Most of this is good analysis, but when Daniel talks about "Fake news", don't forget he's a hard core marxist.
"Fake news" has an actual meaning. It refers specifically to invented stories published to troll or make money. You might get upset by media reports that you don't like or assume to be biased, but that's another thing entirely.
The rest of your word salad is as completely nuts as the president's 4AM tweets.
"Fake news" is itself a propaganda term created by the Left to suppress dissent. Thanks to the President's unwillingness to play along with that game, it's really blown up in the faces of CNN, BuzzFeed and the many mainstream outlets that have been pushing it.
I suspect this thread will soon be locked, so with regard to Apple creating yet another social network, I just don't see it. They're bad at it. They can't make money at it and it's not in their DNA.
I normally find your argument very logical but this one really piqued my curiosity as to why you consider 'fake news' as a propaganda terms by the Left to suppress dissent so in other words you are saying fake news are factual news that one can counter check with other websites.
Is there a sarcasm tag missing or you really meant whatever you are saying that you are a trump supporter.
The term "fake news" was, in fact, created by the Left. That's indisputable. It is a redefinition and dumbing down of the term "propaganda" and has been repurposed by the Left to quash opposing viewpoints, regardless of the source being attacked.
I didn't know Trump is considered to be from the left!
Trump co-opted the term to use it as a cudgel against a fundamentally corrupt and dishonest press. He didn't invent it.
No. The press do not make up stories. They publish stories that are provided to them by parties that have purposes. Some press like the "Inquirer?" could make up story. But if they do they will be caught easily. So it is the CULTURE that like to make up stories.
Not, really... Not anymore.... Right Wing radio host Mark Levin made up the story about Obama tapping Rump's phone and then Breitbart picked it up and Rump repeated it as fact -- even while every intelligence and law agency has said that is total nonsense. FakeNews. More recently, Napolitano on FoxNews stated that British intelligence had tapped Rump's phone and now, not only is British intelligence saying that is FakeNews but FoxNews is even saying it was FakeNews!
But, it's important to realize that FoxNews has been spinning their yarns for 20 years by using just enough actual facts that their spin cannot be called a TOTAL lie. But, it's such a distortion of the truth that it qualifies as FakeNews. But, I find it REALLY interesting that even they appear to be becoming horrified at the proliferation of FakeNews coming out of the Rump administration and right wing propaganda sites.
Personally, I don't think Obama had to tap Rump's phone. He already had camera in his microwave! (KellyAnne Conway told us so!).
This CULTURE has deteriorated further. The ISIS is not destroying western culture. The western culture is self-destroying. Previously the press is protected by the "freedom of speech act". But at higher level, integrity, shame were still accountable. Now the shameless has been elevated to the highest level. And the CULTURE can not do anything. Because the party that has the power now is not willing to press for truths like millions illegals voted in the last presidential election, etc. The press was given the status of a king but is is actually a king without clothes.
Yes, Rump should be impeached for lying to the American people like your example that: "millions of illegals voted in the last presidential election". Thank goodness for the patriots (even those in his own party) who discredited his Alternative Facts. But, shame on them for just moving on without punishing him with impeachment for lying to the American people
Many of them have tried to signal that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no basis in reason or evidence.
The latest official to throw cold water on the MSNBC-led circus is President Obama’s former acting CIA chief Michael Morell. What makes him particularly notable in this context is that Morell was one of Clinton’s most vocal CIA surrogates. In August, he not only endorsed Clinton in the pages of the New York Times but also became the first high official to explicitly accuse Trump of disloyalty, claiming, “In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.” But on Wednesday night, Morell appeared at an intelligence community forum to “cast doubt” on “allegations that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.” “On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire at all,” he said, adding, “There’s no little campfire, there’s no little candle, there’s no spark. And there’s a lot of people looking for it.”
Obama’s former CIA chief also cast serious doubt on the credibility of the infamous, explosive “dossier” originally published by BuzzFeed, saying that its author, Christopher Steele, paid intermediaries to talk to the sources for it. The dossier, he said, “doesn’t take you anywhere, I don’t think.”
