War Meet ‘Dissenter’: A far-right ‘comment section’ for hating on journalists -

Krokodil Overdose

[|][||][||][|_]
kiwifarms.net
One of the most egregious problems with journalists nowadays is that the profession refuses to police itself in regards to bad actors, and also absolutely refuses to let anyone else police them. I think Clarence Thomas is on the right track in regards to making libel and slander cases easier to being and win. That alone would go a long way towards forcing journalists to adhere to a more professional code of conduct.
Kill NYT vs. Sullivan, burn it to ashes, bury the ashes, and salt the earth they're buried in.
That said, I think that Taleb had the right of it in "The Facts are True, the News is Fake" (very nice article if you're okay with his rhetorical eccentricities), but here's the important bit:

Taleb said:
The divergence is evident in that journos worry considerably more about the opinion of other journalists than that of the general public. Compare to a healthy system, say that of restaurants. As we saw in the [Lindy Chapter], restaurant owners worry about the opinion of their customers, not those of other restaurant owners, which keeps them in check and prevent the business from straying collectively away from its interests. Further, skin in the game creates diversity, not monoculture. Economic insecurity worsens the condition: journalists are currently in the most insecure profession you can find: the majority lives hand to mouth and ostracism by their friends would be terminal. Thus they become easily prone to manipulation by lobbyists, as we saw with GMOs, the Syrian wars, etc. You say something unpopular in the profession about Brexit, GMOs, Putin, and you become history. This is the opposite of business where me-tooism is penalized.
EDIT: To expand on this a little, journalism has a particularly acute principal-agent problem because the resource it trades in is information, so it has built-in gatekeeping qualities. After all, if you can gather enough information to know that the person you hired to gather information for you is full of shit, you wouldn't have needed to hire someone to gather information for you in the first place. This is compounded by the information being impersonal; if your doctor, or mechanic, or banker is lying to you, there will usually be physical indicators. If a journalist is lying to you about what's going on in Georgia (any of them) how will you begin to check their veracity without going there?
 
This was the part that really stood out to me:

Have you ever hated journalists so much that you wanted to create an online commenting system just so you could complain about them behind their backs?
Behind their backs? Does anything prevent journos from reading this dissenter place? Or is it more like "Where we can't have dissenting opinions silenced"?

Ihope that sort of slip is being noticed. The fucking authoritarianism of what is supposed to be the people's instrument against it. The press is supposed to be there exposing shittiness done by people in power, in naive theory. Obviously in real life they exist to make money, but there has been money to be made exposing those sorts of things. It seems like it's more than financial now, and it's weird that one school of thought would come to so thoroughly dominate most of journalism the way it has.

Part of it, I suspect, is that social justice ideas are a lot of the time counterintuitive, thus shocking, and attention grabbing. The fact that this nonsense caught on just feeds the beast, now you get to advance the shocking crazy nonsense ideas AND call anyone opposed to them bigots and nazis. Then you grandstand on this new claim, and the cycle repeats.

I'd think there would be more of a market for quality opposition to it, but what really is there besides fox? And they aren't that great. You mostly have to look to lots of various independent sources.
 

Sissy Galvez

kiwifarms.net
This was the part that really stood out to me:



Behind their backs? Does anything prevent journos from reading this dissenter place? Or is it more like "Where we can't have dissenting opinions silenced"?

Ihope that sort of slip is being noticed. The fucking authoritarianism of what is supposed to be the people's instrument against it. The press is supposed to be there exposing shittiness done by people in power, in naive theory. Obviously in real life they exist to make money, but there has been money to be made exposing those sorts of things. It seems like it's more than financial now, and it's weird that one school of thought would come to so thoroughly dominate most of journalism the way it has.

Part of it, I suspect, is that social justice ideas are a lot of the time counterintuitive, thus shocking, and attention grabbing. The fact that this nonsense caught on just feeds the beast, now you get to advance the shocking crazy nonsense ideas AND call anyone opposed to them bigots and nazis. Then you grandstand on this new claim, and the cycle repeats.

I'd think there would be more of a market for quality opposition to it, but what really is there besides fox? And they aren't that great. You mostly have to look to lots of various independent sources.
They have their heads so far up their own asses. They think they’re the 4th estate and above being held accountable. They’re upset the public wants to hold them accountable and object to their bullshit when they lie or force an agenda.
 

frozenrunner

I could really use the salt
kiwifarms.net
They have their heads so far up their own asses. They think they’re the 4th estate and above being held accountable. They’re upset the public wants to hold them accountable and object to their bullshit when they lie or force an agenda.
And that's because they think the power and importance of their positions is their compensation for the fact most of them make shit pay. "Well, at least nobody can deny that what I do is important!" they thought as they wrote more and more opinion pieces, celebrity updates, and identity politics garbage articles masquerading as news.

