Russia offered Taliban bounty to kill UK and US soldiers

Originally posted by snowdragon
I can believe that, I've also spoken against FB and how its data is collected and essentially able to be rented/sold to advertisers. I advertise for clients on FB and Google everyday, FB is the worst though.

It also doesn't change the narrative of how media has been used to setup missinformation starting with our mainstream insitituions of "news."

Originally posted by Surtur
Despite the former getting shit wrong far more often than the latter 🙂

👆

Originally posted by Surtur
Despite the former getting shit wrong far more often than the latter 🙂

Originally posted by Surtur
You'd think the whole "WMD" debacle would maybe make these people hesitate when it comes to parroting unconfirmed claims from these officials who are too cowardly to even put their name on record.

But that would require the ability to learn and adapt.

WMDs? You mean the WMDs that we did find in Iraq that only made a minor blip in the news when they were discovered after being told for years that there were no WMDs in Iraq?

The WMDs that were found and the NYT wrote an article on it back in 2014 or something?

Those WMDs?

No, this is not a joke. That's the power of the MSM - they had us believing the "there are no WMDs" narrative so much that almost no one, even conservatives like you, knows that we actually did find large amounts of WMDs in Iraq.

Originally posted by dadudemon
WMDs? You mean the WMDs that we did find in Iraq that only made a minor blip in the news when they were discovered after being told for years that there were no WMDs in Iraq?

The WMDs that were found and the NYT wrote an article on it back in 2014 or something?

Those WMDs?

No, this is not a joke. That's the power of the MSM - they had us believing the "there are no WMDs" narrative so much that almost no one, even conservatives like you, knows that we actually did find large amounts of WMDs in Iraq.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I'm gen X what's your point.

Baby boomers were born between 1944 and 1964.

https://www.kasasa.com/articles/generations/gen-x-gen-y-gen-z

Originally posted by dadudemon
WMDs? You mean the WMDs that we did find in Iraq that only made a minor blip in the news when they were discovered after being told for years that there were no WMDs in Iraq?

The WMDs that were found and the NYT wrote an article on it back in 2014 or something?

Those WMDs?

No, this is not a joke. That's the power of the MSM - they had us believing the "there are no WMDs" narrative so much that almost no one, even conservatives like you, knows that we actually did find large amounts of WMDs in Iraq.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
if you understand how facebook and youtube are manipulated you know they are inherently more insidious than the MSM, you also understand how they normalised the abnormal.

I find that the vast majority of facebook/youtube etc are inocuous, that's not to say that some aren't but generally the villians and I'm going to use the ADL version are easily scoped out and easy to avoid.

One of the reasons is FB is impression style marketing/ads, in other words based on history/demographics you are presented material you can click on or not.

Youtube/Google is search/keyword (not that fb isn't keyword driven but its not search oriented.) which means generally to find content you have to look it up and youtube/google can and do change their algorithims without warning and put prefences to whats shown.

Our insititutions that provide news are supposed to be bedrocks of truth and information and we know that to be false yet they are supported as such with a fantastic amount of opinion "news."

Of course we have the aggregate "news" sources that generally pick stories to fit the narrative of whichever side they want to push. They generally use the insititutional sources for siting material.

So in as far as insidious is concerned, I think our instititutions are far more insidisious pretedning to be good faith actors while undermining facts to provide narratives.

Originally posted by snowdragon
I find that the vast majority of facebook/youtube etc are inocuous, that's not to say that some aren't but generally the villians and I'm going to use the ADL version are easily scoped out and easy to avoid.

One of the reasons is FB is impression style marketing/ads, in other words based on history/demographics you are presented material you can click on or not.

Youtube/Google is search/keyword (not that fb isn't keyword driven but its not search oriented.) which means generally to find content you have to look it up and youtube/google can and do change their algorithims without warning and put prefences to whats shown.

Our insititutions that provide news are supposed to be bedrocks of truth and information and we know that to be false yet they are supported as such with a fantastic amount of opinion "news."

Of course we have the aggregate "news" sources that generally pick stories to fit the narrative of whichever side they want to push. They generally use the insititutional sources for siting material.

So in as far as insidious is concerned, I think our instititutions are far more insidisious pretedning to be good faith actors while undermining facts to provide narratives.

Do you have Alt right nightmares and thats why it’s the only ting you can parrot?