Morell’s comments echo the categorical remarks by Obama’s top national security official, James Clapper, who told Meet the Press last week that during the time he was Obama’s DNI, he saw no evidence to support claims of a Trump/Russia conspiracy. “We had no evidence of such collusion,” Clapper stated unequivocally. Unlike Morell, who left his official CIA position in 2013 but remains very integrated into the intelligence community, Clapper was Obama’s DNI until just seven weeks ago, leaving on January 20.
Perhaps most revealing of all are the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee — charged with investigating these matters — who recently told BuzzFeed how petrified they are of what the Democratic base will do if they do not find evidence of collusion, as they now suspect will likely be the case. “There’s a tangible frustration over what one official called ‘wildly inflated’ expectations surrounding the panel’s fledgling investigation,” BuzzFeed’s Ali Watkins wrote.
Moreover, “several committee sources grudgingly say, it feels as though the investigation will be seen as a sham if the Senate doesn’t find a silver bullet connecting Trump and Russian intelligence operatives.” One member told Watkins: “I don’t think the conclusions are going to meet people’s expectations.”
What makes all of this most significant is that officials like Clapper and Morell are trained disinformation agents; Clapper in particular has proven he will lie to advance his interests. Yet even with all the incentive to do so, they are refusing to claim there is evidence of such collusion; in fact, they are expressly urging people to stop thinking it exists. As even the law recognizes, statements that otherwise lack credibility become more believable when they are ones made “against interest.”
In my experience the MSM bases its information on solid fact based reporting and rarely gets a story wrong.
Your experience is wrong, then.
"That was always a lie"
Sorry, contrary to the rightwing FakeNews sites, it is very very true... And it scares Rump to death. That's why he invented his "Obama Wire Tapped my Phones" line. He's trying to muddy the waters before he's evicted from his newest mansion to an even bigger house -- the BigHouse. Unfortunately except for the brainwashed rightwingers, the whole world seems to be laughing at him.
here's some facts as opposed to the fake news propaganda started by the left.
1. The original attacks on judges began with Obama's attacks on the Supreme Court in his state of the union address after the Citizen's Free Speech decision.
2. Obama began attacking news by calling Fox Fake news.
3. Obama' CIA/NSA did hack German Chancellor Merkal. Not a stretch to think that the CIA is out of control and hacking Trump.
4.. Hillary's Ambassador was overheard conspiring in the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Ukraine which is what precipitated the annexation of Crimea and the current civil war. Unsurprising Ukraine's Finance minister became an American citizen who had served in Bill Clinton's state department (Natalie Jarekso).
5. Our country is subject to hacking from China all the time. Maybe the hacks were against the republicans who were smart enough to secure their Networks.
6. American jobs are not going to Russia. This is about wall street being able to control of international finance with China. And thus why Clinton received twice the money as Trump (most from Wall Street). Trump won because workers in rust belt states wouldn't vote for the Clintons who started the original "screw the blue collar worker" with NAFTA. Mass delusion seems to have embraced the Clintonites and Progressives since they blame just about anything else. Democratic's embrace of Illegal Aliens is a also anti-American worker that has motivated many voters to support Trump.
LOL... Yep! There's a great example of one of Republican's favorite tactics when they get caught: It's a variation on the 1st grade level excuse of "Everybody Does It!". In this case, it's a slight variation trying to divert attention from their own misdeeds by saying "Well HE did even WORSE!" -- even if, as your example shows, they need to use cherry picked, twisted & distorted or even Alterative Facts to prove their rather irrelevant point. ... But, it tends to work for them by creating a smoke screen to hide behind. Which is kind of surprising since the CLAIM to be the party of personal responsibility and accountability. ROFL...
That's all a pretty good example of right wing spin using some miscellaneous, out of context fact to disprove reality or to prove an alternative reality....
Thanks for admitting you have no argument. Please get psychological help immediately.
That's hilarious!
Prove the statement wrong.
Especially because that is FoxNews' favorite spin tactic...
Since when? I haven’t watched television in nearly a decade.
A good example is Rump's insistence that he has no Russian investments -- yet not mentioning the 100's of millions Russia has invested in him!
