World's Biggest Comspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:38 PM, luke viia said:

too bad godel would rather tell me to fuck off than talk about the implications of the TPP passing

 

nothin but grudge matches in here today

LOL

 

are you playing a grudge match? or do you want me to play one?

  Quote

Just because I don't know doesn't mean there's a hole in Chomsky's theory.

 

You asked specifically about the government factor. You didn't ask about advertisers or shareholders. Yeah I don't know what effect the government has on Facebook. I honestly don't. That doesn't mean there isn't one. It doesn't mean there has to be for the theory to be valid. Etc etc

 

 

there's no hole in that sense, internet was simply unimaginable when he wrote that book, so there's no way it can explain its dynamics.

you can go ahead and try explaining other facets of facebook with the model, but i doubt you'll get to something sensible. facebook built itself in such way that it derives profits from free, mass-communication. the advertising works completely differently now as well.

Edited November 28, 2013 by eugene

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:50 PM, eugene said:

 

  Quote

Just because I don't know doesn't mean there's a hole in Chomsky's theory.

 

You asked specifically about the government factor. You didn't ask about advertisers or shareholders. Yeah I don't know what effect the government has on Facebook. I honestly don't. That doesn't mean there isn't one. It doesn't mean there has to be for the theory to be valid. Etc etc

 

 

there's no hole in that sense, internet was simply unimaginable when he wrote that book, so there's no way it can explain its dynamics.

you can go ahead and try explaining other facets of facebook with the model, but i doubt you'll get to something sensible. facebook built itself in such way that it derives profits from free, mass-communication. the advertising works completely differently now as well.

 

 

The theory was designed to describe news outlets. It's not gonna describe OKCupid or r/Spacedicks. That's not a 'gotcha.'

 

 

Regardless, advertisers and shareholders are still gonna affect the content, and in more-or-less the same way the theory describes.

  On 11/27/2013 at 9:55 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 9:49 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 9:42 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

I'd like to see how Noam handles a question about the Bush administration being on Cipro, the anthrax vaccine 7 days before the anthrax letters were sent through the mail.

 

Well most likely he would point out how that simply isn't evidence. It is two dots that one can connect if one is so inclined, but like I said before (referring to such dot-connecting): peculiarities and unanswered questions simply aren't evidence.

 

simply isn't evidence of what? It's at the very least evidence of foreknowledge that there would be the extremely rare event of someone using weaponized anthrax on a mass scale. I mean don't you find that odd?

 

I get that you find it stupid that people would be absolutely 100% sure that WTC7 is a controlled demolition, but can you honestly tell me with a straight face that it doesn't seem even the slightest bit odd to you? That not just 2 but 3 entire buildings completely collapsed?

 

being sure of anything you cannot prove is not a good idea, but asking questions and expecting proper investigations, forensics, declassified documents that show saudi arabian intelligence involvement, things like that seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

 

Is it evidence of foreknowledge? After Obama got the swine flu vaccine in 2009, if there was a breakout of swine flu, would that be evidence that he knew there was a swine flu breakout coming?

 

Whether I find something odd means nothing. I thought it was very odd that Oswald got shot while in police custody by Jack Ruby, a club-owner with alleged mob ties. But is that evidence of something? Should I thus conclude that the mob killed Kennedy? Or should I simply find it odd and take no leaps beyond that?

 

If I sit down and pray for rain, and then it starts raining, is that evidence that my prayer worked?

 

It's the old problem of cause, correlation and coincidence.

Edited November 28, 2013 by LimpyLoo

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:59 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:50 PM, eugene said:

 

  Quote

Just because I don't know doesn't mean there's a hole in Chomsky's theory.

 

You asked specifically about the government factor. You didn't ask about advertisers or shareholders. Yeah I don't know what effect the government has on Facebook. I honestly don't. That doesn't mean there isn't one. It doesn't mean there has to be for the theory to be valid. Etc etc

there's no hole in that sense, internet was simply unimaginable when he wrote that book, so there's no way it can explain its dynamics.

you can go ahead and try explaining other facets of facebook with the model, but i doubt you'll get to something sensible. facebook built itself in such way that it derives profits from free, mass-communication. the advertising works completely differently now as well.

