This can be said generally at all times by someone. It’s not just a naive way of thinking it’s extremely dangerous and a real threat to republican society. You will never sway the center with aggressive and blatantly bias rhetoric.
Fact checking is basically impossible as most things aren’t black and white and open to various interpretations. The idea of fact checkers online has been totally rejected because fact checkers themselves are vulnerable to bias and ideological capture.
Indeed. A few years ago I spent a lot of time "fact checking" things, and it's nearly impossible because there is way more speculation/interpretation of "facts" than most people think. Misleading headline writing makes this even worse because a lot of people don't read beyond the headline, or if they do they interpret the factual body of the article through a lens framed by the headline. The NY Times are exceptionally good at this. Read the article and it's factually correct, but different interpretations and the subtle insertion of opinions (often through headlines) . I'm not trying to shit on NYT here. NYT is still among the best sources, despite their imperfections. But it illustrates well the challenge.
That’s not the point. The point is that brands build awareness through ads that don’t require clicking and this ha effected you whether you want to admit it or not
Your messages are very consistent, it all adds up and makes perfect sense.
I don't care either.
Online I get lots of ads blocked, but not all, I really don't put much effort into it beyond default.
So what if I am "influenced" if it doesn't effect any significant part of my behavior.
One thing I never do is respond with money.
I'm just not a "consumer" so that goes back before the internet.
Sure I see ads thrown at me which keep me aware of those brands but the only buys I make would happen without any ads.
On the rare occasion that I want to make a significant purchase, then I will seek out the ad. Oh the horror !
But I want to see how honest I think it is compared to a number of reviews. It's really pretty neutral since it's just as much me using the ad as the ad using me, plus equally good for knowing what looks good to buy as knowing what brand not to buy.
Then there's the interesting way when an overall economic downturn gets rougher you see ads for things that almost never need advertising for years in a row, or never have before :\
OTOH you also see some of the most trivial stuff that must be flying off the shelf and all you can do is shake your head ;)
This admin is doing nothing we haven’t seen previous admins do. Blaming the administration for how poorly American privacy is takes the blame away from all other politicians who’ve helped to create the “standards” as we have then today.
It's true that the cloud act and other data handling issues were already there. There is one thing this US administration did that was unique though, which was to threaten the territorial integrity of an European country.
This is the first time in decades the current administration has openly threatened Europe with war. Before it was a vague risk. Now it is a matter of national security.
This administration spends a lot of effort on cultivating a visibly hostile image to its former allies and emphasizing the role of force over diplomacy.
If there was any sort of tacit understanding that certain American power possibilites will only be used in relatively rare contexts (going after terrorists), it is gone. Nowadays the expectation is that the US will use various tools at their disposal even over relatively minor disagreements and conflicts.
I beg to differ here. There are multiple things that have been either unprecedented or done in larger scale by this administration. We can start the blame from founding fathers for creating an exploitable system (as Godel had correctly pointed out), but to look elsewhere for the blatant abuse of power and disregarding privacy of citizens by this administration is, in my opinion, a biased take on it.
reply