No he's serious, people tell him that ALL THE TIME, in the exact tone you are using.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
I can't wait until we get exasperated enough to all just start saying "STFU Charlie" every time he posts again, like we used to.
In other news...
When you think about it, his reply could be taken as a parody of the typical Brietbart fan we were just discussing. But since it's him, we treat like any of his other trolling.
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
I want all Fortune 500 companies to be staffed by at least half registered Democrats by time of the next election too.
GasBandit
Staff member
Why, one Great Recession wasn't enough for you?
Well, there was the Nixon one, the Ford one (technically a carryover from the Nixon one), the Reagan one. the Bush 41 one, and the Bush 43 one.Why, one Great Recession wasn't enough for you?
Then think what Republican power in education will get you... public school Texas.Why, one Great Recession wasn't enough for you?
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/05/07/donald-trump-debt-crisis_n_9862558.html
Trump's plan for the national debt shows he has absolutely no understanding of the global economy.
Trump's plan for the national debt shows he has absolutely no understanding of the global economy.
However, the US Treasury does not operate under the same rules as a real estate development firm, which usually creates a special purpose company that borrows money at high interest rates, and if it fails, can declare bankruptcy to absolve the debt without harming the rest of one's holdings - as Trump has done 4 times. The US Treasury bonds that make up our national debt borrow at incredibly low interest rates because, globally, it's considered an extremely safe investment - ie everyone knows "we're good for it". Attempting to renegotiate that debt would destabilize it, jacking up interest rates and exponentially increasing the debt to a point where it would collapse the market. Treasury bonds are a part of investment portfolios across the world, so that means not only would the US market get hit, but other governments, international investors, and banking conglomerates would suffer from it. And if the "safest investment in the market" suddenly collapses, that means all the others become way riskier. Essentially, the house of cards that is the global economy would crash.
I just wanted to point out that Huffington Post is blocked at the high school I work at because it is classified as "adult."
Because kids don't need news from anywhere but Yahoo and MSN, apparently.
Because kids don't need news from anywhere but Yahoo and MSN, apparently.
That's an interesting point, I'm going to have to think about that a bit. Do notice that my posts are mainly, "Keep in mind that this is what facebook is doing" more than "Facebook needs to change/be punished for doing things this way."
However, I do feel that they are in a different class than a fast food restaurant or computer parts company in terms of audience engagement and information delivery, and so while I wouldn't say they should be regulated or forced to comply with some arbitrary code of conduct, I would suggest that we all should be aware of their biases, and if possible encourage them to be open and transparent.
Huff has a lot of NSFW content, compared to other news sites. I mean, scroll through their aptly-named The Pornography Industry section. Other sites with such a section are usually much less... Garbage-y? Compare to NYT's Pornography Subject (one of the few other news sites that came to mind and did have a pr0n section).
I suppose they are, but I question if that's the fault of Facebook or of Facebook users. I do recognize the difference between this type of bias occurring on Facebook vs it occurring on The Daily Show.
Have you read the article?
http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-...uppressed-conser-1775461006?rev=1462799465508
GasBandit
Staff member
Those were regular recessions.Well, there was the Nixon one, the Ford one (technically a carryover from the Nixon one), the Reagan one. the Bush 41 one, and the Bush 43 one.
What I mean specifically, and what I have meant by all these examples, is getting all of one's news from a single source is a bad idea. Facebook, Fox News, Daily Show, Halforums
--no one single place should be a person's source of information. I know Facebook isn't being transparent and isn't doing what they say they do, but neither does Fox News.I'm not saying what they're doing is best.
As for Facebook, like any other company, I think they have the right to their own POV/slant/bias/whatever. Like a newspaper or TV channel, they're not in any way bound or obligated to show their biases. However, Facebook has repeatedly claimed it's completely neutral, though, and lots of people believe that.
As such, we do need to create awareness that Facebook isn't just "showing us what our friends are talking about" or "showing us things that might interest us", but "things they want us to talk about". That may seem obvious to the more tech-savvy amongst us - Facebook earns its money by manipulating us, after all - but it isn't to most. People for whom Facebook IS the Internet need to know they're looking at the world through a specific lens, so that they can choose to leave or change that lens if they wish to.
As such, we do need to create awareness that Facebook isn't just "showing us what our friends are talking about" or "showing us things that might interest us", but "things they want us to talk about". That may seem obvious to the more tech-savvy amongst us - Facebook earns its money by manipulating us, after all - but it isn't to most. People for whom Facebook IS the Internet need to know they're looking at the world through a specific lens, so that they can choose to leave or change that lens if they wish to.
I'm now viewing this topic by substituting in Halforums for Facebook.Facebook, Fox News, Daily Show, Halforums
Trump campaign selects, by coincidence I am certain, a white nationalist as a California delegate via Popehat.
Gosh, golly, gee.Excerpt said:
GasBandit
Staff member
Hmm... that's not enough...
That should do it.[DOUBLEPOST=1462940069,1462939673][/DOUBLEPOST]The only thing keeping me in this state is not having the means to get out. And tonight the people of WV, in their infinite stupidity (it's been scientifically proven, we're the dumbest. 50th out of 50.), have chosen to keep the albatross of coal around their necks for another four years.
When a candidate's answer to the problems of domestic violence or prescription drug abuse is "coal jobs," and he STILL wins his primary (at least he wasn't unopposed like the GOP candidate was), yo know the stupid is too strong to stick around any longer.
If not for past self-inflicted fuckups, and finances in complete tatters after the fire, I'd suggest to my mom we pack up and leave... maybe for Queens. At least the food is good.
It's similar to how whenever somebody points out the Google Motto of "Don't be Evil" when they are being VERY evil. Same thing here, in that they have "this is what's trending!" when really it should be "This is what's trending that we approve of! And some other stuff we want you to see!"
I guess it's from the perspective that people see things morally differently if "it's an unbiased algorithm" is promoted, versus "we're an editorial board, and what we say is front-page-news, is what we determine." Anytime you make anything resembling a claim to unbiased, it's OK to call them out on that when they're not. Similar to how it's OK to call out Fox News, it's OK to call out Facebook on this type of thing. If Facebook called it "Promoted Stories" it'd be different.
Think of it from the opposite side if it helps with an example: google's auto-complete. There's plenty of examples of "wtf are they thinking?" suggestions that are not blamed on the company because it's an algorithm. It's not chosen by people trying to introduce bias, but by actual results of searches. People laugh, or are horrified, but either way little blame goes to the company because it's (probably) a genuine result. When you start tampering with it, then you introduce blame. And that's what Facebook is doing.
Not to burst your bubble, but you don't want to know what it might cost to live in Queens nowadays. Unless you want a studio apartment. For you both. And maybe another roommate.If not for past self-inflicted fuckups, and finances in complete tatters after the fire, I'd suggest to my mom we pack up and leave... maybe for Queens. At least the food is good.
Well, Facebook has denied the anonymous allegations. http://n.pr/1T4bfR8
There's always moving to Pittsburgh and taking Amtrak whenever I get a 3-day weekend. [emoji56]Not to burst your bubble, but you don't want to know what it might cost to live in Queens nowadays. Unless you want a studio apartment. For you both. And maybe another roommate.
The Gizmodo article has been updated with the actual statements posted, though, interestingly, Facebook has never responded directly to Gizmodo, and instead released the statements in its site as well as to other news organizations directly.
http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006
Wired puts it well:
from http://www.wired.com/2016/05/course-facebook-biased-thats-tech-works-today/?mbid=social_fb