lostinlodos has quite handily proven the Network Propaganda book's claim that the Fox-Breitbart nexus builds a unique cultlike religious following that distrusts factual sources for no other reason than they were told to by the orthodoxy:
[t]he consistent pattern that emerges from our data is that, both during the highly divisive election campaign and even more so during the first year of the Trump presidency, there is no left-right division, but rather a division between the right and the rest of the media ecosystem. The right wing of the media ecosystem behaves precisely as the echo-chamber models predict—exhibiting high insularity, susceptibility to information cascades, rumor and conspiracy theory, and drift toward more extreme versions of itself. The rest of the media ecosystem, however, operates as an interconnected network anchored by organizations, both for profit and nonprofit, that adhere to professional journalistic norms."
The explanation for the anti-Clinton narratives' longevity in the news cycle, the data show, is the focus of the right-wing media ecology on the two focal media nodes of Fox News and Breitbart. At times during this period, Breitbart took the lead as an influencer from Fox News, which eventually responded by repositioning itself after Trump's nomination as a solid Trump booster.
In contrast, left-wing media had no single outlet that defined orthodoxy for progressives. Instead, left-of-center outlets worked within the larger sphere of traditional media, and, because they were competing for the rest of the audience that had not committed itself to the Fox/Breitbart ecosystem, were constrained to adhere, mostly, to facts that were confirmable by traditional media institutions associated with the center-left (the New York Times and the Washington Post, say) as well as with the center-right (e.g., the Wall Street Journal). Basically, even if you were an agenda-driven left-oriented publication or online outlet, your dependence on reaching the mainstream for your audience meant that, you couldn't get away with just making stuff up, or with laundering far-left conspiracy theories from more marginal sources.
Network Propaganda's data regarding the right-wing media ecosystem—that it's insular, prefers confirmation of identity and loyalty rather than self-correction, demonizes perceived opponents, and resists disconfirmation of its favored narratives—map well to social-science political-communication theorists Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Joseph Capella's 2008 book, Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh And The Rise Of Conservative Media. In that book, Jamieson and Capella outlined how, as they put it, "these conservative media create a self-protective enclave hospitable to conservative beliefs." As a consequence, they write:
"[t]his safe haven reinforces conservative values and dispositions, holds Republican candidates and leaders accountable to conservative ideals, tightens their audience's ties to the Republican Party, and distances listeners, readers, and viewers from 'liberals," in general, and Democrats, in particular. It also enwraps them in a world in which facts supportive of Democratic claims are contested and those consistent with conservative ones championed."
Believing that all fact-based media are leftist lies for no other reason than he gullibly swallows the right's pure projection uncritically.
The speed filter isn't content that users generated.
The number the filter displays, along along with any significance such holds, are solely and exclusively user-determined. Your narrative doesn't hold water.
First, it seems like a huge opportunity for some other search engine to step in and tell people "if you're sick of all those things Google puts on top of the organic search results you want, come to our search engine instead."
Considering that Conservative family "values" are "Abortions only for my mistresses and my convenience, not for your health" "You're not allowed to be a family if I don't like it" "Gay people are abominations ignore me soliciting men" and "look at this pizza parlor instead of our pedophilia" they must like their porn better when it's "illegal."
It's almost as pathetically transparent as Woody thinking that typing others' names onto his comments would fool anybody.
Ot trolls there and here on Techdirt hallucinating conspiracies against them for being identified as trolls by the community.
Some Ars commenters show that these kinds of trolls show child-level intellects:
50me12 wrote:
I used to moderate a popular gaming forum. It was astonishing / maybe a little horrifying how often people's reaction to any action by the mods was something to the effect of "out to get them".
The user always felt that they clearly had reasons for their actions / were justified, and they were unable to believe / understand that the moderator might also have reasons for their actions, aside from 'bias' or whatever random verb they selected.
99.99% of situations where someone went off about how the mods were out to get them, they were just full of it.
Human nature can be a pain.
Starke replied:
I moderate chat for a twitch stream. There's a bot that posts a warning every 15 minutes not to backseat game. It's the same message every time.
We had a kid in chat who went off on the bot, telling it to shut up and leave him alone. The streamer ran out of patience for it and banned them after the third time.
