Hoe bedoel je precies?quote:Op donderdag 29 augustus 2019 08:32 schreef MilkTea het volgende:
Manipulatie gebeurt op een veel zorgwekkendere manier dan MSM.
Bilderberg word dit jaar uitgezonden op Fox news?quote:
Google manipuleert zoekopdrachten. Ik gebruik het voor poltiek-vrije zaken. Het nieuws zoek ik via DuckDuck, tenzij ik specifiek weet wat ik zoek. Mijn TV is op niets dan het internet aangesloten.quote:Op woensdag 11 september 2019 19:43 schreef theguyver het volgende:
BTW.. doe wat ik doe..
Echt zo moeilijk is het niet..
Stekker uit de tv.
En voor nieuws google is your Friend.
quote:Exclusive: Google Insider Turns Over 950 Pages Of Docs And Laptop To DOJ
A former Google insider claiming the company created algorithms to hide its political bias within artificial intelligence platforms – in effect targeting particular words, phrases and contexts to promote, alter, reference or manipulate perceptions of Internet content – delivered roughly 950 pages of documents to the Department of Justice’s Antitrust division Friday.
https://saraacarter.com/e(...)s-and-laptop-to-doj/
twitter:noamchomskyT twitterde op vrijdag 13-09-2019 om 17:56:14 The most effective way to restrict democracy is to transfer decision-making from the public arena to unaccountable institutions: kings and princes, priestly castes, military juntas, party dictatorships, or modern corporations. Noam Chomsky reageer retweet
Google is wel heel erg fout en slecht op dit moment met hun algoritmes , duck duck gebruik ik ook en vooralsnog zie ik geen beterequote:Op woensdag 11 september 2019 22:36 schreef LelijKnap het volgende:
[..]
Google manipuleert zoekopdrachten. Ik gebruik het voor poltiek-vrije zaken. Het nieuws zoek ik via DuckDuck, tenzij ik specifiek weet wat ik zoek. Mijn TV is op niets dan het internet aangesloten.
En zo krijgen de complotgekkies een steeeds grotere aanhang.quote:Op woensdag 11 september 2019 19:43 schreef theguyver het volgende:
BTW.. doe wat ik doe..
Echt zo moeilijk is het niet..
Stekker uit de tv.
En voor nieuws google is your Friend.
Volgens mij zitten de grootste complot gekkies nog steeds MSM te kijken.quote:Op dinsdag 17 september 2019 08:28 schreef gooddaddy het volgende:
[..]
En zo krijgen de complotgekkies een steeeds grotere aanhang.
Dat is het doel. Zo veel stront als mogelijk tegen de muur gooien, en zien wat er blijft plakken. Het nieuws wordt massaal gedeeld, de rectificatie niet. Vooral met linkse mensen in hun echokamer is het een probleem. Die geloven de meest waanzinnige dingen.quote:Op dinsdag 17 september 2019 10:00 schreef zomerindebol het volgende:
[..]
Volgens mij zitten de grootste complot gekkies nog steeds MSM te kijken.
Irak WMD , couveuse babys.
Joegoeslavie
Vietnam
Syrie
Russia hoax
etc etc en elke dag bijna met groot nieuws komen om het later te veranderen of wat uiteindelijk gewoon niet klopte.
Dat komt omdat linkse mensen veelal met hun gevoel denken terwijl rechts meer pragmatisch denken.quote:Op dinsdag 17 september 2019 10:40 schreef Ensiferum het volgende:
[..]
Dat is het doel. Zo veel stront als mogelijk tegen de muur gooien, en zien wat er blijft plakken. Het nieuws wordt massaal gedeeld, de rectificatie niet. Vooral met linkse mensen in hun echokamer is het een probleem. Die geloven de meest waanzinnige dingen.
Klopt. Conservatieven denken veel completer. Hier is een mooie studie die dat aantoont.quote:Op dinsdag 17 september 2019 10:43 schreef zomerindebol het volgende:
[..]
Dat komt omdat linkse mensen veelal met hun gevoel denken terwijl rechts meer pragmatisch denken.
Hoezo dat?quote:Op dinsdag 17 september 2019 08:28 schreef gooddaddy het volgende:
[..]
