Yeah. But it's actually an interesting contrast. Because of the relative power difference. As President, when DJT wanted to change the subject, he didn't just start talking about something else, he CREATED another disaster or crisis, and the entire media (only half-erroneously) takes the bait. Trump had the ability to keep us on our heels. A single Senator cannot easily create a distraction at a level anything like an awful President. So Hawley's "narrative shift" is less likely to succeed than the former President's many successes.
I like it. Very Aesop.
I think you've got the animals right, but need to massage the portemanteau.
Foxing the Crow
Crowing the Fox meh, I'm no good at this.
"I have always tried to support policies that I think will be most effective -- not based on ideology, but on understanding the policy and its likely impact. That's the way governing should work."
True. But even more important than government and representatives acting this way, is that the citizens should act thus. Look at policy, and choose the candidate with the policy platform that best aligns with one's priorities.
Which is why it has always struck me as Weird-As-Fuck the way US voters register for a Party. How is that consistent with choosing the candidates that have policies I like? What if a D has the policy I want in my county, but an R does for my state, and a D does federally? I know split tickets are a vestige of the past here, but they shouldn't be. And "registering for a Party" is part of the problem.
Because we all register, we've also got this stupid Primary system, which is what puts all these whack-jobs and extremists on the ticket. Notably, Rs are more worried about Primary elections than General elections. That's messed up. The Pirmaries are much easier to game.
Anyway, I hope most Americans know that this "Register" thing ISN'T a thing in most other democracies. A Canadian might vote NDP one year, Liberal the next, and nobody thinks that's odd or a big flip.
I know, I know. History this, two party system that, first to post, etc, etc. Yes, we agree, "reasons". Still, the 21st Century has shown us that this is a pretty messed up so-called "democracy". (I know, I know. "Constitutional Republic", spare me.)
I just wish individual people did "support policies that [they] think will be most effective -- not based on ideology, but on understanding the policy and its likely impact." We'd end up with, I dunno, maybe policies with better impacts.
It's not a meaningless term. But it is often applied meaninglessly. A Troll is someone who is posting shit to get a rise or reaction, but doesn't really care much about the debate. (it's not absolute: they can care a bit about the debate, but they care MORE about pissing people off, and dragging them along)
“They can make any claim they’d like, but they’re going to be met with a lot of commenters, a lot of people who are going to disagree with them,” Matze said. “That’s how society works, right? If you make a claim, people are going to come and fact check you organically.”
But that's why they're angry. "Bad Librals" are disagreeing with them on Twitter. And Twitter itself added a tag to Trump's tweet.
But that is exactly "people are going to come and fact check you".
Matze's words seem to almost say "Twitter is awesome!! They're doing it right!"
As an example, I've seen a few references from dumb-dumbs on these very Internets that say that 230 requires platforms like Facebook, Google, and Twitter to promote
"a true diversity of political discourse"
and you know it's true, because those very words are in the law, Section (a)(3).
Of course, it's in the "Findings" section of the law, which carries no legal heft at all.
Check this out, from your friends at Prager U
Sir/Ma'am, I have read the comment you posted, and you are quite wrong. In lieu of a thorough rebuttal here in the comment section, I refer you instead to this comprehensive explanation of why you are wrong, backed with links to the actual case law and the text of Section 230 itself. Good reading! https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml
It seems you are going to find some other dumb arguments (or others will), oft repeated, that will need to be here.
Will you append them?
I'm only asking to be polite, because legally, you must write them up, because somebody (me) has asked you to do so here in the comments. Once you take on the publisher role, you are required to write content that people demand of you. That's just the Internets rules.
But seriously, append or not?
Well, as long as Trump is pushing this kind of nonsense, and the MAGA set is full on board...
...I'm really looking forward to Fox News, Breitbart, Alex Jones, et al to finally have to be neutral in their coverage of everything. You see, I disagree with a lot of what Fox News says, so I think I would like to go on the air on their network and say MY truths.
Naturally, if they block me from going on their TV network, or if they have Hannity correct me, or disagree with what I'm saying, then they are unfairly censoring my voice, and impeding my First Amendment Rights to Free Speech.
Naturally, this is fucking insane. But that's the point. Fox News doesn't owe me a TV show. If I ever DID go on the air there, they don't owe me "no commentary" or rebuttal to what I said. They don't owe me shit. My free speech is 100% unrelated to how Fox News does or doesn't broadcasts me - and they don't. They don't owe me a bullhorn, and Twitter doesn't owe Trump @Jack shit.