And then people started laughing at them and they started losing their shit-paying jobs. No wonder they started sperging out.
 

Fork Cartel

The 1% are literally the spawn of Satan
kiwifarms.net
. So it’s about letting its users punch down on marginalized journalists, Twitter users, and public figures.

. If you’re really looking for a space to share your opinions without “rampant corporate censorship,” as Torba claimed in an email to Gab users, there are already plenty of alternative social media networks out there that let you share your voice as long as you aren’t a bigot. ]
public figures
marginalized
HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

And plenty of alternatives? What would those be, pray tell?
 

UnclePhil

Getting older in a changing, frightening world.
kiwifarms.net
I think adding a comment section sidebar to every website is hilarious. It's a slap to people like Ana Valens, who believe free speech only applies to their narrative and everyone else needs be silenced/disappear off the street. It's also practical for adding discussion sections back to sites that got rid of them because of "trolls," like IMDB.

The downside is that it has the potential to be abused by idiots. There's also nothing stopping these sites from coming up with an algorithm so URLS aren't static, confusing and breaking the system.
 

Wallace

Cram it in me, baby!
kiwifarms.net
They have their heads so far up their own asses. They think they’re the 4th estate and above being held accountable. They’re upset the public wants to hold them accountable and object to their bullshit when they lie or force an agenda.
The internet has made it really easy to present yourself as a journalist. Anyone can make a Medium or Wordpress blog, or write something for Buzzfeed's opinion section. The line between news and opinion/entertainment gets very blurry.
 

GrungyLawnChlorinate

confirmed hairless and stable
kiwifarms.net
685104


Some cursory searching shows that that Galen Thurber guy would have possibly many years ago made a fine lolcow, his internet past is rich with unbridled lunacy. His comment about the reviews being inflated? When he made that review the extension had few reviews, several 5-star reviews, one 3-star, and those three 1-star reviews.
 

Give Her The D

Faggoty Fraud
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
View attachment 685104

Some cursory searching shows that that Galen Thurber guy would have possibly many years ago made a fine lolcow, his internet past is rich with unbridled lunacy. His comment about the reviews being inflated? When he made that review the extension had few reviews, several 5-star reviews, one 3-star, and those three 1-star reviews.
I see Mozilla's still taking money from George Soros' baby-eating hands.
 

NiggerFaggot1488

kiwifarms.net
There are still journalists doing good work who deserve to be treated better. Journalists who usually work for local papers or specialty sites, journalists who are actually willing and able to uncover truth and have a standard of ethics and at least aren't actively trying to insert biases into their reporting.
Lol name some.

Also, the system doesn't punish bad actors, it rewards them. The worst actors in journalism are promoted to editorial boards.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Cosmug and Unog

JimmerSnail

Waaaay too serious
kiwifarms.net
Dissenter User said:
"...“free speech” isn’t absolute. There are limits to what one can and should say in a public space. And besides, there are already thousands of other news aggregate websites out there with minimal moderation, letting users pretty much say what they want. Reddit is a classic example. So is Mastodon’s fediverse..."
  1. Wrong, free speech is absolute. That is what a principle is: absolute. It is either free, or it isn't.
  2. In a "public space" the "limits" to what one "can" or "should" say are determined by social cues, negotiation, and principle. In the "public space" of political commentary, those limits are already provided for us, by a handy rule of thumb called individual liberty - a principle that underlies a little thing you might have heard of, called the first amendment.
  3. "There are other sites that do not moderate" is not an argument against Dissenter. It's an argument for it, you moron. (a) if there's no reason in principle to shut down Mastodon or Reddit, then there's no reason in principle to shut down Dissenter. What's more, if Mastodon and Reddit are not meeting the market demand, then it should be clear from market demand for Dissenter, which there obviously is -- and one of the ways we can tell that there is, is because THE DAILY DOT IS WHINGING ABOUT IT.
Less than two weeks after dissenter's release (February 24th, 2019), Google releases\announces Jigsaw.
Literally Hal-9000 but for moderating some sites and to kill dissenter.

Ironic how google in 2010 released a tool to go anonymous in such countries with restrictive government, and now they're doing the exact opposite.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino