Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[mattiasNYC]

I don't think anyone here is claiming that we understand all there is to know, that line of thinking belongs more in the realm of monotheism actually, but I do think there's something to be said for evaluating what we actually do know and make a "guess" based on probability.

In a sense, awareness seems to be an issue closely related to faith and appears to share a common argument, which is the argument from ignorance. Since we don't actually know that there is no god/supernatural awareness, and since we don't know what the cause of the phenomenon is, it's likely god/supernatural awareness - more or less. That line of reasoning has been losing since the birth of science however, so it's not reasoning on which to bet, in my opinion.

 

[living sounds]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/trumps-presidency-is-shaping-up-to-be-an-american-tragedy-w454640

 

[Script]

Read an article the other day about the acclaimed role of "Cambridge Analytica" in winning the election for Trump. BTW, the same company that was involved in the Brexit campaign.

The idea:
Use "big data" from Facebook and other social media for micro-targeted messages to influence, undermine, manipulate or at least nudge reader (i.e. voter) behaviour. As the word says, "micro-targeted" means that a myriad of unobtrusive messages are tailored to small, select groups of receivers --  messages that are only read by a small group of receivers (hence "dark messaging") who were selected from a huge database searchable for specific parameters covering opinions, fears, convictions, behaviours, character traits, preferences, "likes" etc.

+ If this is true (and people are that easy to manipulate), it's quite scary stuff, especially because those micro-targeted messages, when compared -- said the article at least -- can be full of contradictions (so not rooted in reality and article even says "can be full of lies")). So, effectively, each message basically tells readers what they want to "hear" most (along the lines of: "We are not losers, we are victims!"), plus some extra message (either openly or subliminal) to influences them: to vote A, or to not vote B, or to not go and vote at all -- depending on target group of course.

+ If this is true -- the article mentioned the "rust belt" in particular and the Brexit vote in general -- there must be some people (both in the US and the UK) who will probably wake up to reality pretty soon -- at least let's hope so.

+ If this is true, I finally found a reason for my dislike of social media like Facef***, *hitter and what not...

 

[JohnRoberts]

Read an article the other day about the acclaimed role of "Cambridge Analytica" in winning the election for Trump. BTW, the same company that was involved in the Brexit campaign.

The idea:
Use "big data" from Facebook and other social media for micro-targeted messages to influence, undermine, manipulate or at least nudge reader (i.e. voter) behaviour. As the word says, "micro-targeted" means that a myriad of unobtrusive messages are tailored to small, select groups of receivers --  messages that are only read by a small group of receivers (hence "dark messaging") who were selected from a huge database searchable for specific parameters covering opinions, fears, convictions, behaviours, character traits, preferences, "likes" etc.

+ If this is true (and people are that easy to manipulate), it's quite scary stuff, especially because those micro-targeted messages, when compared -- said the article at least -- can be full of contradictions (so not rooted in reality and article even says "can be full of lies")). So, effectively, each message basically tells readers what they want to "hear" most (along the lines of: "We are not losers, we are victims!"), plus some extra message (either openly or subliminal) to influences them: to vote A, or to not vote B, or to not go and vote at all -- depending on target group of course.

+ If this is true -- the article mentioned the "rust belt" in particular and the Brexit vote in general -- there must be some people (both in the US and the UK) who will probably wake up to reality pretty soon -- at least let's hope so.

+ If this is true, I finally found a reason for my dislike of social media like Facef***, *hitter and what not...

I have been concerned about this for years. The conventional thinking was that the democratic campaign was the side with big data and social media expertise, but Trump flipped this upside down.

I fear that the sheeple will always be manipulated, it is the nature of sheeple. The main difference is now the manipulators can narrow cast multiple messages to small segments of the population. In effect the game is changing right before our eyes.  Hillary spent over $1B and did not get her money's worth, but massive TV campaigns don't work as well as they used to.

I was at first optimistic that smart phone cameras would make politicians more honest as their different targeted stump speeches could be recorded and reported, but now it overwhelmed by orchestrated social media campaigns.

