January 3, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, mr_hunt said: oops.... Meh, Fox is for entertainment only anyway, right?
January 3, 20241 yr Crenshaw finds out where FoxNews draws the line. I guess he shouldn't have said that out loud...
January 5, 20241 yr On 1/3/2024 at 3:44 PM, toolg said: Crenshaw finds out where FoxNews draws the line. I guess he shouldn't have said that out loud... Should be interesting if they go after the stock market angle. The insider trading is real.
January 14, 20241 yr toolg’s cracked the case, a TV network prioritizes ratings! What’s next, corporations trying to maximize shareholder value?
January 14, 20241 yr 11 hours ago, The_Omega said: toolg’s cracked the case, a TV network prioritizes ratings! What’s next, corporations trying to maximize shareholder value? Nothing says "maximize shareholder value" quite like paying $800M to a voting machine company you spent months defaming, while a second company's $2.7B lawsuit continues.
January 19, 20241 yr https://frontofficesports.com/sports-illustrateds-publisher-lays-off-entire-staff-future-unclear/ Quote Sports Illustrated’s Publisher Guts Staff. Future Unclear BY A.J. PEREZ UPDATED JANUARY 19, 2024 | 02:51 PM The Arena Group, which publishes SI, recently missed a $3.75 million payment to SI’s license holder, Authentic, leading Authentic to sever the deal. On Friday, Arena started laying off employees. Maybe they can learn to code.
January 24, 20241 yr On 1/4/2024 at 8:45 PM, VanHammersly said: Now do MSNBC. They are the functional equivalent.
January 24, 20241 yr 3 minutes ago, CountBlah said: Now do MSNBC. They are the functional equivalent. It's probably close to Fox's level of bias. But the point of the post is that PBS is relatively centrist (admittedly, still tilting left, but about as close as you can get), despite it being labelled the far left. Taking things down the middle these days is considered far, far left by the majority in the Republican Party. The real problem is the right has no center-right media outlet, except I suppose Wall St. Journal, but that's print and I'd guess they consider that too MSM. If the right had a sane take on the world from a media outlet they trusted, our country would be a lot better off.
January 24, 20241 yr 23 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: It's probably close to Fox's level of bias. But the point of the post is that PBS is relatively centrist (admittedly, still tilting left, but about as close as you can get), despite it being labelled the far left. Taking things down the middle these days is considered far, far left by the majority in the Republican Party. The real problem is the right has no center-right media outlet, except I suppose Wall St. Journal, but that's print and I'd guess they consider that too MSM. If the right had a sane take on the world from a media outlet they trusted, our country would be a lot better off. Barrons used to at least feel center right, but I haven't read any of that ish in a while.
January 24, 20241 yr 32 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: It's probably close to Fox's level of bias. But the point of the post is that PBS is relatively centrist (admittedly, still tilting left, but about as close as you can get), despite it being labelled the far left. Taking things down the middle these days is considered far, far left by the majority in the Republican Party. The real problem is the right has no center-right media outlet, except I suppose Wall St. Journal, but that's print and I'd guess they consider that too MSM. If the right had a sane take on the world from a media outlet they trusted, our country would be a lot better off. Admittedly taken from the other thread … there are multiple issues at play… - as you said, there is no center-right media. It pretty much is Fox News and conservative radio against EVERYTHING else. - EVERY outfit is in it for ratings/money. When that happens, they gravitate to their niche in the market. With decades of negative reinforcement, there is not market for centrist reporting - you can have people from both sides of the aisle, but that doesn’t make you neutral. When you throw softball after softball to one side and call out the other, that does not make you neutral. - we are F’d with our current setup - TV has their lanes established, print media is dead and anything online will algorithmically feed whatever you historically lean towards, to drive engagement and goose your dopamine levels. The only solution is not to play. Find news aggregators from both sides. Read what they have with VERY questioning eyes and you can spot the bias from a mile away. But the funny thing is, there is usually a nugget or two of info in there, that you will get well ahead of when it appears in the normal channels, as long as it isn’t *breaking news*. Ultimately, don’t believe anything unless it cites a legit study you can investigate or a way to find someone’s full quote versus a small snippet. In summary, NPR is biased. But so is fox, cnn, abc, nbc, NY times, Washington post, washing times, etc…. Trust no one and don’t fall for what they ‘report’, without checking and subtracting the bias that does exist.