And your evidence that there is government collusion is where, dipshit? You realize that Obama and Clinton have billions invested therein, right? All I have to do is say “Haiti” and you’ll collapse into a screaming infant.
Or, perhaps their insistence that everybody will have "access" to health care -- but forgetting to mention that that access requires wealth to pay for the access.
If you’re so stupid that you don’t comprehend that “something costs money”, how is that the fault of anyone else? Why the fucking shit aren’t you screaming from the rooftops that food isn’t free? How isn’t that an injustice of biblical (oh no, I “triggered” you!) proportions? How are people supposed to live if they’re “forced” to pay for food?! And WATER?! WATER isn’t free?! You fucking oppressive shitlords: is this an orwellian nation?!
But no. You don’t say a goddamn thing about either of those. All you care about is unconstitutionally forcing people to purchase–not even healthcare itself, but–insurance from HUGE CORPORATIONS WHO WROTE THE FUCKING BILL, while simultaneously claiming that your opponents are totalitarian monsters who want big business to destroy the world.
You right wing crazies start with your ideology or agenda and then back into whichever "facts" support that ideology or agenda - even if they are "Alternative Facts"…
i always enjoy reading both of your comments and at my clearest, I sometimes agree with your points.
But I think it is hilarious that you guys are bemoaning the length of DED columns, when you both go on for what seems forever in defense of at times anti-liberal anti modern humane/civil/global realities. Respect is due for your thoroughness.
If he didn't provide detail, history and his rationale for his prepositions, he of course would be chasten for the lack thereof. Thanks for the smile.
You're comparing our discussions in political outsider with a published editorial? Surely you can see these aren't close to the same things.
Crikey, there could be a story about a kitten playing with some wool and one of you nutters would still find a way to crowbar a copy-paste political rant in.
Re. social network, while Apple are certainly capable of doing that, a social network needs broad platform ubiquity to be useful. If it's constrained to Apple's devices, its going to be more or less DOA. I guess Apple could make a network for the web too, but hard to see how they could justify that cost-wise, or as any form of advantage.
I'm sure that's probably been said already in this thread, but I'd rather gouge my eyes out than wade through five pages of the usual "No! U!" political nonsense.
That's all a pretty good example of right wing spin using some miscellaneous, out of context fact to disprove reality or to prove an alternative reality....
Thanks for admitting you have no argument. Please get psychological help immediately.
That's hilarious!
Prove the statement wrong.
Especially because that is FoxNews' favorite spin tactic...
Since when? I haven’t watched television in nearly a decade.
A good example is Rump's insistence that he has no Russian investments -- yet not mentioning the 100's of millions Russia has invested in him!
And your evidence that there is government collusion is where, dipshit? You realize that Obama and Clinton have billions invested therein, right? All I have to do is say “Haiti” and you’ll collapse into a screaming infant.
Or, perhaps their insistence that everybody will have "access" to health care -- but forgetting to mention that that access requires wealth to pay for the access.
If you’re so stupid that you don’t comprehend that “something costs money”, how is that the fault of anyone else? Why the fucking shit aren’t you screaming from the rooftops that food isn’t free? How isn’t that an injustice of biblical (oh no, I “triggered” you!) proportions? How are people supposed to live if they’re “forced” to pay for food?! And WATER?! WATER isn’t free?! You fucking oppressive shitlords: is this an orwellian nation?!
But no. You don’t say a goddamn thing about either of those. All you care about is unconstitutionally forcing people to purchase–not even healthcare itself, but–insurance from HUGE CORPORATIONS WHO WROTE THE FUCKING BILL, while simultaneously claiming that your opponents are totalitarian monsters who want big business to destroy the world.
You right wing crazies start with your ideology or agenda and then back into whichever "facts" support that ideology or agenda - even if they are "Alternative Facts"…
So zero evidence for any of your claims. Got it.
Scream a little louder... People believe a fool if he screams loud enough. Really!
What did DED smoke when he wrote this article?? The main purpose of a social network is share content and experience with all your friends and family, not just the ones that have an iPhone. I live in a country where the market share of iOS is around 15%, this means that only 1 out of 6 of my contacts can understand iOS tailered communication ( FaceTime, "enhanced" iMessage, ...). The last time I used Facetime was 6 years ago, when I tried it out after I booght my 1st iPhone. Afterwards I did not consider using it, because unconsciously I knew the risks were too high that the receiver could not handle Facetime.