 

The theory was designed to describe news outlets. It's not gonna describe OKCupid or r/Spacedicks. That's not a 'gotcha.'

 

 

Regardless, advertisers and shareholders are still gonna affect the content, and in more-or-less the same way the theory describes.

 

if i subscribe to various news outlets in facebook then it will act as a news outlet aggregator itself (only with more control which i assume forces more competition), chomsky's major focus is still on the produce of news outlets and the way they act as a propoganda, but again, it's just impossible to reconcile it with internet.

 

r/worldnews is actually a good example of serious change in how news are presented, processed and scrutinized which is simply incommensurable to what chomsky portrayed.

 

  Quote

Regardless, advertisers and shareholders are still gonna affect the content, and in more-or-less the same way the theory describes.

i don't think you need anyone's theory to realize that. still the question is how are they gonna affect it ? there's an implicit undertone in chomskys book that they're evil by default, but for example, google comes under scrutiny when it censors stuff, it derives value from openness (not to say that's it's gonna remain like that forever). there's no inherent evil in the fact that corporations work for money, values (in both senses of the word) change all of the time. Edited November 28, 2013 by eugene

  On 11/28/2013 at 11:29 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:59 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:50 PM, eugene said:

 

  Quote

Just because I don't know doesn't mean there's a hole in Chomsky's theory.

 

You asked specifically about the government factor. You didn't ask about advertisers or shareholders. Yeah I don't know what effect the government has on Facebook. I honestly don't. That doesn't mean there isn't one. It doesn't mean there has to be for the theory to be valid. Etc etc

there's no hole in that sense, internet was simply unimaginable when he wrote that book, so there's no way it can explain its dynamics.

you can go ahead and try explaining other facets of facebook with the model, but i doubt you'll get to something sensible. facebook built itself in such way that it derives profits from free, mass-communication. the advertising works completely differently now as well.

 

The theory was designed to describe news outlets. It's not gonna describe OKCupid or r/Spacedicks. That's not a 'gotcha.'

 

 

Regardless, advertisers and shareholders are still gonna affect the content, and in more-or-less the same way the theory describes.

 

if i subscribe to various news outlets in facebook then it will act as a news outlet aggregator itself (only with more control which i assume forces more competition), chomsky's major focus is still on the produce of news outlets and the way they act as a propoganda, but again, it's just impossible to reconcile it with internet.

 

r/worldnews is actually a good example of serious change in how news are presented, processed and scrutinized which is simply incommensurable to what chomsky portrayed.

 

 

  Quote

Regardless, advertisers and shareholders are still gonna affect the content, and in more-or-less the same way the theory describes.

i don't think you need anyone's theory to realize that. still the question is how are they gonna affect it ? there's an implicit undertone in chomskys book that they're evil by default, but for example, google comes under scrutiny when it censors stuff, it derives value from openness (not to say that's it's gonna remain like that forever). there's no inherent evil in the fact that corporations work for money, values (in both senses of the word) change all of the time.

 

 

Just to clarify it's not a matter of people or organizations being purposefully deceitful but rather information being selected for or against by a system thus (inadvertently) spitting out a certain worldview/ideology that is favorable to the shareholders and advertisers (and government).

 

r/worldnews seems like it's insulated from the pressures that we're talking about, in the same way a random blog would be. It is a sliver of the democracy that the internet will hopefully someday afford us.

Facebook is increasingly driving users to the 25 biggest news providers on the net. Those 25 biggest news providers are largely continuations of all the old guard media.

The propaganda model specifically addresses profit seeking and how it can bias reporting - important to remember that many of the news outlets are owned by bigger corps.

 

Please list 3 ethnographies that debunk Chomsky (and I mean peer-reviewed academic ethnographies). Articles are better than full books due to time restraints.

how can facebook drive anything ? all of its content is user created.

 

i don't know what's considered debunking but this article presents a short history of older theories of gatekeeping (aka filtering of information) that simply dwarfs chosmky's work and puts it in an appropriate place. corporate influence is simply one factor out of many interacting factors, but definitely not THE ONE as he and especially his fans portray it and which is the reason for the book's popularity.