Hey, everyone. Remember how Fox News was full of shit in their criticisms of Obama when he was POTUS? Remember the fake scandals? Remember how Obama tried to shut them down? No? Me neither. This Trump mofo has worked relentlessly to shut down EVERY agency remotely tasked with checking his power or lies:
Why would someone go after EVERY, and I mean EVERY entity whose job it is to check him, ensure ethics, and provide daylight?
There's an Occam's Razor at play here. Either A: all of those agencies are in cahoots in the bag against Trump, or, B: Trump is a corrupt liar. MAGAs go with A.
When I worked for Korea's SK Telecom 2001-2003, we were one of the first two countries with 3G networks, and we were experimenting and learning a lot about mobile streaming (phone-based) video.
We had very limited capacity on the network, so the company started by funding and producing short, "bite sized" content. The hope was that in this usage context, people wouldn't want long-form content, but short clips to fill their bus ride, etc.
So, we provided the content, and the early adopters LOVED mobile video. What's more, they were willing to pay for it, premium prices on their network use, and payment for the content. We were pretty sure we had a winner.
But when the company surveyed the users about likes/dislikes, one bit of information was unequivocal: They didn't want custom, bite-sized content. They wanted their usual content. They wanted the same stuff they wanted at home or on a PC. This was surprising to us - and unfortunately, was also not something we had the mobile network capacity to provide. But that lesson has stuck with me:
Later on, as 3G and 4G hit North America, the "prevailing wisdom" here was very much a repeat of what we had thought in 2002 in S. Korea: people want shorter content on their phones. I heard the term "snackable video content" a lot. But this was wrong. This was always wrong.
Anyhow, I don't know precisely how this affects Quibi, but I do know that limiting content to "bite sized" has mixed results.
"the company that raises a ton of money and has some famous person in charge."
These things tend to go together.
About the sentence: "You're going round on what you state is a NON-story?" Could you please provide a quote for this claim you made: "what you state is a NON-story?" Where was that stated? Please show. (YOU MADE IT UP.) I searched the piece for "non", and found "nonsense" but not "non-story". What IS in the Techdirt article is the frequent use of the term: "It gets worse", which is indicative of a story with a trivial genesis, but of growing importance. As a matter of opinion, this IS an interesting story - VERY interesting. It also is low-stakes, as Karpf wrote. It can be both. This story has the interesting elements of:
" In effect, the internet, for all of its benefits, has also helped weaponize stupidity."
Paul, you're right that it's a bit of an exaggeration. There are plenty of platforms in the EU that are important to people in the EU.
And Peter may have a USA bias, but his point is solid if you consider that leading US platforms are also leading in the EU, while the opposite is not true. The EU has very few "global scale" platform wins. Skype and Spotify come to mind. I'm sure I'm missing some others, but this is NOT a bidirectionally equivalent situation.
Wait. Are you saying Masnick doesn't understand government? I think that's what the title says, right? If that's wrong, just skip the rest.
So, you're saying that he doesn't "get it" because it's an issue that deals with scale economies. I'd have to point out, then, that dealing with the scale economy issues of the Internet, from individual to Google, has been one of the focal points of Techdirt for about 20 years.
Masnick is not only a trained economist, which obviously study scale economies in depth, but specifically a labor economist. The ILR school at Cornell specializes in business and labor (and organized labor), and their relative power in the market, and in negotiations versus a large corporation.
Are you really proposing that, after his studies in this, then 20 years writing about mostly this, Mike doesn't understand how gov't wants to deal with hand-sized rocks, not individual grains of sand? You're wrong.
PS, other than your title, that was a good post.
It seems you are a little lost, but your points are also valid. We're all lost in this mess to various degrees.
There are always two distinct kinds of experts:
1) Experts that are paid shills.
2) People who are well-versed in the subject matter, and have defensible, well-thought out opinions, preferably backed by empirical data (but sometimes not). They have limited bias, and near-zero conflicts-of-interest. They may or may not work full-time in the relevant field.
Guess which group you hear from most in media, policy debates, 24-hr news, think tankery, etc.
Nah. It's more that companies like Facebook think that there WILL be lawsuits, but that they are in a better position to defend themselves than other competitors or some startup that threatens them.
This is pure self-interest. Using the secondary consequences of laws and government to reduce your competition.
Your desire for Poetic Justice is well-deserved.
However, don't become what you beheld. Facebook might be getting what they deserve, but by cheering this on, you would be cutting of your own nose despite your face.
If we cheer the bad lawsuits against Facebook, since they deserve it, next those lawsuits will go after Techdirt, or some other site you like, or you. Then THAT would be poetic justice.