En zo krijgen de complotgekkies een steeeds grotere aanhang.
Hiermee loop je altijd het risico dat je alleen maar het nieuws ziet dat in jouw straatje past en dat niet altijd even neutraal iwordt gebracht en op een fatsoenlijke journalistieke wijze wordt gebracht.quote:En voor nieuws google is your Friend.
Spijt me je bubble te moeten bursten , maar die gewone journalisten doen gewoon wat hun verteld is en dat is eenzijdig nieuws vertellen wat in hun straatje past.quote:Op woensdag 18 september 2019 07:21 schreef gooddaddy het volgende:
[..]
Hiermee loop je altijd het risico dat je alleen maar het nieuws ziet dat in jouw straatje past en dat niet altijd even neutraal iwordt gebracht en op een fatsoenlijke journalistieke wijze wordt gebracht.
Als je de normale nieuwsmedia volgt, dan weet je tenminste dat er echte journalisten achter zitten, die neutraal schrijven en hoor-en wederhoor toepassen.
En ja, natuurlijk heb je rechts nieuws, links nieuws, christelijk nieuws, etc,etc. Ook in Nederland. Maar die gooien tenminste niet zomaar iets de ether in (of op youtube) zonder dat alle bronnen gecontroleerd zijn en hoor- en wederhoor is teogepast
Die printen gewoon wat men opgedragen wordt vanuit de US.quote:Op woensdag 18 september 2019 11:56 schreef gooddaddy het volgende:
Je burst mijn bubble helemaal niet hoor. Maar je noemt wel allemaal internationale voorbeelden. Ik had het gewoon over de traditionele media hier in Nederland. Bij mij staat die nog altijd hoog aangeschreven. Ik lees kranten, kijk het hjournaal en kijk ook naar reportages die de achtergronden van het nieuws belichten. Ik geloof nog steeds dat de traditionele media hier in Nederland gewoon goed werk doen.
(En dat zullen er velen waarschijnlijk met mij oneens zijn)
quote:Op woensdag 18 september 2019 15:53 schreef zomerindebol het volgende:
[..]
Die printen gewoon wat men opgedragen wordt vanuit de US.
Kijk, dit bedoel ik dus. Dit soort onzin (mijn mening). Is er bewijs dat de Nederlandse traditionele media alleen maar nieuws brengt wat hun wordt opgedragen vanuit de VS?quote:Op dinsdag 17 september 2019 08:28 schreef gooddaddy het volgende:
[..]
En zo krijgen de complotgekkies een steeeds grotere aanhang.
Dit is voornamelijk betreft geo politieke zaken die mijn interesse gewoon veel meer hebben, en natuurlijk maakt het niets uit mbt lokaal nieuws.quote:Op donderdag 19 september 2019 07:18 schreef gooddaddy het volgende:
[..]
[..]
Kijk, dit bedoel ik dus. Dit soort onzin (mijn mening). Is er bewijs dat de Nederlandse traditionele media alleen maar nieuws brengt wat hun wordt opgedragen vanuit de VS?
Door alleen maar nieuws op internet te zoeken krijg je natuurlijk alleen maar het nieuws dat in je eigen straatje past. Google helpt daar natuurlijk ook een beetje bij omdat je zoekresultaten worden aangepast op de surf gedrag.
En ik heb het over het algemeen niet over de VS. Eigenlijk interesseert me dat niet zo heel erg wat daar allemaal gebeurd. Kijk eens wat dichterbij. Gewoon in Nederland.
En ga ook vooral eens op zoek naar zaken die jouw mening tegenspreken. Kijk en lees achtergronden. Kijk en lees dat nieuws ook met een open mind
Nou kom maar met je bron.quote:Op woensdag 18 september 2019 15:53 schreef zomerindebol het volgende:
Die printen gewoon wat men opgedragen wordt vanuit de US.
quote:Op dinsdag 17 september 2019 10:00 schreef zomerindebol het volgende:
Volgens mij zitten de grootste complot gekkies nog steeds MSM te kijken.
En wie is hier een complotgekkie?quote:Op woensdag 18 september 2019 15:53 schreef zomerindebol het volgende:
Die printen gewoon wat men opgedragen wordt vanuit de US.