 

http://ekarine.org/wp-admin/pub/GatekeepingSalienceTheory.pdf (you need just the first 5 pages or just skip to table on page 5, later on she goes on to develop theory that would take internets into account)

you can't accuse something of not doing something it's not even trying to do

 

well you can, but...

How much of Facebook is people posting news links from the top 25 media outlets. That's what it means by driving people to those sites.

 

I'll look at the article when I get home thanks. But the propaganda model actually has 5 filters not just corporate influence which leads me to believe you haven't actually read much if Chomsky. The one filter I would agree becomes less relevant on the internet is advertising. Other four are just as relevant.

Posting on the phone so not much for now.

 

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 1:24 AM, LimpyLoo said:

you can't accuse something of not doing something it's not even trying to do

well you can, but...

when you start doing research you must be aware what's been researched before and what's you place in that particular body of work. he can't just go "holy fuck you guys, corporations are manufacturing our consentz" while ignoring previous research and hope to be taken seriously.

Edited November 29, 2013 by eugene

  On 11/29/2013 at 1:38 AM, chenGOD said:

1 - How much of Facebook is people posting news links from the top 25 media outlets. That's what it means by driving people to those sites.

 

2 - I'll look at the article when I get home thanks. But the propaganda model actually has 5 filters not just corporate influence which leads me to believe you haven't actually read much if Chomsky. The one filter I would agree becomes less relevant on the internet is advertising. Other four are just as relevant.

Posting on the phone so not much for now.

1 - how is this corporations' fault ?

2 - those 5 are from the same family, you'll see what i mean when you'll read those pages.

  On 11/29/2013 at 1:50 AM, eugene said:

  On 11/29/2013 at 1:38 AM, chenGOD said:

1 - How much of Facebook is people posting news links from the top 25 media outlets. That's what it means by driving people to those sites.

 

/quote]

1 - how is this corporations' fault ?

 

The idea here is that the same stories are being propagated through this supposed "new paradigm" you keep harping on about.

Look the printing press was a new paradigm for its time, and how well has that done in preventing the manufacture of consent. Yes there are underground publishers but how much if the general public do they reach?

 

The corporations are not literally forcing people to post links on their Facebook walls, but the information being presented through the articles is shaped through corporate bias.

As Facebook is now a public company it is beholden to its shareholders, and thus the possibility exists for the same bias to present itself.

And governments are keenly interested in monitoring Facebook. The Israeli military for example reportedly has a unit devoted to Facebook monitoring. Now they argue that they will not censor...and they very well may not. But the knowledge of monitoring in itself alters the discourse on that medium. Using the printing press as an analog: yes there are independent websites, but how much of the general public do they reach?

 

Let's look at another country: China. Their government employs a million people to post propaganda on the Chinese version of twitter (weibo) which reaches over 300 million people. Do you not think that alters public discourse and manufactures consent? And do you not think that might just possibly have an effect in a broader political context? Additionally - the Chinese government heavily censors weibo.

Might the same thing not happen with twitter as it is now a publicly owned company beholden to its shareholders to make profit? We don't know who the biggest purchasers of Facebook/twitter stock are...but if we postulate that it might be large corporations, how happy are they going to be with negative reporting through those media? If you really can't see how bias could be introduced in this context then there is no point in continuing the debate.

Definitely understand the jokes about sociologists.

 

eugene, its clear that you have never actually read Manufacturing Consent.

Edited November 29, 2013 by SR4

I just read manufacturing consent. The propaganda model is this:

 

1) USA is bad and corporations control the media and don't let them tell the truth.

 

2) what is internet?

 

Good book, would read again.

@chengod

 

i thought i already made it clear, the fact that chomsky's model is not applicable doesn't mean the people stopped trying to influence other people through control of information.

it's good that you brought underground because with internet it simply ceased to exist and the weight of filtering is on the consumer now, because obviously everything can be posted on the internet for literally no cost.

 

  Quote

 

The corporations are not literally forcing people to post links on their Facebook walls, but the information being presented through the articles is shaped through corporate bias.

but the ways of dealing with what corporation feed us changed drastically, content is processed differently, it's publicly and massively scrutinized. plus there are alternative sources like bloggers and countless of other innovations.

 

  Quote

 

there are independent websites, but how much of the general public do they reach?

everyone who wants independent websites can reach them, if you want to talk about subjective limited rationality/false consciousness/thinking through particular discourse then it's a different matter entirely.

