Any one have Stock in Twitter? Blue bird forum value dropped by like 37 Billion

[booter]

no it's literal, objectively, easily-provable disinformation / propaganda

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Isn't "disinformation" dangerously close to "anything we don't approve of"?

Alright, let's stipulate human beings are lucky if they *survive* not excel. We try, but we don't always do that good. But, that is also part of how lucky we are.


An ideal situation is an incentivized peer reviewed information source. Imagine three labs, each given a task and paid 1 billion dollars. How these labs complete the task is irrelevant. But the goal is verifiable and so the product is verifiable. And they only get 1 billion dollars each if the perform the task.

I think that works pretty good, right? The end-result is already given (produce an X than can do Y) and you have 3 labs that might not want to just cooperate, but also perhaps be the lab that discovers the biggest clue, the key to the solution.


That lab gets ribs. That lab hosts the after party. That lab, gets laid.


"an incentivized peer reviewed information source" = what happened when capitalism met scientific method. I still tear up at the diner scene. You can fake it! That is why we need independent peer review!


OK. Not everything functions like a high-stakes capital-scientific enterprise.



But, that is the type of situation in which "what is approved of" matches up very well with solid information. And that is a lot of stuff in the world. What gets approved is what matches up. That is the job. Always go to sources that if they are wrong, they suffer. And don't look for the whole picture. That's your job.

[aussenseiter]

Originally Posted by Sadre Spinegnawer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Alright, let's stipulate human beings are lucky if they *survive* not excel. We try, but we don't always do that good. But, that is also part of how lucky we are.


An ideal situation is an incentivized peer reviewed information source. Imagine three labs, each given a task and paid 1 billion dollars. How these labs complete the task is irrelevant. But the goal is verifiable and so the product is verifiable. And they only get 1 billion dollars each if the perform the task.

I think that works pretty good, right? The end-result is already given (produce an X than can do Y) and you have 3 labs that might not want to just cooperate, but also perhaps be the lab that discovers the biggest clue, the key to the solution.


That lab gets ribs. That lab hosts the after party. That lab, gets laid.


"an incentivized peer reviewed information source" = what happened when capitalism met scientific method. I still tear up at the diner scene. You can fake it! That is why we need independent peer review!


OK. Not everything functions like a high-stakes capital-scientific enterprise.



But, that is the type of situation in which "what is approved of" matches up very well with solid information. And that is a lot of stuff in the world. What gets approved is what matches up. That is the job. Always go to sources that if they are wrong, they suffer. And don't look for the whole picture. That's your job.

Did you see the Sokal sequel?

[MrSparkle001]

Originally Posted by booter [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

no it's literal, objectively, easily-provable disinformation / propaganda

Well yeah sometimes disinformation is obvious but we've all seen how some content is flagged as disinformation because it holds unpopular opinions.

It's a slippery slope. The obvious disinformation is easy to spot (usually). It's the wrongthink content getting flagged and removed that's troublesome.

[magnetaress]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well yeah sometimes disinformation is obvious but we've all seen how some content is flagged as disinformation because it holds unpopular opinions.

It's a slippery slope. The obvious disinformation is easy to spot (usually). It's the wrongthink content getting flagged and removed that's troublesome.

[Botten]

Elon pushing misinformation.
Yeah…Parroted links from this platform can’t be trusted.

Twitter Admits in Court Filing: Elon Musk Is Simply Wrong About Government Interference At Twitter

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

Originally Posted by aussenseiter [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Did you see the Sokal sequel?

The Sokal fiasco is a fiasco of the publishing world.

[clip: pay me]

You do know that at one time only a dozen or so people could work with various early 20th century physics? Things fray at the edges. No big whoop.

[PRogers]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I like the liberal tears it's been producing, I don't like the drop in my net worth it's been producing.

go woke, go broke. right guys? right?

[Toxigen]

if you're woke you're probably poor already so yeah

[Ooloo]

Elon is fine, twitter is fine. He chose to lose money on purpose out of principle, because a bunch of gigantic babies were running the company before. Sorry about that, if you don't like it build your own twitter!

They aren't "right wing" now just because they don't ban every single conservative anymore. If they were right wing, they would ban all the leftists. But they don't. They simply allow right wing people to talk, which is apparently enough to be called a "far right" platform.

"Disinformation" is a completely useless, nebulous term whose definition changes by the hour. It just never gets old hearing the left shriek about authoritarianism and "fascism" (another word they can't define) while being the most tyranical and censorious assholes ever.