"Free Speech Absolutist" At It Once Again

kidfury

Duke status
Oct 14, 2017
25,144
10,845
113
I never said anything like this. You regularly make sh!t up that people supposedly said
Please, stop doing what you're criticizing this person for doing. You have several times written, recently, "many posters have said..." or "so many posts started about..." which presents false presuppositions, which, in this format, is just too tedious and time consuming to counter. Please, endeavor to argue correctly, which is more difficult, but is fair. And enough with the monotonous rolling heads. Those are a sign of defeat and surrender. Just make your argument without presupposing or stating as contrast what you are SAYING is someone else's argument. When you misrepresent someone else's argument THAT becomes the subject of their response, and then your argument isn't addressed. Make your argument clearly, if you can, and regard the responses.
 

grapedrink

Duke status
May 21, 2011
26,277
15,048
113
A Beach
Please, stop doing what you're criticizing this person for doing. You have several times written, recently, "many posters have said..." or "so many posts started about..." which presents false presuppositions, which, in this format, is just too tedious and time consuming to counter. Please, endeavor to argue correctly, which is more difficult, but is fair. And enough with the monotonous rolling heads. Those are a sign of defeat and surrender. Just make your argument without presupposing or stating as contrast what you are SAYING is someone else's argument. When you misrepresent someone else's argument THAT becomes the subject of their response, and then your argument isn't addressed. Make your argument clearly, if you can, and regard the responses.
Copy Pasta King says what?

If someone says I said something I’ve never said then yes, which is by definition a strawman argument, then I should absolutely point oit that i never said it. The poster in question has even had his hand slapped for fabricating signatures with creative edits on more than one occasion.
 

Sharkbiscuit

Duke status
Aug 6, 2003
26,766
19,710
113
Jacksonville Beach
Please, stop doing what you're criticizing this person for doing. You have several times written, recently, "many posters have said..." or "so many posts started about..." which presents false presuppositions, which, in this format, is just too tedious and time consuming to counter. Please, endeavor to argue correctly, which is more difficult, but is fair. And enough with the monotonous rolling heads. Those are a sign of defeat and surrender. Just make your argument without presupposing or stating as contrast what you are SAYING is someone else's argument. When you misrepresent someone else's argument THAT becomes the subject of their response, and then your argument isn't addressed. Make your argument clearly, if you can, and regard the responses.
Why are you taking Trumpdrink's bait?

Check me out yo.

Hey @grapedrink Alex Berenson isn't going to let you suck him off no matter how many times you white knight for him on the erBB.
 

kidfury

Duke status
Oct 14, 2017
25,144
10,845
113
Copy Pasta King says what?

If someone says I said something I’ve never said then yes, which is by definition a strawman argument, then I should absolutely point oit that i never said it. The poster in question has even had his hand slapped for fabricating signatures with creative edits on more than one occasion.
Make a cogent argument that includes reality.

You seem to be interested in misinformation. Perhaps. Misinformation is being studied and countered.

From NYT. Probably paywalled

Two years ago, at a virtual gathering organized by the Nobel Foundation, Sheldon Himelfarb outlined the idea that the world’s leading scholars should join forces to study misinformation the way that scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change documented the global effect of carbon emissions.
That new group gathered for its official introduction in Washington on Wednesday, uniting more than 200 researchers from 55 countries with a similar sense of urgency and alarm as the threat of global warming. In the group’s first report, the researchers questioned the effectiveness of fighting falsehoods online with content moderation, one of the most common strategies to combating misinformation, saying other tactics had more scientific evidence behind them.
“You have to approach the information environment in the same way scientists approached the environment,” said Mr. Himelfarb, the group’s executive director and the chief executive of PeaceTech Lab, an advocacy organization affiliated with the United States Institute of Peace in Washington.
The group, the International Panel on the Information Environment, has registered as a nongovernmental organization in Zurich at a time when the fight against misinformation has become increasingly mired in a broader erosion of trust in government, news organizations and other public institutions.