 

again, you don't need to convince me that internet is a platform that can be exploited for propaganda and its specific ways of constructing knowledge can be exploited as well, i deal with this stuff and plan to write a thesis about so i don't know why are bringing it up. my point was simply that chomsky's model can't explain this properly. the fact that corporations would like to make money doesn't need no model or theorizing, it's their stated purpose.

Edited November 29, 2013 by eugene

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:00 AM, eugene said:

i thought i already made it clear, the fact that chomsky's model is not applicable doesn't mean the people stopped trying to influence other people through control of information.

 

Seriously Eugene, for the last time, the propaganda model is not about influencing other people through control of information. It is an inadvertent, emergent property.

 

I've pointed this out about three times now. I kinda don't think you're reading my posts.

Edited November 29, 2013 by LimpyLoo

  On 11/29/2013 at 2:43 AM, SR4 said:

Definitely understand the jokes about sociologists.

 

eugene, its clear that you have never actually read Manufacturing Consent.

lol, of course not, why would i read it ? i don't need to dig into the countless of examples in the depths of the book, i'm picking on very basic assumptions for his theorizing that are summarized pretty much everywhere on the internet.

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:04 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:00 AM, eugene said:

i thought i already made it clear, the fact that chomsky's model is not applicable doesn't mean the people stopped trying to influence other people through control of information.

 

Seriously Eugene, for the last time, the propaganda model is not about influencing other people through control of information. It is an inadvertent, emergent property.

 

I've pointed this out about three times now. I kinda don't think you're reading my posts.

from wiki:

The propaganda model is a conceptual model in political economy advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky that states how propaganda, including systemic biases, function in mass media. The model seeks to explain how populations are manipulated and how consent for economic, social and political policies is "manufactured" in the public mind due to this propaganda.

Edited November 29, 2013 by eugene

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:14 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 2:43 AM, SR4 said:

 

Definitely understand the jokes about sociologists.

 

eugene, its clear that you have never actually read Manufacturing Consent.

lol, of course not, why would i read it ? i don't need to dig into the countless of examples in the depths of the book, i'm picking on very basic assumptions for his theorizing that are summarized pretty much everywhere on the internet.

haha. what a scholar.

 

ttfn gents, gotta go drive some drunk people home.

Edited November 29, 2013 by Alcofribas

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:04 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:00 AM, eugene said:

i thought i already made it clear, the fact that chomsky's model is not applicable doesn't mean the people stopped trying to influence other people through control of information.

 

Seriously Eugene, for the last time, the propaganda model is not about influencing other people through control of information. It is an inadvertent, emergent property.

 

I've pointed this out about three times now. I kinda don't think you're reading my posts.

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:00 AM, eugene said:

the fact that corporations would like to make money doesn't need no model or theorizing, it's their stated purpose.

Err, at this point you two are basically arguing the same, but are still arguing nonetheless? I hate to drop in at his point in the discussion ...because tbh, i really dont want to invest to much in it,but to me it looks obvious that both sides of the argument are a lot closer to each other than it may seem.

but no Chomsky is a hack and a liar and these idiots need to start thinking for just one second and realize this

Tbh2: ima a bit confused how Chomskies non-scientific work in the context of politics gets treated as if it were scientific. To me at least, its value doesnt go much further than to shine a certain perspective on some reality which could offer new insights, as opposed to some scientific proof about how reality works.

The only reason to treat it as if it were scientific would be to either use it in the truther sense, as proof, or opposite to that ( which is also very truther like, but reasoning from a different truth)

 

*leaves thread before luke starts to post about tpp again*

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:45 AM, goDel said:

Tbh2: ima a bit confused how Chomskies non-scientific work in the context of politics gets treated as if it were scientific. To me at least, its value doesnt go much further than to shine a certain perspective on some reality which could offer new insights, as opposed to some scientific proof about how reality works.

The only reason to treat it as if it were scientific would be to either use it in the truther sense, as proof, or opposite to that ( which is also very truther like, but reasoning from a different truth)

 

*leaves thread before luke starts to post about tpp again*

 

 

welcome to the soft sciences

Im still interested in the jokes about sociologists, btw.

Care to share?