Daarom zie je ook elke dag op de sites alleen maar negatieve verhalen over trump
En worden er zaken weg gelaten uit interviews ten opzichte van trump
Nederland en in feite de hele westerse media doet precies wat men in de US wil en zegt ja en amen , en meer niet.
Wat wil je nou hiermee. Krant bericht over iemand die wat beweert en bericht netjes dat die persoon gelogen heeft.quote:
quote:Twitter Suspends Accounts For Propaganda, Has Literal Propagandist As High-Level Executive
Middle East Eye’s Ian Cobain has published an exclusive titled “Twitter executive for Middle East is British Army ‘psyops’ soldier”, exposing the fact that Twitter’s senior editorial executive for Europe, the Middle East and Africa also works for an actual, literal propaganda unit in the British military called the 77th Brigade. Which is mighty interesting, considering the fact that Twitter constantly suspends accounts from non-empire-aligned nations based on the allegation that they are engaging in propaganda.
“The senior Twitter executive with editorial responsibility for the Middle East is also a part-time officer in the British Army’s psychological warfare unit,” Cobain writes. “Gordon MacMillan, who joined the social media company’s UK office six years ago, has for several years also served with the 77th Brigade, a unit formed in 2015 in order to develop ‘non-lethal’ ways of waging war. The 77th Brigade uses social media platforms such as Twitter, Instagram and Facebook, as well as podcasts, data analysis and audience research to wage what the head of the UK military, General Nick Carter, describes as ‘information warfare’.”
MacMillan’s presence in a government psyops unit was not a secret; until Middle East Eye began raising questions on the matter, it was right there on his LinkedIn profile. This is not something that anyone considering him for promotion was likely to have been unaware of. According to his (now-edited) LinkedIn page, MacMillan has been in his current position as Head of Editorial EMEA since July 2016. According to Middle East Eye, MacMillan was already a captain in the 77th Brigade by the end of 2016. His current rank there is being hidden behind a wall of government secrecy.
When questioned by Middle East Eye about MacMillan’s work in the British Army’s online propaganda program, Twitter hilariously responded, “Twitter is an open, neutral and rigorously independent platform. We actively encourage all our employees to pursue external interests in line with our commitment to healthy corporate social responsibility, and we will continue to do so.”
That’s very nice of Twitter, isn’t it? They encourage their employees to pursue wholesome external interests, whether that be tennis, volunteering at a soup kitchen, or moonlighting at a military program explicitly devoted to online psychological warfare. You know, just everyday socially responsible pastime stuff.
The fact that Twitter not only employs known propagandists but actively promotes them to executive positions is a very large and inconvenient plot hole in their “open, neutral and rigorously independent platform” story. Especially since, as I documented recently, the mass purges of foreign Twitter accounts we’ve been seeing more and more of lately always exclusively target governments and groups which are not in alignment with the interests of the US-centralized power alliance of which the UK is a part. We’ve seen mass suspensions of accounts from Cuba, China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and the Catalan independence movement on allegations of “coordinated influence operations” and “covert, manipulative behaviors”, yet Twitter currently employs a high-level executive for whom coordinated influence operations and covert, manipulative behaviors on behalf of the British government are a known vocation.
“On September 20 Twitter deleted a large number of accounts, including in MacMillan’s area of responsibility. How many of those were designated by the British state?” asks Moon of Alabama of this new report.
This is just one more item on the ever-growing mountain of evidence that these giant, immensely influential social media platforms we’ve all been herded into are nothing other than state propaganda for the digital age. True, they operate in a way which disregards the official lines that are drawn between government power and corporate power and the lines that are drawn between nations, but then, so do our rulers. We are living in a globe-spanning corporate oligarchic empire, and these government-aligned Silicon Valley giants are a major part of that empire’s propaganda engine.
The real power of that empire and that oligarchy lies in their invisibile and unacknowledged nature. Officially we all live in separate, sovereign nations run by democratically elected officials; unofficially we live in a massive transnational empire ruled by a loose alliance of plutocrats and opaque government agencies where military propagandists are employed by social media monopolies to manipulate public narratives. The official mask exists only on the level of narrative, while the unofficial reality is what’s actually happening. Yet whenever you try to publicly discuss the threat that is being posed by oligarchic narrative control online, you get told by establishment loyalists and libertarians that Twitter is just a simple private business running things in a way that is entirely separate from government censorship and state propaganda.
