This is the interesting thing I figured out about psychopaths in social networks. Initially, they relationally disrupt and create isolation. But long-term, the social network topology routes around them, and isolates them. This happened with Trump, and it will happen with the latest crop of Ds as well. It's non-partisan. The real interesting question, though, is what is the timescale with the current modes of information transformation? I thought initially "2 years". But it may be longer.
You know what would be great while we're waiting for the scuffle for the censor-free future to be resolved? If someone with the time and resources would create a "Censored on Twitter" service.
The main challenge will be implementing a reliable nomination and validation scheme. But imagine a site that enables users to browse and search the collection of everything Twitter has censored. It will serve the dual purpose of providing a one-stop source of some of the most important true information and providing a convenient illustration of Twitter's malfeasance.
Imposing unchecked censorship using the pretext of preventing dissemination of disinformation is actually doing exactly the opposite; using censorship to SPREAD disinformation. As you said, in the end the propaganda fails, it just may take a little while.
As always, appreciate the article. Today, I am struggling so hard in seeing a silver lining for the future. It seems to be such an uphill battle and I just feel so hopeless today. I worry I’ll lose friends, family, etc. as I am on a pragmatic side, vax free, worry free. It is not a good look for me, given my history.
Are we ultimately vindicated in the near future? How do we succeed? Do we ever get relief?
Propaganda works in wearing down the will of the people. You convince the masses, and you wear down the opposition by turning the masses on them. Repeat a lie long enough as the saying goes (oft attributed to goebels). I just see a really hard road ahead.
soli also noted somewhere in his writings that the secret police would not have gotten very far if they were met in the staircase by armed vitizens. the second amendment will be defended despite the msm and twitter.
The real aim of the Milgram and Stanford Prison experiments, like the War of the Worlds op, was to gauge the credulity of the general public, not the study participants, most of whom quickly figured out it was a gag.
Agree but think it is ultimately more pernicious because the censorship is being done by programmers who seek to do it lazily at scale. Matt Tiabbi recently wrote on this. Sociology and journo majors may be setting the table with their insane “shout them down/shut up anything we don’t like” views (learned at the feet of orgs like GLAAD for good reason but turned ugly though bullying) but it is the programmers who cook dinner. Thus, the marriage of young liberal arts fools (and I was one but actually read books from history to fiction from all over) who can’t think their way out of a paper back to programming robots leads to nasty children.
Thank you for mentioning the ivermectin poison-control statistic incorrectly reported by MSDH, specifically Drs. Thomas Dobbs (state health officer) and Paul Byers (state epidemiologist).
In mid-July, Dobbs claimed that 12 Mississippi children were in the intensive care unit at the children's hospital, including 10 children on life support, which was trumpeted all over as fact. It was actually 7 children in ICU with 2 on life support. He of course blamed the hospital for giving him incorrect numbers, and then the matter was quietly dropped.
Of the six "COVID deaths" in under-18s in Mississippi, five are MIS-C, meaning they may not have had COVID at all, but only been around someone who did. Dobbs is even counting an MIS death in an 18-20 year-old as "pediatric," because "MIS is a pediatric illness."
But we're supposed to ignore the fact that Dobbs' son Wyn, a medical student at George Washington University, worked on GW’s Moderna COVID-19 vaccine trial. No conflict of interest there, right?
'any day now “censored by twitter” is going to exceed “passed peer review at a prestigious journal” as a credential.'
Hear, hear!
As in the riddle of the cell whith two doors, one leading to freedom the other one to death, each with its own guard, one always a liar, the other ever telling the truth.
Being allowed only one question to one of them, without knowing which guard is a liar or truth teller.
And one's enough:
"If I ask the other guard which door leads to freedom, what will he answer?"
Then, whatever the answer, just step out through the opposite door.
Aha, OK. Isn't it the same principle by which a positive number times a negative number equals a negative number? That's what I thought of when it clicked into place in my head.
el gato, I thought you might appreciate this, written by a humble humanities major from another era, when we were actually taught to think. https://townhall.com/columnists/robjenkins/2021/09/05/what-to-believe-n2595330
thanks.
liked the article and appreciate the shout out.
indeed, building our own networks of trust will be the key factor in navigating the media and social spheres of our age.
flattered to be included.
passing on to several others you named as well.
Nice shout out el gato malo
Thanks!
Good one. Thanks for posting.
I do hope Eric Feigl-Ding gets his just rewards.
