation, while the analyst from CA talks about how they would link facebook profiles to blog sites or "news" sites that created the disinfo. I suppose I would say that CA would be a spreader, rather than a creator.

 

16 hours ago, trying to be less rude said:

i didn't state that CA decided who got power, and that was not an accident. i was not making that claim.

 

On 12/7/2021 at 4:29 PM, trying to be less rude said:

i don't think enough people appreciate what cambridge analytica demonstrated. imagine being able to decide who gets power. this was a new force unleashed on earth: systemized psychological manipulation through the internet, at industrial scale, and able to deliver measurable results.

And I just wanted to say that for the record, it sure sounds like you were making that claim. And that's why I posted those articles (which describe CA's methodologies in some detail) that disputed the actual results. Also, I think it would be wildly difficult to measure the results of the work that CA claimed they could do.

 

I also stand by my claim that focusing on this issue avoids the real issue of conomic inequality. If progressives want to start pushing the overton window back left, that's where they need to focus. Democrats need to get out en masse and vote in the upcoming midterms, especially in the swing states. It would be wild if everyone who had to took a sick day to go and vote (I mean it should be a national holiday, but hey, one step at a time).

1 hour ago, cichlisuite said:

But engineering the public opinion has been going on since the TV became a household item.

Way before then. Think more like Confucius and Sun Tzu (who may or may not have existed, but the lessons remain relevant). Leaders need to cultivate the loyalty of their subjects and demonstrate they have the Mandate of Heaven.

 

[zlemflolia]

3 hours ago, zero said:

you lost me man...what? every species will eventually invent what, the internet? p sure dogs could sit on this planet for billions of years, and they ain't comin up with pornhubs and shit like that...

whether dogs on Earth will become advanced civilizations if left alone is up for debate.  but the internet is a generic technology.  it's a method of transferring data across distances and distributing it to many nodes.  it's not tied to humanity.  it will be invented over and over again all across the universe.

[cichlisuite]

24 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

Way before then. Think more like Confucius and Sun Tzu (who may or may not have existed, but the lessons remain relevant). Leaders need to cultivate the loyalty of their subjects and demonstrate they have the Mandate of Heaven.

Sun Tzu? He wrote the Art of War. Did you mean Lao Tzu?

34 minutes ago, ignatius said:

since before. advertising existed already... newspapers were a thing everyone read. manipulation was happening. the history of journalism in america is littered with pushes one way or another.. just check out william randolph hearst, yellow journalism, spanish american war, his war on jazz and black people and cannabis etc etc . 

that doesn't mean what we're dealing w/now is the same thing.. it is and it isn't. i mean.. the ideas have taken on a life of their own. someone births a virus into the social media platforms and it infects people who then evolve and mutate it into something else. results are unpredictable. also, social media and the various platforms have  addictive qualities that people cannot easily break free from. 

i guess this is starting to morph into the "social media's effects on our lives" thread. 

Oh sure, you're both right. We could go all the way back to ancient Egyptians (pharaoh, the son of god and their pantheon) and religions in general. But I don't think the results are really that unpredictable. What we see today is basically psychological warfare.

[ignatius]

1 minute ago, cichlisuite said:

Sun Tzu? He wrote the Art of War. Did you mean Lao Tzu?

Oh sure, you're both right. We could go all the way back to ancient Egyptians (pharaoh, the son of god and their pantheon) and religions in general. But I don't think the results are really that unpredictable. What we see today is basically psychological warfare.

i agree.. i mean.. the tools today are much more sophisticated and totally free from regulation. essentially stealth. roll in the addiction aspect of social media and it's another thing completely. 

i do think there's unexpected consequences as there probably were in the Hearst era but probably factored in as collateral damage and maybe expected in some vague way. 

i watched "The Social Dilemma" again recently just to see how it landed now that i hadn't watched it since it came out and it's even more creepy in some ways.. .but a good reminder of just what is going on. 

i haven't watched "The Great Hack" a 2nd time because i don't think i can stomach that burning man coder chick at the center or it.  there's other CA breakdowns on youtube though w/that pinkhaired guy who was instrumental in making it happen and revealing it. 

[chenGOD]

2 hours ago, cichlisuite said:

Sun Tzu? He wrote the Art of War. Did you mean Lao Tzu?

No I mean Sun Tzu. One of the tenets of his philosophy was that a ruler must cultivate a loyal following.

Lao Tzu would be the opposite with the passivity of Daoism.

[ignatius]

8 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

No I mean Sun Tzu. One of the tenets of his philosophy was that a ruler must cultivate a loyal following.

Lao Tzu would be the opposite with the passivity of Daoism.

i've never thought of Taoism as passive as it takes so much personal action to achieve harmony.  haven't read the tao in a long time but there are parts of it that deal with interaction w/the outside world.. though there's a lot of 'it is what it is' vibes and not living amongst the people so much.

"we'll see"

 

[cichlisuite]

31 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

No I mean Sun Tzu. One of the tenets of his philosophy was that a ruler must cultivate a loyal following.

Lao Tzu would be the opposite with the passivity of Daoism.

Right. Well if I'm nitpicking, you're taking Sun Tzu a bit out of context here, he is talking about warfare. But it's not entirely benign since the ways of war are often used in peace to achieve aims and maintain power. The center thing here is divide et impera. As @ignatius said, it's planting a seed of discord, fogging up shit with disinformation, messing with definitions, bending morals, spreading hate, etc. The goal is not to cultivate a loyal following, but to block the discourse, distract from actually important things we, as the demos, must be vigilant about and fight for basically on everyday basis otherwise the busy corporate and gestapo wasps will slowly but surely erode the real progress of our society.

And Daoism is not passive at all. Also, Lao Tzu makes several points about how to be a leader of a nation. If anything, Lao Tzu seeks the path of least resistance (friction) as a mark of operational perfection, whether on a personal level with dealing with yourself, nature and others, or as a leader of any body. The work, according to Daoism, flows. You devote to your work, and when it's done, you leave it be. The answers to your questions and pondering is to be sought with a certain detachment to help you find a way that is not tainted by your own shortcomings as you might fall into another trap of your own making. That can be perceived as passivity, but it's actually and arduous labor that requires huge fortitude and honesty.