All we clear-eyed rebels can do is keep documenting the evidence of what’s going on and pointing to it as loudly as we can. So once again for the people in the back: Twitter employs literal government propagandists as high-level executives while purging accounts from unabsorbed governments for circulating unauthorized narratives. This is a fact. Remember it.
https://medium.com/@caity(...)ecutive-55be5467f28c
quote:A report by the United Nations (UN) falsely blamed President Trump for the detention of 100,000 migrant children who, in fact, were held in federal immigration custody in 2015 by President Obama.
On Monday, a UN report circulated around establishment media outlets like Reuters, AFP, and NPR reported a false story that claimed Trump was currently holding about 100,000 migrant children in custody.
“More than 100,000 children are currently being held in migration-related detention in the United States, often in violation of international law, the UN said Monday,” an AFP story on the UN report stated.
NPR ran with the UN report as well, writing that the Trump administration “is still holding more than 100,000 children in migration-related detention.”
The author of the UN report, though, now admits that the migrant child detention figures are from 2015, when Obama was president.
Goh, het lijkt nu net alsof het gaat om het zwartmaken van Trump, en niet om het rapporteren van cijfers.quote:Op woensdag 20 november 2019 06:15 schreef Sjemmert het volgende:
UN fakenews backfired
https://www.breitbart.com(...)nt-children-in-2015/
[..]
Leuke thread.twitter:Incarcerated_ET twitterde op maandag 25-11-2019 om 16:41:28 Ladies and Gentlemen,Anons present to you:THE FAKE NEWS-their duplicity-their hypocrisy-their agenda-their coordinated efforts-and out right lies >>side by side for easy dissemination>>just like Q askedA thread! https://t.co/V1boy2uOJi reageer retweet
Omdat ik censuur probeer te vermijden .quote:Op maandag 25 november 2019 18:26 schreef QAnonn het volgende:
Waarom zit dit topic in brave new world? het is toch algemeen bekend dat er een bias en censuur is.
Maar hier wordt t minder serieus genomen of niet gelezen.quote:Op maandag 25 november 2019 18:27 schreef LelijKnap het volgende:
[..]
Omdat ik censuur probeer te vermijden .
Och, degene die het minder serieus nemen omdat hier staat zijn op hun beurt niet bepaald serieus te nemen.quote:Op maandag 25 november 2019 18:29 schreef QAnonn het volgende:
[..]
Maar hier wordt t minder serieus genomen of niet gelezen.
Wojcicki on Section 230, stopping 70% of controversial content:quote:Lesley Stahl: I'm told that it is very stressful to be looking at these questionable videos all the time. And that there's actually counselors to make sure that there aren't mental problems with the people who are doing this work. Is that true?
Susan Wojcicki: It's a very important area for us. We try to do everything we can to make sure that this is a good work environment. Our reviewers work five hours of the eight hours reviewing videos. They have the opportunity to take a break whenever they want.
Lesley Stahl: I also heard that these monitors, reviewers, sometimes, they're beginning to buy the conspiracy theories.
Susan Wojcicki: I've definitely heard about that. And we work really hard with all of our reviewers to make sure that, you know, we're providing the right services for them.
https://www.realclearpoli(...)l_content_by_70.htmlquote:Lesley Stahl: Once you watch one of these, YouTube's algorithms might recommend you watch similar content. But no matter how harmful or untruthful, YouTube can't be held liable for any content, due to a legal protection called Section 230.
The law under 230 does not hold you responsible for user-generated content. But in that you recommend things, sometimes 1,000 times, sometimes 5,000 times, shouldn't you be held responsible for that material, because you recommend it?
Susan Wojcicki: Well, our systems wouldn't work without recommending. And so if--
Lesley Stahl: I'm not saying don't recommend. I'm just saying be responsible for when you recommend so many times.
Susan Wojcicki: If we were held liable for every single piece of content that we recommended, we would have to review it. That would mean there'd be a much smaller set of information that people would be finding. Much, much smaller.