January 24, 20241 yr These need to be taken separately. 15 minutes ago, CountBlah said: Admittedly taken from the other thread … That's a ridiculous meme. If by "normal people" you mean Trump supporters then A) I'd push back on the normal part and B) of course, they are absolutely far right. The Republicans have gone off the authoritarian deep end, from the top down. Voting for a guy who openly states he wants to be a dictator (and has already tried to install himself as one, so it's not just talk) is in every way extreme. 19 minutes ago, CountBlah said: there are multiple issues at play… - as you said, there is no center-right media. It pretty much is Fox News and conservative radio against EVERYTHING else. - EVERY outfit is in it for ratings/money. When that happens, they gravitate to their niche in the market. With decades of negative reinforcement, there is not market for centrist reporting - you can have people from both sides of the aisle, but that doesn’t make you neutral. When you throw softball after softball to one side and call out the other, that does not make you neutral. - we are F’d with our current setup - TV has their lanes established, print media is dead and anything online will algorithmically feed whatever you historically lean towards, to drive engagement and goose your dopamine levels. The only solution is not to play. Find news aggregators from both sides. Read what they have with VERY questioning eyes and you can spot the bias from a mile away. But the funny thing is, there is usually a nugget or two of info in there, that you will get well ahead of when it appears in the normal channels, as long as it isn’t *breaking news*. Ultimately, don’t believe anything unless it cites a legit study you can investigate or a way to find someone’s full quote versus a small snippet. In summary, NPR is biased. But so is fox, cnn, abc, nbc, NY times, Washington post, washing times, etc…. Trust no one and don’t fall for what they ‘report’, without checking and subtracting the bias that does exist. There's a huge difference between biased and garbage. Fox is garbage. MSNBC is garbage. NPR is biased. Saying "everything's biased" is just an easy way to excuse the garbage and treat it the same as actual legit sources. Also, most people get their news online, which has plenty of outlets right and left, so it's not at all Fox News and right wing (not really conservative anymore) radio against everything else. The right's been on equal footing for a long time now, they should've stopped complaining about the MSM over a decade ago.
January 25, 20241 yr There is a reason I stopped posting here and became a lurker, so long ago. I want to thank you for reminding me why - There is no discourse, only mud slinging. 48 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: That's a ridiculous meme. If by "normal people" you mean Trump supporters then A) I'd push back on the normal part and B) of course, they are absolutely far right. The Republicans have gone off the authoritarian deep end, from the top down. Voting for a guy who openly states he wants to be a dictator (and has already tried to install himself as one, so it's not just talk) is in every way extreme. By normal people, I'm talking about folks who want to secure the borders(and all that goes with it for not doing so), cut ridiculous spending(that both parties do) and have the government leave them the F alone as much as possible. To highlight the shifting definition of what is acceptable/intolerable to left-leaners, I always love to point to the old school Democrat darling - JFK. JFK would 100% be labeled a trump supporter for being anti-communist, pro-second amendment and his stance on lowering taxes. 100% a "Trump supporter" in your parlance. I agree, the county is F'd if the choice is Biden or Trump. It disgusts me that we are put in this position. It highlights the anger that the MSM and social media his ingrained in our society, that Trump is the only alternative to Biden. I always used to joke that the "other" side would vote for the devil himself, over the opposing candidate. But now I honestly believe i to be true. 48 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: There's a huge difference between biased and garbage. Fox is garbage. MSNBC is garbage. NPR is biased. Saying "everything's biased" is just an easy way to excuse the garbage and treat it the same as actual legit sources. Never claimed there wasn't a difference, you are putting words in my mouth. My original post you quoted called Fox News and MSNBC equal(aka garbage). You even state that NPR is biased. My claim that everything is biased does NOT excuse garbage - again, you are putting words in my mouth. There's plenty of garbage out there and there are plenty of decent sources with only some bias. But even seemingly reputable source still come with bias and at a minimum, distort the truth with cherry picked snippets of statements or one aspect of a study, taken out of context from the rest. Take in the news, preferably from mostly reliable sources, but always look for the bias and always double check, before going off half-cocked. Remember - Always full cocked or not cocked at all But one thing you MUST do to evolve, is get out of the damned echo chamber and read articles with opposing viewpoints/biases. Over the years, my eyes have been totally opened to many viewpoints that I never would have had, had I not done this. You are part of the problem if you remain in your echo chamber. 