I get your point, but you are panning (and foregone using) FaceTime and iMessage for no good reason… It's not uncommon for smartphone users to have many different apps with the same functionality installed, just because they are what certain friends or family are using, *especially messaging and voice/video chat apps*.
I, for one, have obviously Messages pre-installed and iMessage configured, and also use FaceTime, Skype, Facebook Messenger (mostly for text chat but sometimes for audio calls as well), WhatsApp *and* Telegram, and one of the first things I do when I know someone in my family or friend circle bought an Apple product is getting them to set up FaceTime and iMessage so I can contact them more easily (hint: they are almost always on and are system services/apps, that's why… and, as a bonus, they are encrypted by default, what a concept!).
So I fail to see your point and the reason why you won't use a different and superior messaging platform with all the people who can also use it because “the risks were too high”. What risks? Were you too afraid of asking your friends and family whether they had iPhones or not lest they would think you were pedantic or something? Give me a break, the whole “blue message bubble vs. green message bubble” is just a running joke; AFAIK, reasonable Apple users don't actually discriminate against others because of that, if their friends have Android phones they will just use WhatsApp or Messenger instead.
An Apple social network will suffer from the same issue Google tried its own Google+ but failed. Taking into account that Google had overal presence on all devices and that Google has the technological skills to make and deploy it (they have Youtube), Apple has no chance whatsoever to make a successful social network.
Well, here, you have a bit more of a point. While there can certainly be multiple popular social networks where different sets of people may hang out, they do have to reach a certain critical mass in order to be actually sustainable… I remember rooting for Ello and pestering friends to subscribe to it, and I think it became successful to a certain point with creatives (I'm hoping that one day it may rival Behance, but I'm not holding my breath), but a Facebook or Twitter competitor it will be not. Which is a damn shame…
But you never know, all those social networks were tiny/niche at some point, and the whole generation renewal thing is a huge factor. Tumblr wouldn't be Tumblr if it wasn't for an entire specific demographic using it, for instance. If Apple managed to create a social network where filters, groups and circles were actually easy to set up, they might create something that could attract different groups of people and keep them hooked up to the network, regardless of that “oh shit my parents added me on Facebook” factor (never mind the fact that you can filter them out already if you want; I do that with my clients, bosses and their respective acquaintances already whenever I post political or juvenile crap, but most users never get around to configure that stuff).
Any next gen "social network" that could make fact check, research and science based based news cool would be a gift. People could even collect "fact points" or status or something by doing fact checks.
There are a few problems with doing this. The news isn't so much concerned with historical or scientific data that can be easily checked, it's more event-based so it relies on accounts from people who saw what happened. If you only have two people who saw what happened, how do you fact-check beyond what they say?
News moves too quickly to be able to do this because fact-checking events from the other side of the world can take at least another day and the news has moved onto something else by then.
I only found out the Corona beer one was false this year. I actually didn't feel better finding out that it was false either, some stories just seem better if they are true even if they aren't. These kind of stories aren't very important whether they are verified or not, kind of like inspirational quotes.
Another thing to consider is that all news is fake until it's verified. Take the mass surveillance of intelligence agencies on the public. That was denied for a while and it would have been shut down as fake news but was eventually found out to be true. How do you allow for unverified news for a long time without legitimizing everything that people want to make up.
This is actually a tactic that journalists use, especially online these days, where they publish false reports on purpose to force a response. This happens with Apple all the time where reports say they've bought a company or have supply issues or whatever and the intention is to put Apple in a position where they want to respond. One example that happened recently was with Chris Lattner leaving Apple. Business Insider published a report saying he left due to Apple's culture and he denied this:
The person who wrote the Business Insider article then took the response and updated the article and then they get an exclusive. Fake news turns into exclusive fact. The writers don't suffer as a result, they aren't punished for this.
These things didn't happen so much with printed news because it took time to print the paper and having to update an article would mean wasting space in the next day's paper. We can't go back to this model though.