“Algorithmic bias, manipulation and misinformation has become a global and existential threat that exacerbates existing social problems, degrades public life, cripples humanitarian initiatives and prevents progress on other serious threats,” the panel wrote in its inaugural announcement.
The Spread of Misinformation and Falsehoods
The panel was introduced during a three-day meeting, organized by the Nobel Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences, devoted to the erosion of public understanding and trust in science.
Speaker after speaker at the meeting described an onslaught of disinformation that has become a dispiriting fact of public life across the globe and that, with the recent explosion of artificial intelligence, could soon become even worse.
Maria Ressa of the Philippines, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2021, issued a manifestodemanding that democratic governments and Big Tech companies become more transparent, do more to protect personal data and privacy and end practices that contribute to disinformation and other threats against independent journalism. It has 276 signatories representing more than 140 organizations.

One challenge facing these efforts is overcoming the increasingly fierce arguments over what exactly constitutes misinformation. In the United States, the efforts to combat it have run aground on First Amendment protections of free speech. The biggest companies have now shifted focus and resources away from the fight against misinformation, even as new platforms emerged promising to forgo policies that moderate content.
On Wednesday, the panel’s researchers presented the summary of its first two studies, which reviewed 4,798 peer-reviewed publications examining misleading information on social media and aggregated the findings on the effectiveness of countermeasures to it.
The findings suggest that the most effective responses to false information online are labeling content as “disputed” or flagging sources of state media and publishing corrective information, typically in the form of debunking rumors and disinformation.
Far less certain, the report argues, is the effectiveness of public and government efforts to pressure social media giants like Facebook and Twitter to take down content, as well as internal company algorithms that suspend or play down offending accounts. The same is true of media literacy programs that train people to identify sources of misinformation.
“We’re not saying that information literacy programs don’t work,” said Sebastián Valenzuela, a professor at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile who oversaw the study. “What we’re saying is that we need more evidence that they work.”
The panel’s inspirational model, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was founded in 1988, a time when climate change was equally contested. Its scientists, working under the auspices of the United Nations, toiled for decades before its assessments and recommendations came to be recognized as scientific consensus.
When it comes to the digital landscape, and the impact on society of abuses, the science of disinformation could prove even harder to measure in concrete terms. Climate change is “hard science,” said Young Mie Kim, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who serves as vice chair of a committee focused on research methodology.
“So, relatively speaking, it’s easier to develop some common concepts and tool kits,” Ms. Kim said. “It’s hard to do that in social science or humanities.”

The new panel eschews a governmental role — at least for now. It plans to issue regular reports, not fact-checking individual falsehoods but rather looking for deeper forces behind the spread of disinformation as a way to guide government policy.
“It’d be too hard to put a bunch of scientists on evaluating the truth claims in any particular piece of junk,” said Philip N. Howard, director of Oxford University’s Program on Democracy and Technology and chairman of the new panel.
“What we can do is look for infrastructural interference,” he went on. “What we can do is audit an algorithmic system to see if it’s got lousy or unintended outcomes. It’s still hard, but I think that’s within reach as a research objective.”
Steven Lee Myers covers misinformation for The Times. He has worked in Washington, Moscow, Baghdad and Beijing, where he contributed to the articles that won the Pulitzer Prize for public service in 2021. He is also the author of “The New Tsar: The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin.” @stevenleemyersFacebook


If you find any interesting and informative articles on misinformation, please consider sharing them
 
Last edited:

grapedrink

Duke status
May 21, 2011
26,277
15,048
113
A Beach
Make a cogent argument that includes reality.

You seem to be interested in misinformation. Perhaps. Misinformation is being studied and countered.

