Should Social Media be anonymous?

[Marty_d]

You don't think the Kingborough Chronicle will give him a fair go Peter?  (Free local rag).

 

We pick up multiple copies of the KC... they're great for starting the fire.

[nomadpete]

1 hour ago, Marty_d said:

  (Free local rag).

 

We pick up multiple copies of the KC... they're great for starting the fire.

 

Must be the best use of a merdok publickayshun

[pmccarthy]

If I went anonymous on social media I would not know who I was.

[facthunter]

You are an Aeroplane aren't you?  Same as me.   Nev

[willedoo]

12 hours ago, facthunter said:

You are an Aeroplane aren't you?  Same as me.   Nev

Same here. But I'm faster; I can beat you in a race as long as it's in a straight line.

[spacesailor]

Untill .

you Tripp ! .

As I did , then more days,  taking it easy.  LoL

now

spacesailor

 

[facthunter]

Dusty crop hopper was a Misfit.    Nev.

[nomadpete]

Today's ABC headline reads.....

 

"Misinformation posted to Twitter comes from 'superspreader' accounts, say researchers, ....."

 

Would naming all posters help identify and avoid these blatant manipulations of public opinion?

 

Alternatively, what will? This aspect of social media has destroyed the concept of 'free journalism' which once was a vital provider of information to the voting public. Old fashioned newspapers once had the author's name at the top of all opinion pieces.

Currently, voters are swayed (bombarded) by unsubstantiated anonymous untrustworthy stuff.

[willedoo]

My niece did a journalism degree at university. Post grad, she worked in the industry less than a year and gave it away. I think she got a real shock when she found out how much BS is in the industry. And that was quite a few years ago; it would be a few times worse than that now.

 

One growing trend I don't like is whole articles presented as news, but halfway through the article they state " according to X user (insert name here)". If they are just reporting what a user posted on Xcrement they should state that at the top of the article and what the persons qualifications are. For context, they don't report what any old Joe Blow is saying on X but are hoovering news (?) content from known accounts involved with political commentary or war reporting. With higher tier accounts of politicians and people of public note, we all know who they are but with a lot of these medium tier regular commentators or social media news reporters a bit of research has to be done to find out how qualified they are. A lot of what they post is unverified; it may be accurate, it may be not.

 

A section of the MSM is often to lazy to do their own research, fact checking and investigative journalism. They find it too easy to borrow commentary or unverified speculative claims from places like X (formally Twitter) accounts, and the lack of verification doesn't present a problem for them because of the ADD type 24 hour news cycle. The truth is most people don't care if it wasn't proven to be true yesterday. Yesterday's news is just that; most of the audience is busy moving on to today's serving of candy. The lazy media outlets know that and use it as a business model. The goal is not to present quality journalism but to find and dish up bulk content. Add on inaccurate, misleading click bait headers and you have viewers or readers flowing in and being exposed to the accompanying advertising which is where the money is.

 

Most of the game now is about padding out content and dressing it up so that the gullible public picks theirs. There's a lot of advertising money up for grabs these days to make the media game very lucrative but also very cut-throat and competitive. There's a big pie there and media outlets all want the biggest slice. As far as our 24 hour serving of news goes, it's like we, the suckers, are a big mob of monkeys and above us are lined up different individual zoo keepers dangling their own brand of banana and hoping the monkey mob will pick their flavour. It's sad really, and pathetic in the extreme.

[willedoo]

As far as Twitter superspreader accounts goes, how do they regulate it and clean it up when Comrade Musk happily allows it on his toy platform. In a perfect world, Elon would tire of his new toy and sell it to someone responsible, but his ego wouldn't let him. For him, buying Twitter was a vanity project and a means to push his distasteful political views and boost accounts of the like minded. Move Twitter way to the right was the goal and the misinformation accounts slide right in. Musk wouldn't care if there was bullshit written on Twitter and particularly so as he's up there with the worst offenders.

 

Despots and authoritarian regimes love it. Superspreader accounts can influence their enemy's public opinion and elections. The Kremlin for example use the 60/40 Goebbles propaganda method. Dish up 60% of true content to gain the trust of the people. The other 40% is mainly BS and aimed at the people who don't believe the 60% truth. Feed them BS, conspiracy bait and any other garbage that will gain the trust of the disgruntled. Once you have the 40% on board, use them to influence and undermine the 60%. It's a simple method of spreading and growing propaganda and it works.