I read the ban appeal where this kid's defense was basically, "Nightbot started it," and, "was saying mean things about me."
And here we have Woody keeps ranting about how the automated spam filter is doing its job correctly.
On the post: Senator Wicker Introduces Bill To Guarantee The Internet Sucks
Re:
FTFY
On the post: Senator Wicker Introduces Bill To Guarantee The Internet Sucks
Re:
[Jhon Smith hallucinates facts not in reality]
On the post: Former FCC Boss Wheeler Says Trump FCC Napped On Cybersecurity
Anything that protects America and its citizens, Republicans ignore or oppose it.
On the post: Senator Wicker Introduces Bill To Guarantee The Internet Sucks
Re: Re:
And I'll never be a Republican by being honest rather than orwellianly calling the free speech of moderation "censorship."
On the post: Senator Wicker Introduces Bill To Guarantee The Internet Sucks
Re:
Though I admit how little that narrows it down.
On the post: Senator Wicker Introduces Bill To Guarantee The Internet Sucks
The "Censoring the Free Speech Of People Republicans Don't Like" act
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
Re: ad hominem
And there you prove me correct and your fellow troll a liar. Nice going.
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
Re: Re: Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
On the post: Data Analysis Shows That Trump's Messages Still Received Tons Of Attention; Though His Disinformation Doesn't Travel As Far
Re:
Why lie that that a true free marketplace on the internet isn't what we currently have, thanks to Section 230?
On the post: Washington Post Runs Bizarrely Ignorant Opinion Piece Claiming Florida's Content Moderation Law Is Constitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
lostinlodos has quite handily proven the Network Propaganda book's claim that the Fox-Breitbart nexus builds a unique cultlike religious following that distrusts factual sources for no other reason than they were told to by the orthodoxy:
Believing that all fact-based media are leftist lies for no other reason than he gullibly swallows the right's pure projection uncritically.
On the post: Three Years After An Officer Killed A Suicidal Teen, Law Enforcement Releases Report That Raises More Questions
Re: Well...
When your hammer is police brutality, everyone becomes a thumb.
On the post: Why The Ninth Circuit's Decision In Lemmon V. Snap Is Wrong On Section 230 And Bad For Online Speech
Re:
The number the filter displays, along along with any significance such holds, are solely and exclusively user-determined. Your narrative doesn't hold water.
On the post: Chief Publishing Lobbyist Maria Pallante Claims Copyright Is 'Under Assault' At Annual Meeting
In the same way as there's a war on Christmas.
On the post: Conservatives Want Common Carriage. They're Not Going to Like It.
They don't want common carriage, they want conman carriage.
On the post: Ohio Files Bizarre And Nonsensical Lawsuit Against Google, Claiming It's A Common Carrier; But What Does That Even Mean?
That's how google got its start.
On the post: Ohio Files Bizarre And Nonsensical Lawsuit Against Google, Claiming It's A Common Carrier; But What Does That Even Mean?
It means that they're illiterate.
On the post: Conservatives Want Common Carriage. They're Not Going to Like It.
Re: Re: Re:
Considering that Conservative family "values" are "Abortions only for my mistresses and my convenience, not for your health" "You're not allowed to be a family if I don't like it" "Gay people are abominations ignore me soliciting men" and "look at this pizza parlor instead of our pedophilia" they must like their porn better when it's "illegal."
On the post: Conservatives Want Common Carriage. They're Not Going to Like It.
Right-whingers never wanted freedom of speech, they only want freedom from consequences, primarily others' speech.
On the post: Does Taking Down Content Lead Ignorant People To Believe It's More Likely To Be True?
Re:
There was this shithead troll on Ars who edited his own posts into false accusations against Ars's moderation.
https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=39571969#p39571969
It's almost as pathetically transparent as Woody thinking that typing others' names onto his comments would fool anybody.
Ot trolls there and here on Techdirt hallucinating conspiracies against them for being identified as trolls by the community.
Some Ars commenters show that these kinds of trolls show child-level intellects:
50me12 wrote:
Starke replied:
And here we have Woody keeps ranting about how the automated spam filter is doing its job correctly.
On the post: Does Taking Down Content Lead Ignorant People To Believe It's More Likely To Be True?
Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
Next >>