Another interesting change is the fake news industry that has sprung up. I call this an industry because this is not just based on promoting ideology, but has polished off yellow journalism tenets (sensationalism) to sell internet advertising. Now pushing successful fake news, generates a revenue stream from the advertising along for the ride.  In classic follow the money strategy, cutting off this advertising money flow, should be one way to tamp down the fake news, that if unfettered will grow like a bad weed.

Of course it is incredibly difficult to parse fake news in real time, but I expect these bad actors can be recognized by their patterns of sensationalism to earn a buck. This is not very different from tabloid press, so protected speech. This will hopefully get cleaned up by the next time, but could end up in the courts. When people buy a tabloid newspaper they kind of know what they are buying (or should), the fake news if protected, should at least be flagged as untrustworthy.

I have one friend on social media that is entirely too gullible. If something sounds too good or too juicy to be true, it probably isn't true. 

JR

PS: One of the most hypocritical statements in recent history was Harry Reid complaining about fake news. When he was questioned about his false accusation that Romney didn't pay taxes during that presidential campaign, Reid's response was "well it worked". That's low, even for a politician. 

 

[Scodiddly]

Another interesting change is the fake news industry that has sprung up. I call this an industry because this is not just based on promoting ideology, but has polished off yellow journalism tenets (sensationalism) to sell internet advertising. Now pushing successful fake news, generates a revenue stream from the advertising along for the ride.  In classic follow the money strategy, cutting off this advertising money flow, should be one way to tamp down the fake news, that if unfettered will grow like a bad weed.

Of course it is incredibly difficult to parse fake news in real time, but I expect these bad actors can be recognized by their patterns of sensationalism to earn a buck. This is not very different from tabloid press, so protected speech. This will hopefully get cleaned up by the next time, but could end up in the courts. When people buy a tabloid newspaper they kind of know what they are buying (or should), the fake news if protected, should at least be flagged as untrustworthy.

To some extent we can look to history to see how to deal with the fake news, because it's nothing all that new.  That it's just an updated form of classic yellow journalism is spot-on.  Here in the States we're still grappling with the fallout from how TV used to be a trustable and accurate news source to what we have today. Hint: it's because in the earlier days of TV news was considered a public good instead of a profit category.

 

[mattiasNYC]

I really don't understand how anyone can be impressed by Trump's cabinet picks. His most recent nomination will be a hardliner on mid-east (Israel-Palestine) issues as an ambassador to Israel. How on earth is that furthering true American interests? Couple that with downplaying national intelligence briefings and I actually see an increased threat against the US.

 

[JohnRoberts]

To some extent we can look to history to see how to deal with the fake news, because it's nothing all that new.  That it's just an updated form of classic yellow journalism is spot-on.  Here in the States we're still grappling with the fallout from how TV used to be a trustable and accurate news source to what we have today. Hint: it's because in the earlier days of TV news was considered a public good instead of a profit category.

What exactly does history teach us about dealing with fake (internet) news?  Not much I submit. It is actually different this time in the rapidity of "news" (I mean stories) dissemination over social media.

A remarkable number of people get their news (cough) from social media like Facebook or twitter. Zuckerberg has just announced that he will try to reduce the ranking of fake stories in news feeds, and tag suspect stories as questionable. Of course he can't do this by himself so must rely upon outside fact checking services, who may have their own biases or blind spots.  I suspect checking multiple fact checkers and weighing their reports could be better than what we have now.

Of course some of these fake stories are paid promoted placements so this will cost Facebook some advertising revenue. He looks like he is trying to do the right thing.

JR

 

[living sounds]

This is awesome!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/samantha-bee-glenn-beck-donald-trump_us_5858d7eae4b03904470a7d1d


Call it Christmas magic if you like. 

 

[tands]

I do like twitter..

https://twitter.com/freddiedeboer/status/811388438029156352

 

[tands]

“Surprisingly, there is currently no single U.S. governmental agency or department charged with the national level development, integration and synchronization of whole-of-government strategies to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation.” 