This is the interesting thing I figured out about psychopaths in social networks. Initially, they relationally disrupt and create isolation. But long-term, the social network topology routes around them, and isolates them. This happened with Trump, and it will happen with the latest crop of Ds as well. It's non-partisan. The real interesting question, though, is what is the timescale with the current modes of information transformation? I thought initially "2 years". But it may be longer.
You know what would be great while we're waiting for the scuffle for the censor-free future to be resolved? If someone with the time and resources would create a "Censored on Twitter" service.
The main challenge will be implementing a reliable nomination and validation scheme. But imagine a site that enables users to browse and search the collection of everything Twitter has censored. It will serve the dual purpose of providing a one-stop source of some of the most important true information and providing a convenient illustration of Twitter's malfeasance.
Imposing unchecked censorship using the pretext of preventing dissemination of disinformation is actually doing exactly the opposite; using censorship to SPREAD disinformation. As you said, in the end the propaganda fails, it just may take a little while.
As always, appreciate the article. Today, I am struggling so hard in seeing a silver lining for the future. It seems to be such an uphill battle and I just feel so hopeless today. I worry I’ll lose friends, family, etc. as I am on a pragmatic side, vax free, worry free. It is not a good look for me, given my history.
Are we ultimately vindicated in the near future? How do we succeed? Do we ever get relief?
Propaganda works in wearing down the will of the people. You convince the masses, and you wear down the opposition by turning the masses on them. Repeat a lie long enough as the saying goes (oft attributed to goebels). I just see a really hard road ahead.
soli also noted somewhere in his writings that the secret police would not have gotten very far if they were met in the staircase by armed vitizens. the second amendment will be defended despite the msm and twitter.
i have mine!
That boomerang can take generations to come back around. If we don’t snuff this shit out now, it’s going to be a long, dark period for humanity.
Milgram experiment on world scale.
The real aim of the Milgram and Stanford Prison experiments, like the War of the Worlds op, was to gauge the credulity of the general public, not the study participants, most of whom quickly figured out it was a gag.
Agree but think it is ultimately more pernicious because the censorship is being done by programmers who seek to do it lazily at scale. Matt Tiabbi recently wrote on this. Sociology and journo majors may be setting the table with their insane “shout them down/shut up anything we don’t like” views (learned at the feet of orgs like GLAAD for good reason but turned ugly though bullying) but it is the programmers who cook dinner. Thus, the marriage of young liberal arts fools (and I was one but actually read books from history to fiction from all over) who can’t think their way out of a paper back to programming robots leads to nasty children.
Only because we have a bunch of judges who believe that the ends justify the means does this even matter.
Thank you for mentioning the ivermectin poison-control statistic incorrectly reported by MSDH, specifically Drs. Thomas Dobbs (state health officer) and Paul Byers (state epidemiologist).
In mid-July, Dobbs claimed that 12 Mississippi children were in the intensive care unit at the children's hospital, including 10 children on life support, which was trumpeted all over as fact. It was actually 7 children in ICU with 2 on life support. He of course blamed the hospital for giving him incorrect numbers, and then the matter was quietly dropped.
Of the six "COVID deaths" in under-18s in Mississippi, five are MIS-C, meaning they may not have had COVID at all, but only been around someone who did. Dobbs is even counting an MIS death in an 18-20 year-old as "pediatric," because "MIS is a pediatric illness."
But we're supposed to ignore the fact that Dobbs' son Wyn, a medical student at George Washington University, worked on GW’s Moderna COVID-19 vaccine trial. No conflict of interest there, right?
'any day now “censored by twitter” is going to exceed “passed peer review at a prestigious journal” as a credential.'
Hear, hear!
As in the riddle of the cell whith two doors, one leading to freedom the other one to death, each with its own guard, one always a liar, the other ever telling the truth.
Being allowed only one question to one of them, without knowing which guard is a liar or truth teller.
And one's enough:
"If I ask the other guard which door leads to freedom, what will he answer?"
Then, whatever the answer, just step out through the opposite door.
Q.E.D.
Aha, OK. Isn't it the same principle by which a positive number times a negative number equals a negative number? That's what I thought of when it clicked into place in my head.
How can Kulldorff be considered credible when he doesn't have credentials and a title in his profile lol?
People ARE stupid, and the future belongs to Big Brother.
But perhaps there is a glimmer of hope... Thank you for the article.
individuals are mostly not stupid. groups tend to make them so.
Happy Labor Day! Thanks for yours. Sharing the hell out of this.