From NYT. Probably paywalled

Two years ago, at a virtual gathering organized by the Nobel Foundation, Sheldon Himelfarb outlined the idea that the world’s leading scholars should join forces to study misinformation the way that scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change documented the global effect of carbon emissions.
That new group gathered for its official introduction in Washington on Wednesday, uniting more than 200 researchers from 55 countries with a similar sense of urgency and alarm as the threat of global warming. In the group’s first report, the researchers questioned the effectiveness of fighting falsehoods online with content moderation, one of the most common strategies to combating misinformation, saying other tactics had more scientific evidence behind them.
“You have to approach the information environment in the same way scientists approached the environment,” said Mr. Himelfarb, the group’s executive director and the chief executive of PeaceTech Lab, an advocacy organization affiliated with the United States Institute of Peace in Washington.
The group, the International Panel on the Information Environment, has registered as a nongovernmental organization in Zurich at a time when the fight against misinformation has become increasingly mired in a broader erosion of trust in government, news organizations and other public institutions.


“Algorithmic bias, manipulation and misinformation has become a global and existential threat that exacerbates existing social problems, degrades public life, cripples humanitarian initiatives and prevents progress on other serious threats,” the panel wrote in its inaugural announcement.
The Spread of Misinformation and Falsehoods
The panel was introduced during a three-day meeting, organized by the Nobel Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences, devoted to the erosion of public understanding and trust in science.
Speaker after speaker at the meeting described an onslaught of disinformation that has become a dispiriting fact of public life across the globe and that, with the recent explosion of artificial intelligence, could soon become even worse.
Maria Ressa of the Philippines, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2021, issued a manifestodemanding that democratic governments and Big Tech companies become more transparent, do more to protect personal data and privacy and end practices that contribute to disinformation and other threats against independent journalism. It has 276 signatories representing more than 140 organizations.

One challenge facing these efforts is overcoming the increasingly fierce arguments over what exactly constitutes misinformation. In the United States, the efforts to combat it have run aground on First Amendment protections of free speech. The biggest companies have now shifted focus and resources away from the fight against misinformation, even as new platforms emerged promising to forgo policies that moderate content.
On Wednesday, the panel’s researchers presented the summary of its first two studies, which reviewed 4,798 peer-reviewed publications examining misleading information on social media and aggregated the findings on the effectiveness of countermeasures to it.
The findings suggest that the most effective responses to false information online are labeling content as “disputed” or flagging sources of state media and publishing corrective information, typically in the form of debunking rumors and disinformation.
Far less certain, the report argues, is the effectiveness of public and government efforts to pressure social media giants like Facebook and Twitter to take down content, as well as internal company algorithms that suspend or play down offending accounts. The same is true of media literacy programs that train people to identify sources of misinformation.
“We’re not saying that information literacy programs don’t work,” said Sebastián Valenzuela, a professor at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile who oversaw the study. “What we’re saying is that we need more evidence that they work.”
The panel’s inspirational model, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was founded in 1988, a time when climate change was equally contested. Its scientists, working under the auspices of the United Nations, toiled for decades before its assessments and recommendations came to be recognized as scientific consensus.
When it comes to the digital landscape, and the impact on society of abuses, the science of disinformation could prove even harder to measure in concrete terms. Climate change is “hard science,” said Young Mie Kim, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who serves as vice chair of a committee focused on research methodology.
“So, relatively speaking, it’s easier to develop some common concepts and tool kits,” Ms. Kim said. “It’s hard to do that in social science or humanities.”

The new panel eschews a governmental role — at least for now. It plans to issue regular reports, not fact-checking individual falsehoods but rather looking for deeper forces behind the spread of disinformation as a way to guide government policy.
“It’d be too hard to put a bunch of scientists on evaluating the truth claims in any particular piece of junk,” said Philip N. Howard, director of Oxford University’s Program on Democracy and Technology and chairman of the new panel.
“What we can do is look for infrastructural interference,” he went on. “What we can do is audit an algorithmic system to see if it’s got lousy or unintended outcomes. It’s still hard, but I think that’s within reach as a research objective.”
Steven Lee Myers covers misinformation for The Times. He has worked in Washington, Moscow, Baghdad and Beijing, where he contributed to the articles that won the Pulitzer Prize for public service in 2021. He is also the author of “The New Tsar: The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin.” @stevenleemyersFacebook