Long before the "fake news" meme became a daily topic of extensive conversation on such discredited mainstream portals as CNN and WaPo, H.R. 5181 would task the Secretary of State with coordinating the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to “establish a Center for Information Analysis and Response,” which will pinpoint sources of disinformation, analyze data, and — in true dystopic manner — ‘develop and disseminate’ “fact-based narratives” to counter effrontery propaganda.

In short, long before "fake news" became a major media topic, the US government was already planning its legally-backed crackdown on anything it would eventually label "fake news."

* * *

Fast forward to December 8, when the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" passed in the Senate, quietly inserted inside the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report.

And now, following Friday's Obama signing of the NDAA on Friday evening, the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act is now law."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-24/obama-signs-countering-disinformation-and-propaganda-act-law

 

[musika]

On fake news, this goes way back in our history books...

In 1835, The New York Sun ran a six-part series, “Great Astronomical Discoveries Lately Made,” which detailed the supposed discovery of life on the Moon. The hoax landed in part because the Sun’s circulation was huge by standards of the day, and the too-good-to-be-true story supposedly enticed many new readers to fork over their pennies as well.

I found this article really interesting:

http://www.cjr.org/special_report/fake_news_history.php

 

[JohnRoberts]

“Surprisingly, there is currently no single U.S. governmental agency or department charged with the national level development, integration and synchronization of whole-of-government strategies to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation.” 

Long before the "fake news" meme became a daily topic of extensive conversation on such discredited mainstream portals as CNN and WaPo, H.R. 5181 would task the Secretary of State with coordinating the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to “establish a Center for Information Analysis and Response,” which will pinpoint sources of disinformation, analyze data, and — in true dystopic manner — ‘develop and disseminate’ “fact-based narratives” to counter effrontery propaganda.

In short, long before "fake news" became a major media topic, the US government was already planning its legally-backed crackdown on anything it would eventually label "fake news."

* * *

Fast forward to December 8, when the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" passed in the Senate, quietly inserted inside the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report.

And now, following Friday's Obama signing of the NDAA on Friday evening, the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act is now law."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-24/obama-signs-countering-disinformation-and-propaganda-act-law

This could be a slippery slope and easily abused. Using government force to fact check a free press is ripe for political abuse.

We need a free press to keep government honest and somehow market forces need to rise with a solution to correct this situation. Surely there is demand for reliable news.

First we need to stop funding fake news. Surely business is already working on that because they are being scammed too., while they might look the other way if real ads on fake news sells real products.

JR

 

[tands]

I just assume if it's for profit news, it's fake to the extent there's profit.

What you're seeing is corporations attempting to eliminate competing sources which call into question their veracity and motivations.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I just assume if it's for profit news, it's fake to the extent there's profit.

What you're seeing is corporations attempting to eliminate competing sources which call into question their veracity and motivations.

It must cost money to collect and disseminate news. I pay for the daily newspaper I read, not to mention they also get revenue from advertising. 

The press is protected because being free to investigate politicians and leaders is important.

I have been watching the evolution of news since the WWW has made some of it easier and some harder.

We will survive this too, but it is worth close inspection.

JR

 

[living sounds]

Zero Hedge is itself not what I would call a credible news source.  Doesn't mean there isn't a problem with that bill, of course...

 

[tands]

"For starters, it’s important to accept that the New York Times has always — or at least for many decades — been a far more editor-driven, and self-conscious, publication than many of those with which it competes. Historically, the Los Angeles Times, where I worked twice, for instance, was a reporter-driven, bottom-up newspaper. Most editors wanted to know, every day, before the first morning meeting: “What are you hearing? What have you got?”

    It was a shock on arriving at the New York Times in 2004, as the paper’s movie editor, to realize that its editorial dynamic was essentially the reverse. By and large, talented reporters scrambled to match stories with what internally was often called “the narrative.” We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the plan with editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line.”

    Reality usually had a way of intervening. But I knew one senior reporter who would play solitaire on his computer in the mornings, waiting for his editors to come through with marching orders. Once, in the Los Angeles bureau, I listened to a visiting National staff reporter tell a contact, more or less: “My editor needs someone to say such-and-such, could you say that?””