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
The algorithms actively pick keywords, it is easy to pull people down rabbit holes, the Alt-right know this and target the already vulnerable.

This is another topic I've talked about at length as well, keyword marketing narrative building works on both sides.

But here is the difference in this disucssion between you and I. I think the alt right is dangerous and it's also exceptionally easy to pick them out and call out said behavior, to ban posts/forums/videos (which happens I just posted yesterday about reddit and youtube.) The same cannot be said about the left due to indoctrination and it's current authoritarian choke hold on much of our social system. You seem to believe the left is right because it's simply not the right.

If you want to test this we can do a simple exercise using this site:

https://answerthepublic.com/

It will create long tail keywords, associated keywords, websites etc to see what your rabbit hole means.

Originally posted by snowdragon
This is another topic I've talked about at length as well, keyword marketing narrative building works on both sides.

But here is the difference in this disucssion between you and I. I think the alt right is dangerous and it's also exceptionally easy to pick them out and call out said behavior, to ban posts/forums/videos (which happens I just posted yesterday about reddit and youtube.) The same cannot be said about the left due to indoctrination and it's current authoritarian choke hold on much of our social system. You seem to believe the left is right because it's simply not the right.

If you want to test this we can do a simple exercise using this site:

https://answerthepublic.com/

It will create long tail keywords, associated keywords, websites etc to see what your rabbit hole means.

I tried that site out.

It took me down a rabbit hole of authoritarian leftist results for chicken pot pie:

Yet, somehow, I ended up a Nazi.

haermm

Install vidIQ and go wild with that tool on youtube next........the wabbit hole will be scary!

The false equalization going on is hilarious.

Originally posted by dadudemon
WMDs? You mean the WMDs that we did find in Iraq that only made a minor blip in the news when they were discovered after being told for years that there were no WMDs in Iraq?

The WMDs that were found and the NYT wrote an article on it back in 2014 or something?

Those WMDs?

No, this is not a joke. That's the power of the MSM - they had us believing the "there are no WMDs" narrative so much that almost no one, even conservatives like you, knows that we actually did find large amounts of WMDs in Iraq.

That's a hell of a claim to make without a link. Can't find anything on Google except confirming there was nothing.

Surely the Government could have announced a press conference to confirm when the first weapons were discovered. Media can't spin that.

So your original position is :

Disagree, I think the misinformation tends to come from Trump and his supporters.

You believe FB is currupt and most people are getting their news from FB and yet we found:

55% of adults get their news from social media and of that 55% , 52% get their news from FB.

Which you were incorrect in believing so you shifted the posts to algorithims which you also seem to assume works one direction which it clearly doesn't, because you clearly understand propoganda:

It's only silly if you don't understand the way the algorithms and propaganda.

Which brings me back to my original position:

Since Trump has been elected it seems as though many in our media/news outlets have gone to great lengths to provide one of the greatest misinformation campaigns ever to undermine action in the USA with great support from our elected officials.

You never disproved this, you kept moving goal posts and datapoints that were proved you were wrong.

The false equalization going on is hilarious.

I understand why this is your position because you can't substantiate your original claim regarding news.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
That's a hell of a claim to make without a link. Can't find anything on Google except confirming there was nothing.

Scrap this. Just found a 2014 NYT article on it:

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/10/16/new-york-times-reports-wmd-found-in-iraq?context=amp

I dont think this quite justifies what the intelligence promised though. Which was stock piles.

Like the article says, Bush and Cheney would have been all over this running it in.

Originally posted by snowdragon
So your original position is :

Because:

You believe FB is currupt and most people are getting their news from FB and yet we found:

Which you were incorrect in believing so you shifted the posts to algorithims which you also seem to assume works one direction which it clearly doesn't, because you clearly understand propoganda:

Which brings me back to my original position:

You never disproved this, you kept moving goal posts and datapoints that were proved you were wrong.

I understand why this is your position because you can't substantiate your original claim regarding news.

A congressional panel is requesting info into this. IMO, it's probably going to be what was already mentioned and McEnany dodged over, Trump was given the info in written form but not personally briefed on it.

He should really read more.

Originally posted by Robtard
A congressional panel is requesting info into this. IMO, it's probably going to be what was already mentioned and McEnany dodged over, Trump was given the info in written form but not personally briefed on it.

He should really read more.