If you find any interesting and informative articles on misinformation, please consider sharing them
:unsure:
Copy Pasta King says what?
:roflmao:
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: mundus

$kully

Duke status
Feb 27, 2009
60,343
17,169
113
 

grapedrink

Duke status
May 21, 2011
26,277
15,048
113
A Beach
Which one of those guys is a Nazi :unsure:
 

Sharkbiscuit

Duke status
Aug 6, 2003
26,766
19,710
113
Jacksonville Beach
Which one of those guys is a Nazi :unsure:
None? The implication isn't that one of Jones, Ramaswamy, or Tate is a Nazi.

It's that you can support Free Speech by allowing Jones, Ramaswamy, or Tate on your platform without joining Jones, Ramaswamy, or Tate on their specific Livestream.

At first I was going to say something about Popehat should have picked a different group to use in his analogy because using the Nazis in an analogy is intellectually lazy and seems to readily lead to this sort of mis-reading of the point.

Then I thought about it and felt deeply offended on Hitler's behalf.

I'd call those three mark-milking grifters, but then I'd have to hand-write an apology and mail one to Trump and put one on PT Barnum's gravesite.

I then came up with a Fuck, Marry, Kill remix:

Slap: Ramaswamy
Shoot: Tate
Immolate: Alex Jones

You never know.

He could get him in a moment weakness.

That was how I got chicks that were out my league.

A momentary lapse of reason followed by regret the morning after.
Wrecked by a malaprop'd post-Waters Pink Floyd reference
I seen the damage done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: plasticbertrand

Autoprax

Duke status
Jan 24, 2011
68,826
23,449
113
62
Vagina Point
None? The implication isn't that one of Jones, Ramaswamy, or Tate is a Nazi.

It's that you can support Free Speech by allowing Jones, Ramaswamy, or Tate on your platform without joining Jones, Ramaswamy, or Tate on their specific Livestream.

At first I was going to say something about Popehat should have picked a different group to use in his analogy because using the Nazis in an analogy is intellectually lazy and seems to readily lead to this sort of mis-reading of the point.

Then I thought about it and felt deeply offended on Hitler's behalf.

I'd call those three mark-milking grifters, but then I'd have to hand-write an apology and mail one to Trump and put one on PT Barnum's gravesite.

I then came up with a Fuck, Marry, Kill remix:

Slap: Ramaswamy
Shoot: Tate
Immolate: Alex Jones



Wrecked by a malaprop'd post-Waters Pink Floyd reference
I seen the damage done.
A momentary lapse in reason allows auto to stick his little wiener in the hot chick's vagina.

 

grapedrink

Duke status
May 21, 2011
26,277
15,048
113
A Beach
None? The implication isn't that one of Jones, Ramaswamy, or Tate is a Nazi.

It's that you can support Free Speech by allowing Jones, Ramaswamy, or Tate on your platform without joining Jones, Ramaswamy, or Tate on their specific Livestream.
There is a strong difference between marching down the street with someone versus joining them for an interview or roundtable. Marching shows direct support and alliance with a cause, where an interview is just an interview. That would be like saying that Leslie Stahl hated the Jews because she interview Yasar Arafat.
 

Sharkbiscuit

Duke status
Aug 6, 2003
26,766
19,710
113
Jacksonville Beach
There is a strong difference between marching down the street with someone versus joining them for an interview or roundtable. Marching shows direct support and alliance with a cause, where an interview is just an interview. That would be like saying that Leslie Stahl hated the Jews because she interview Yasar Arafat.
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:


Way to miss the point by less this time!

The comparison/analogy is hosting (or not outright forbidding) their livestream (not an interview) on your platform vs joining their livestream (not an interview).

Leslie Stahl interviewed Arafat. She didn't sit at his Loya Jirga or whatever and discuss various recipes and marinades for Jews.

Hey @grapedrink Alex Berenson isn't going to let you join his livestream (or any reindeer games) no matter how many times you white knight for him on the erBB.

Please enjoy your Odin's Day.