48 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Also, most people get their news online, which has plenty of outlets right and left, so it's not at all Fox News and right wing (not really conservative anymore) radio against everything else. The right's been on equal footing for a long time now, they should've stopped complaining about the MSM over a decade ago. The right has certainly not been on equal footing when it comes to facebook, twitter, youtube, etc... The algorithms have punished anti-MSM stances for as long as algorithms have been around. Hard left and hard right are fed only in their own pig trough - gotta make sure to keep them engaged, and because of that, you will always find far-right information on social media, but you have to make a commitment to it, in order for it to be algorithmically selected for you. But when it comes to those not on the far 15% of either side, you get curated news. Look no further than the pandemic and legit immunologists who were censored to daring to question the efficacy and medical morality of mandating exprimental vaccines. OR COURSE you had the nutters who claimed there were microchips, sterility, mind altering whatever in the vaccine. I'm not talk about those. I'm taking about legit criticisms that were NOT allowed on social media - posts pulled and individuals banned. The highlight of the left lean on social media was most evident with the wholesale removal of any objection to Biden's town hall on 21 July 2021 where he mind blowingly claimed that you would not getting covid if you got vaccinated. That was the night of the long knives, where any pretense of neutrality, ended. But since it was in your favor, there was nothing wrong with it, right? Thank you for engaging, but I'm looking to going back to be be a lurker. Good night
January 25, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, CountBlah said: By normal people, I'm talking about folks who want to secure the borders(and all that goes with it for not doing so), cut ridiculous spending(that both parties do) and have the government leave them the F alone as much as possible. That's closer to being libertarian than far-right though. 1 hour ago, CountBlah said: It highlights the anger that the MSM and social media his ingrained in our society, that Trump is the only alternative to Biden Except he's not. It's just that the GOP voters are far too stupid to understand almost anyone else would beat Biden in the general. 1 hour ago, CountBlah said: The algorithms have punished anti-MSM stances for as long as algorithms have been around. This is fundamentally false, but I'm not about launch into some lengthy explanation on how social media alrogrithms work because it's pretty clear your mind is already made up.
January 25, 20241 yr 2 hours ago, CountBlah said: There is a reason I stopped posting here and became a lurker, so long ago. I want to thank you for reminding me why - There is no discourse, only mud slinging. There’s a lot going on in this novel and WGB already covered some of the main points but I’m not sure what gave you the idea that I was mud slinging. Check out some of the threads with me and Kz. That’s mud slinging. You and I were just disagreeing.
January 25, 20241 yr 9 hours ago, VanHammersly said: not sure what gave you the idea that I was mud slinging. The part when you said mean words about Trump supporters.
January 25, 20241 yr 3 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said: The part when you said mean words about Kennedy supporters. FYP
January 25, 20241 yr 18 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said: That's closer to being libertarian than far-right though. Libertarian wants no taxes and pretty much no government. Normal people expect roads, schools, national defense, regulating ish to a reasonable degree. 18 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said: Except he's not. It's just that the GOP voters are far too stupid to understand almost anyone else would beat Biden in the general. By GOP voters, you mean Iowa and New Hampshire? They are the only ones who have been able to officially provide their opinion. I guess you are saying DeSantis was going to win? There were no options - F'n pathetic of the whole party. 18 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said: This is fundamentally false, but I'm not about launch into some lengthy explanation on how social media alrogrithms work because it's pretty clear your mind is already made up. Your opinion or are you going to point to snopes or some other "unbiased" source like that? No comment on 21 July 2021?
January 25, 20241 yr 6 minutes ago, CountBlah said: Libertarian wants no taxes and pretty much no government. Normal people expect roads, schools, national defense, regulating ish to a reasonable degree. A common lazy misconception that libertarians are synonymous with anarchists. I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016 not because he wanted anarchy (which is nonsense and you know it) but because he had experience governing, was socially liberal / fiscally responsible, and I thought he was better than the other two candidates. Let's try this another way then, you tell me what "far-right" means to you and we can go from there. Quote By GOP voters, you mean Iowa and New Hampshire? They are the only ones who have been able to officially provide their opinion. I guess you are saying DeSantis was going to win? There were no options - F'n pathetic of the whole party. lolwut? Are you implying there's still a chance that someone other than Trump could still win the nomination? Quote Your opinion or are you going to point to snopes or some other "unbiased" source like that? No comment on 21 July 2021? An explanation of how algorithms work is no more opinion than an explanation of how a web browser works or how the ice dispenser in your fridge works.
January 25, 20241 yr 38 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: A common lazy misconception that libertarians are synonymous with anarchists. I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016 not because he wanted anarchy (which is nonsense and you know it) but because he had experience governing, was socially liberal / fiscally responsible, and I thought he was better than the other two candidates. Let's try this another way then, you tell me what "far-right" means to you and we can go from there. Lazy? Thought that that the norm here. OF COURSE it's not 100%, it's a quick summary. Do you require citations and complete descriptions of every reference? I didn't bring up Libertarians, YOU did. 38 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: lolwut? Are you implying there's still a chance that someone other than Trump could still win the nomination? Reading comprehension issue on your part, it seems. YOU said that anyone who was nominated, other than Trump, would beat Biden. I disagreed. I just pointed out that the other candidates were not all stars either. But it seems you have a higher opinion of the non-Trump GOP crop, than I have. 38 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: An explanation of how algorithms work is no more opinion than an explanation of how a web browser works or how the ice dispenser in your fridge works. Could you be any more disingenuous? Algorithms are not magic black boxes, the are programmatic logic. It's the logic that the Social Media companies treat with EXTREME Secrecy. It's the way social media guides opinions to whatever they want, with no oversight. You are purposely ignoring what I'm saying and focusing on the minutia, thus not making this worth my time/effort. Good bye
January 26, 20241 yr 3 hours ago, CountBlah said: Lazy? Thought that that the norm here. OF COURSE it's not 100%, it's a quick summary. Do you require citations and complete descriptions of every reference? I didn't bring up Libertarians, YOU did. 100%? It's not even 10% accurate. Are you ready to define what "far right" means now? Quote Reading comprehension issue on your part, it seems. YOU said that anyone who was nominated, other than Trump, would beat Biden. I disagreed. I just pointed out that the other candidates were not all stars either. But it seems you have a higher opinion of the non-Trump GOP crop, than I have. Yes. Haley, DeSantis, Scott, Christie, etc. would all beat Biden in the general. Ramiswamy is one of the few that might lose to Biden because he's a cheap dollar-store version of Trump. Take it back to 2016 and it's the same thing, Rubio, Kasich, Carson, Paul all wipe the floor with Hilary. Your point about the primary voters only being heard from NH and IA was pointless and irrelevant. We know how it's going to play out already, so I'm not sure what was going on in your head with that one. Quote Could you be any more disingenuous? Algorithms are not magic black boxes, the are programmatic logic. It's the logic that the Social Media companies treat with EXTREME Secrecy. It's the way social media guides opinions to whatever they want, with no oversight. You are purposely ignoring what I'm saying and focusing on the minutia, thus not making this worth my time/effort. Good bye Um no, an algorithm doesn't have to be open source to understand its intent. That's readily observable through enough testing and modeling. The method in which they achieve that intent is proprietary, but the outcome is hardly a secret. The bottom line is, social media algorithms are designed to drive one thing, and one thing only... Sustained engagement. They want you to dive headfirst into that rabbit hole and completely lose track of time. They want you to click on the next suggested video and then the next one and then the next and suddenly you've spent an hour watching them instead of getting ready for bed or doing homework or the dishes or whatever else would normally be a higher priority for you. They have become adept at doing this by leveraging analytics, both from crowdsourcing and also profiling your unique usage behavior. You know, the data you consent to provide the minute you agreed to the TOS either explicitly through account creation or implicitly by downloading the app. If they did as you suggested, and only catered to half of the American populace, they'd be driving engagement into the ground for half of their potential user base. It wouldn't keep their attention at all but instead would be breaking it rapidly. I mean, have you been completely oblivious by the cries from whiny liberals about the dangers from the very same algorithms you claim are biased towards the left? You've honestly never heard liberals complain about facebook, youtube, tiktok, etc? It's literally a copy and paste argument from them about misinformation spreading too easily, nefarious foreign actors using it to their advantage to influence voter sentiment, the deleterious effect on young girls and negative gender roles, etc. Did you ever stop and ask yourself why liberals are making the a similar complaint about the exact same algorithms as you are? Maybe it's because the point of the algorithms isn't actually to provide news or meaningful information (these companies couldn't possibly give less of a F about informing their users about current events or anything factual really). The point of the algorithms is to keep your eyeballs fixated on that screen so they can pimp those engagement metrics to advertisers and make assloads of money. If you want a more in-depth technical discussion on how these algorithms work in practice, we can do that too and pagerank is an easy example to start with because it's one of the first and most prominent uses of them. But like I suspected initially, I doubt you're open to hearing any of it because your mind was made up a very long time ago.
Create an account or sign in to comment