Lesley Stahl: She told us that earlier this year, YouTube started re-programming its algorithms in the U.S. to recommend questionable videos much less and point users who search for that kind of material to authoritative sources, like news clips. With these changes Wojcicki says they have cut down the amount of time Americans watch controversial content by 70%.
twitter:noamchomskyT twitterde op vrijdag 13-12-2019 om 20:59:16 It is only in folk tales, children's stories, and the journals of intellectual opinion that power is used wisely and well to destroy evil. The real world teaches very different lessons, and it takes willful and dedicated ignorance to fail to perceive them.Noam Chomsky reageer retweet
quote:Op vrijdag 13 december 2019 22:23 schreef Klopkoek het volgende:
"In the popular imagination, the case for war was driven by a bunch of Republicans and one over-caffeinated New York Times reporter named Judith Miller. Even the attempts to make comprehensive lists of Iraq cheerleaders post-invasion inevitably focus on usual suspects like Fleischer, current Trump official John Bolton, neoconservatives like Max Boot, David Frum, and Bill Kristol, and winger goons like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. But we expect the worst from such people.
It’s been forgotten this was actually a business-wide consensus, which included the enthusiastic participation of a blue-state intelligentsia. The New Yorker of Remnick, who himself wrote a piece called “Making the Case,” was a source of many of the most ferocious pro-invasion pieces, including a pair written by current Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg, one of a number of WMD hawks who failed up after the war case fell apart. Other prominent Democrat voices like Ezra Klein, Jonathan Chait, and even quasi-skeptic Nick Kristof (who denounced war critics for calling Bush a liar) were on board, as a Full Metal Jacket character put it, “for the big win.”
The Washington Post and New York Times were key editorial-page drivers of the conflict; MSNBC unhired Phil Donahue and Jesse Ventura over their war skepticism; CNN flooded the airwaves with generals and ex-Pentagon stoolies, and broadcast outlets ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS stacked the deck even worse: In a two-week period before the invasion, the networks had just one American guest out of 267 who questioned the war."
https://www.rollingstone.(...)-matt-taibbi-812230/
BILL MOYERS: AND AS THE ADMINISTRATION ORGANIZED TO STRIKE BACK AT THE TERRORISTS, THERE WAS LITTLE TOLERANCE FOR CRITICAL SCRUTINY FROM JOURNALISTS.
WALTER ISAACSON: There was a patriotic fervor and the Administration used it so that if you challenged anything you were made to feel that there was something wrong with that.
BILL MOYERS: Walter Isaacson was then Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CNN.
WALTER ISAACSON: And there was even almost a patriotism police which, you know, they'd be up there on the internet sort of picking anything a Christiane Amanpour, or somebody else would say as if it were disloyal....
BILL MOYERS: We interviewed a former reporter at CNN who had been there through that period. And this reporter said this quote, "Everybody on staff just sort of knew not to push too hard to do stories critical of the Bush Administration."
WALTER ISAACSON: Especially right after 9/11. Especially when the war in Afghanistan is going on. There was a real sense that you don't get that critical of a government that's leading us in war time. SOLDIER: Move out!
BILL MOYERS: WHEN AMERICAN FORCES WENT AFTER THE TERRORIST BASES IN AFGHANISTAN, NETWORK AND CABLE NEWS REPORTED THE CIVILIAN CASUALTIES.THE PATRIOT POLICE CAME KNOCKING.
WALTER ISAACSON: We'd put it on the air and by nature of a 24-hour TV network, it was replaying over and over again. So, you would get phone calls. You would get advertisers. You would get the Administration.
BILL MOYERS: You said pressure from advertisers?
WALTER ISAACSON: Not direct pressure from advertisers, but big people in corporations were calling up and saying, "You're being anti-American here."
https://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/transcript1.html
twitter:JamesOKeefeIII twitterde op zaterdag 21-12-2019 om 02:15:19 Big Tech Elites in Silicon Valley are manipulating algorithms to prevent you from seeing information they don't want you to.They will be censoring our next release, make sure sign up for our dedicated distribution list right now: https://t.co/UvscboEgA8 https://t.co/DeToGOFuGN reageer retweet
|
Forum Opties | |
---|---|
Forumhop: | |
Hop naar: |