Kill NYT vs. Sullivan, burn it to ashes, bury the ashes, and salt the earth they're buried in.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.
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?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.
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"?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?
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.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.
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.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.
. 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. ]
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.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.
I see Mozilla's still taking money from George Soros' baby-eating hands.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.
Lol name some.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.
Less than two weeks after dissenter's release (February 24th, 2019), Google releases\announces Jigsaw.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..."
- Wrong, free speech is absolute. That is what a principle is: absolute. It is either free, or it isn't.
- 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.
- "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.