There are some things that a news platform can do like giving authors or news sources a reputation and they can be demerited for misleading headlines that don't hold up in the article content, for unsubstantiated reports, for articles that turned out to be incorrect. But again, this isn't easy to do, the demerit system depends on the reviewers who have their own politics. Wikipedia tries to cover this sort of thing by requiring citations and generally request enough information for the reader to determine for themselves if something is accurate or not.
One of the main things that should result from it is educating readers to know how to verify for themselves if something is accurate even if it conflicts with their bias.
I don't think that this ties in much with a social network though. This degrades news because it puts it at the level of twitter feeds where someone would just as likely retweet an article author as they would any other random person. It's like getting diagnosed by a doctor vs asking Reddit what to do. There's a point where you aren't respecting the profession and acknowledging the difference between someone dedicating their career to something and someone spooling out a thought because they had a spare 5 minutes.
Apple could still set up a social network with iMessage though. You would message a feed from iMessage just like you would a contact and people would have this contact in their iMessage accounts and they'd get messages like texts. This would be good for music because musicians could just text that they will have a concert in a particular location and people could text back to book the ticket, pay with Apple Pay and they could get directions and the digital ticket. People could have celebrities in their iPhone contacts in a separate tab or something and they'd be direct messaging their public feeds. They'd just have a separate account identifier and Apple could verify payment credentials to easily make verified accounts.
It would be a bit restrictive to limit it to iOS but Apple has 1 billion users. That's 1/7th of the entire world so it's not that restrictive. That's more users than twitter and just like how twitter has integration APIs, they can do the same for other platforms. Using Messages means they don't have to do any special software, they just handle the billions of daily messages they do already.
Comments
It's a variation on the 1st grade level excuse of "Everybody Does It!". In this case, it's a slight variation trying to divert attention from their own misdeeds by saying "Well HE did even WORSE!" -- even if, as your example shows, they need to use cherry picked, twisted & distorted or even Alterative Facts to prove their rather irrelevant point.
... But, it tends to work for them by creating a smoke screen to hide behind. Which is kind of surprising since the CLAIM to be the party of personal responsibility and accountability. ROFL...
Prove the statement wrong.
Since when? I haven’t watched television in nearly a decade.
And your evidence that there is government collusion is where, dipshit? You realize that Obama and Clinton have billions invested therein, right? All I have to do is say “Haiti” and you’ll collapse into a screaming infant.
If you’re so stupid that you don’t comprehend that “something costs money”, how is that the fault of anyone else? Why the fucking shit aren’t you screaming from the rooftops that food isn’t free? How isn’t that an injustice of biblical (oh no, I “triggered” you!) proportions? How are people supposed to live if they’re “forced” to pay for food?! And WATER?! WATER isn’t free?! You fucking oppressive shitlords: is this an orwellian nation?!
But no. You don’t say a goddamn thing about either of those. All you care about is unconstitutionally forcing people to purchase–not even healthcare itself, but–insurance from HUGE CORPORATIONS WHO WROTE THE FUCKING BILL, while simultaneously claiming that your opponents are totalitarian monsters who want big business to destroy the world.
So zero evidence for any of your claims. Got it.
You're comparing our discussions in political outsider with a published editorial? Surely you can see these aren't close to the same things.
Re. social network, while Apple are certainly capable of doing that, a social network needs broad platform ubiquity to be useful. If it's constrained to Apple's devices, its going to be more or less DOA. I guess Apple could make a network for the web too, but hard to see how they could justify that cost-wise, or as any form of advantage.
I'm sure that's probably been said already in this thread, but I'd rather gouge my eyes out than wade through five pages of the usual "No! U!" political nonsense.
So I fail to see your point and the reason why you won't use a different and superior messaging platform with all the people who can also use it because “the risks were too high”. What risks? Were you too afraid of asking your friends and family whether they had iPhones or not lest they would think you were pedantic or something? Give me a break, the whole “blue message bubble vs. green message bubble” is just a running joke; AFAIK, reasonable Apple users don't actually discriminate against others because of that, if their friends have Android phones they will just use WhatsApp or Messenger instead.
Well, here, you have a bit more of a point. While there can certainly be multiple popular social networks where different sets of people may hang out, they do have to reach a certain critical mass in order to be actually sustainable… I remember rooting for Ello and pestering friends to subscribe to it, and I think it became successful to a certain point with creatives (I'm hoping that one day it may rival Behance, but I'm not holding my breath), but a Facebook or Twitter competitor it will be not. Which is a damn shame…
But you never know, all those social networks were tiny/niche at some point, and the whole generation renewal thing is a huge factor. Tumblr wouldn't be Tumblr if it wasn't for an entire specific demographic using it, for instance. If Apple managed to create a social network where filters, groups and circles were actually easy to set up, they might create something that could attract different groups of people and keep them hooked up to the network, regardless of that “oh shit my parents added me on Facebook” factor (never mind the fact that you can filter them out already if you want; I do that with my clients, bosses and their respective acquaintances already whenever I post political or juvenile crap, but most users never get around to configure that stuff).
News moves too quickly to be able to do this because fact-checking events from the other side of the world can take at least another day and the news has moved onto something else by then.
Here are a few fake stories from last year:
http://mashable.com/2016/12/19/debunks-2016
I only found out the Corona beer one was false this year. I actually didn't feel better finding out that it was false either, some stories just seem better if they are true even if they aren't. These kind of stories aren't very important whether they are verified or not, kind of like inspirational quotes.
Another thing to consider is that all news is fake until it's verified. Take the mass surveillance of intelligence agencies on the public. That was denied for a while and it would have been shut down as fake news but was eventually found out to be true. How do you allow for unverified news for a long time without legitimizing everything that people want to make up.
This is actually a tactic that journalists use, especially online these days, where they publish false reports on purpose to force a response. This happens with Apple all the time where reports say they've bought a company or have supply issues or whatever and the intention is to put Apple in a position where they want to respond. One example that happened recently was with Chris Lattner leaving Apple. Business Insider published a report saying he left due to Apple's culture and he denied this:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/01/13/culture-of-secrecy-key-to-swift-lead-chris-lattners-decision-to-leave-apple-for-tesla---report
The person who wrote the Business Insider article then took the response and updated the article and then they get an exclusive. Fake news turns into exclusive fact. The writers don't suffer as a result, they aren't punished for this.
These things didn't happen so much with printed news because it took time to print the paper and having to update an article would mean wasting space in the next day's paper. We can't go back to this model though.
There are some things that a news platform can do like giving authors or news sources a reputation and they can be demerited for misleading headlines that don't hold up in the article content, for unsubstantiated reports, for articles that turned out to be incorrect. But again, this isn't easy to do, the demerit system depends on the reviewers who have their own politics. Wikipedia tries to cover this sort of thing by requiring citations and generally request enough information for the reader to determine for themselves if something is accurate or not.
One of the main things that should result from it is educating readers to know how to verify for themselves if something is accurate even if it conflicts with their bias.
I don't think that this ties in much with a social network though. This degrades news because it puts it at the level of twitter feeds where someone would just as likely retweet an article author as they would any other random person. It's like getting diagnosed by a doctor vs asking Reddit what to do. There's a point where you aren't respecting the profession and acknowledging the difference between someone dedicating their career to something and someone spooling out a thought because they had a spare 5 minutes.
Apple could still set up a social network with iMessage though. You would message a feed from iMessage just like you would a contact and people would have this contact in their iMessage accounts and they'd get messages like texts. This would be good for music because musicians could just text that they will have a concert in a particular location and people could text back to book the ticket, pay with Apple Pay and they could get directions and the digital ticket. People could have celebrities in their iPhone contacts in a separate tab or something and they'd be direct messaging their public feeds. They'd just have a separate account identifier and Apple could verify payment credentials to easily make verified accounts.
It would be a bit restrictive to limit it to iOS but Apple has 1 billion users. That's 1/7th of the entire world so it's not that restrictive. That's more users than twitter and just like how twitter has integration APIs, they can do the same for other platforms. Using Messages means they don't have to do any special software, they just handle the billions of daily messages they do already.