    The bigger shock came on being told, at least twice, by Times editors who were describing the paper’s daily Page One meeting: “We set the agenda for the country in that room.”"

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/the-narrative-neoliberalism-and-identity-politics.html

 

[tands]

"Donald Trump will disappoint and disillusion his far-right supporters by eschewing white supremacy, according to some of the movement’s own intellectual leaders.

Activists who recently gave Nazi salutes and shouted “hail Trump” at a gathering in Washington will revolt if the new US president fails to meet their expectations, the leaders told the Guardian.

The prospect of such disillusion and internecine squabbling may console liberals who fear a White House tinged with racism and quasi-fascism. The analysis is all the more reassuring because it comes from far-right influencers and analysts, not wishful progressives.

[oh yeah, sure thing, Guardian. I'll just let the reassuring wash over me like a wave. lmfao-Ed]

Instead of enjoying proximity to power, according to this analysis, vocal parts of the loose coalition known as the “alt-right” could remain on the political fringe, wondering what happened to their triumph.

“Their hearts are bigger than their brains,” said Mark Weber, who runs the Institute for Historical Review, an organisation dedicated to exposing “Jewish-Zionist” power. “Saying they want to be the intellectual head of the Trump presidency is delusional.”

Jared Taylor, a white supremacist who runs the self-termed “race-realist” magazine American Renaissance, said the president-elect had already backpedalled on several pledges that had fired up the far-right. “At first he promised to send back every illegal immigrant. Now he is waffling on that.”

David Cole, a self-proclaimed Holocaust revisionist and Taki magazine columnist, envisaged the movement sliding into bickering and in-fighting, stuck in “rabbit warrens” of online trolling rather than policy shaping.

...

If the critiques are correct he and his supporters will, to co-opt a favoured “alt-right” term, have a rude awakening. “In the eagerness for hope many have latched on to Trump. They’re trying to get a step on the escalator. I’m convinced they’ll be disappointed,” said Weber. Far-right youths are “on fire” but Trump, he said, will not be able to turn the clock back to the 1950s, a perceived golden age for white America.

Taylor said some on the far-right fell, as did liberals, for what he termed media distortions. “Donald Trump was never a racial dissident of the sort that I am. He was never one of us. He’s an American nationalist. The left was wrong to think that he was dancing to the tune of people like myself.”

Taylor said the far right would need patience. “Racial nationalism has not triumphed in America. It will some day. But to think it has done so (already) is delusive.”"


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/27/alt-right-donald-trump-white-supremacy-backlash

delusive? That's one bonehead word, but that ain't me no more.

 

[JohnRoberts]

There has always been a lunatic fringe on the far right and far left... we can ignore them until the next election.

JR

 

[tands]

Probably not the best idea, they did just beat the neoliberal, corporate chosen candidate for the presidency of the US.

I couldn't tell the difference between Jeb And Hills, how about you?

What I thought was interesting was how some of those guys were obviously trying to sell the Guardian a line, the others with their Hitler salute, and then the Guardian instructing the British populace that Trump, "ain't so bad, really".

Nobody knows that yet, but they're getting all reassuring .

I just thought it was an interesting article.

Please clap.

 

[dmp]

There has always been a lunatic fringe on the far right and far left... we can ignore them until the next election.

Or we can see how they run the country starting Jan 20th.

Comments on Russia hacking the election from Trump:
"I think that computers have complicated lives very greatly. The whole age of computer has made it where nobody knows exactly what is going on. We have speed, we have a lot of other things, but I’m not sure we have the kind, the security we need."

He has finally stated he will accept an intelligence briefing about what the FBI, CIA, and NSA knows, which he has been refusing apparently.

Today, after President Obama announced retaliation against Russia for the hacking, which was praised by Democrats and Republicans alike, Trump tweeted support for Putin:
"Great move on delay (by V. Putin) - I always knew he was very smart!"

The President elect Trump coming out supporting a dictatorial foreign power against the sitting President.

Would Trump supporters say that it was the DNC's fault for letting Nixon operatives break into the Watergate hotel? Apparently.

Will the name "Trump" be used more like "Nixon" or "Hitler" in 50 yrs?