[facthunter]

Profiting from intentional deceit is FRAUD.. Nev

[pmccarthy]

As an experiment I just asked ChatGTP to rewrite Wille's post in Australian. Here is the response:

 

When it comes to Twitter superspreader accounts, how do they clean up the mess when old mate Musk is letting it all run wild on his plaything? In an ideal world, Elon would get bored of his new toy and flog it off to someone who knows what they're doing, but his ego’s too big for that. For him, buying Twitter was all about showing off and pushing his dodgy political views, boosting accounts that think like him. Shifting Twitter way to the right was the plan, letting all the misinformation accounts slide right in. Musk wouldn’t give a rat's if there was rubbish posted on Twitter, especially since he's one of the worst culprits himself.

Despots and authoritarian mobs love it. Superspreader accounts can sway public opinion and elections in their enemies’ countries. Take the Kremlin, for instance—they use the 60/40 Goebbels propaganda trick. Dish out 60% legit content to win people’s trust, then the other 40% is mostly BS aimed at those who don’t buy the 60% truth. Feed them rubbish, conspiracy theories, and any other garbage to win over the disgruntled. Once you’ve got that 40% on side, use them to mess with and influence the 60%. It’s a simple but effective way of spreading propaganda, and it works a treat.

[ClintonB]

On 19/5/2024 at 10:22 PM, Marty_d said:

Interesting side thought,  if you could snap your fingers / rub a genie and make it impossible for any politician,  anywhere,  to lie, obfuscate, mislead or cloud the issue - would it be better or worse for the world?

Makes me think of Jim Carey in liar liar. Truth is good, but hurtful at the same time. Double edged sword, do you really want to answer “ does my butt look big in these jeans” truthfully

[nomadpete]

7 hours ago, ClintonB said:

Makes me think of Jim Carey in liar liar. Truth is good, but hurtful at the same time. Double edged sword, do you really want to answer “ does my butt look big in these jeans” truthfully

We would all get used to it. Then those with big butts in jeans would already admit the truth to themselves, thereby relieving thousands of husbands from that dilemma of avoiding to answer.

[red750]

10 hours ago, ClintonB said:

“ does my butt look big in these jeans”

From a lot of photos flooding Facebook, that seems to be desirable.

 

[willedoo]

On 19/05/2024 at 10:22 PM, Marty_d said:

Interesting side thought,  if you could snap your fingers / rub a genie and make it impossible for any politician,  anywhere,  to lie, obfuscate, mislead or cloud the issue - would it be better or worse for the world?

I thought you were supposed to rub the bottle. Then again, Barbara Eden comes to mind.

[facthunter]

Why pick on Politicians? They are very scrutinised. It's the MEDIA that cover up for them because that arrangement suits ONE side of Politics  in Particular and while that situation exists nothing will change.    K Rudd got a sizeable petition up and ever since he gets attacked..  Nev

[Marty_d]

3 hours ago, willedoo said:

I thought you were supposed to rub the bottle. Then again, Barbara Eden comes to mind.

That was a deliberate trap. 😁

[spacesailor]

Politicians can never say, 'yes or no' , to any question they get asked .

spacesailor

Edited May 25 by spacesailor

[Jerry_Atrick]

To be fair, a lot of questions that they are asked for a yes or no answer are more nuanced than a simple yes or no; But thee are times where they go nowhere near answering the question,

[Bruce Tuncks]

I'd fix things with the stroke of a legislative pen. Those promulgating lies are legally liable for the harm that they cause, and poor people are helped to legally complain.

ANYWAY, I once read that "more than an hour a day of screen time constituted child abuse." When I passed this on to the 12 y/o grand-daughter,  I got a dirty look.

[nomadpete]

36 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I'd fix things with the stroke of a legislative pen. Those promulgating lies are legally liable for the harm that they cause, and poor people are helped to legally complain.

ANYWAY, I once read that "more than an hour a day of screen time constituted child abuse." When I passed this on to the 12 y/o grand-daughter,  I got a dirty look.

Is that only for politicians on MSM, or would it also apply to their hangars-on who spruik on their behalf?

[Bruce Tuncks]

good point nomad. Personally, I would apply it unequally depending on the proportion of guilt. ( the compensation, I mean.)

[Bruce Tuncks]

Prince Charles once rubbed a bottle and got a genii out. A long time ago huh, he was "only" a prince back then.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Is genii plural?  Have I made a mistake?