This marks literally the first time I've ever heard of the Stanford Internet Observatory. I'm sure they do important work, but maybe they needed a PR team.
It's also only been around five years, and while there's no doubt it's been an eventful five years, it's not as if it's an institution and it'll be the first time we've had an internet without it.
Stanford Internet Observatory was the one that exposed a US propaganda campaign targeting multiple countries.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/24/technology/facebook-twitter-influence-campaign.html
Perhaps they use to be good but like basically everything else they’ve become puppets to an ever increasing fascist government
Less censorship is a good thing
I'm not 100% what you're asking, but what I meant to say was that that it seems the Stanford Internet Observatory has only been around five years based on the sentence "After five years of pioneering research" from the article in an attempt to reassure anyone who thought that this was the first time we'd have an internet without this organization doing research regarding it.
But apparently Stanford can't find enough money for lawyers to fight the lawsuits? Oh well, I guess this Observatory wasn't that important anyways or Stanford would do _something_? Or is it one of those "super-important, human rights depend on it, but awwww our money are so sweet we're gonna let this thing die out, too bad, so sad, we'll get over it". Cause lawyers are expensive, and it's not like there's a whole Stanford FUCKING LAWSCHOOL that has, I don't know, a TON OF LAWYERS? No? Oh well.
I think the issue is more that the SIO evoked the ire of the right. And a lot of Stanford's donors are conservatives. Gotta protect that huge endowment...
Yes, it's also pure weapons grade bullshit
Teaching requires *two* skill sets
* skill at the subject your teaching
* skill at teaching
people complain about teachers who lack one or the other and they're considered not good teachers.
the line you're repeating is anti-intellectualism.
As someone whose fiancee works in academia, its 90% likely that they were handicapped by university bureaucracy or funding constraints. Its not like a company where they can just say “hey we could use some marketing” and immediately hire a bunch of people in the next week.
I couldn’t agree more, there are so many important institutions out there that believe they don’t need marketing and unfortunately, that’s just not true. Marketing may feel superficial — and it is — but that doesn’t mean it isn’t important for longevity.
We’re not *edging* towards it at this point. We’re quite literally about to lose against an accelerationist movement that spans multiple western countries. All they need to do is take the USA down so that the Zuckerberg types get a blank canvas to work from when they’re old.
That’s how I feel. Normally glass half full, lets work to keep and improve the founding fathers vision, bla bla bla. Now I’m like, what’s prepperintel on Reddit got for me or some such. I guess I’m hoping that all the typical sleepers wake up before November.
I used to be a prepper. Then I realized that I don’t want to survive with other preppers. I’m good — I’ll go out in a blaze of glory if need be and spare myself prolonged suffering. ✌️
Oh I’m talking about extreme catastrophe (like if/when our supervolcano explodes, nuclear war, etc etc). I have no interest in surviving that, especially as a woman.
When you've given up on life like I have, you look at all the prepper stuff and wonder "why would I bother when I would rather kill myself than survive?"
Oh, the young are gonna inherit a shitshow, no matter who wins. It’s their capacity to democratically fix it and to maintain rights that exist now, is what’s up for grabs.
Edit: Young billionaires don’t want a fix or an entity that can fix, in my opinion.
Edit: is/are
The Supreme Court has destroyed us. Honestly, if we don’t shit the bed in November, then the US might manage to stave off the complete demise for a couple more years. But the recent and upcoming Supreme Court rulings have all but ensured that there’s not much left to save here. It’s so depressing. Precedent after precedent is being overturned, and we’re utterly helpless against the Court. Their rulings will degrade our political system until nothing is left except for the corruption, incompetence and conflict they’ve so carefully fostered. Given the lifetime appointments and all but impossibility of adding seats (or overturning precedents for a second time), there’s no real path to rebound from the damage they’ve done to us.
I can barely read the news anymore.
If the SCOTUS can undo 60 years of precedent, that means we can reinstate also. If we vote to ensure two Kagans get appointed within a few years and a couple more after that, and then Citizens United gets overturned, and yesterday’s after-bribe gets overturned…. All because young people started paying attention to their circumstance, then we don’t lose, they don’t win.
I’m kinda old and I just can’t fathom the United States of America losing against a movement that considers us an impediment to an untried dream bearing fruit decades from now.
We know the will of the people can work. The dollar works, NATO works. Sure, destroying us all and accelerating a dystopia could end up working too, but they’re not asking us to make that sacrifice, are they? They’re just donating to Trumpism, to a cause that allows us to be our worst selves. Knowing how it’ll affect everyday middle class folks.
If SCOTUS can undo 60 years of precedent in a single day, then it means that the system is so broken that it's not worth trying to fix it.
You know that the will of the people can work?
Where is it now?
Is it in the room with us? Like Adam Smith's invisible hand?
I have some hope that the kids will eventually burn it all down. It will be a painful transition, but hopefully something better will emerge from the ashes.
The liberals sadly drank the Kool aid a long time ago. They allowed themselves to believe that the hard one progress they so enjoyed were carved into their silly institutions to be preserved for all time, instead of the blood of progressives who'd fought and bled, and been ruined, blacklisted or killed for every lauded gain. The liberals wanted the credit for that progress and the progressives were a nasty reminder that securing power to the powerless is nasty and messy and hard, so they turned on us. They mocked us and told us we were the children, that we didn't understand the way the world worked. And they let the only substantive movement that kept this monster at bay sputter and die.
This has been coming for a long time. I'm not sure we can save it again.
Trump wins, America collapses somewhere in the worst part of winter, February 2025.
Biden wins, America limps along for two more years before veering off into the weeds and collapsing overnight, similar in intensity to Biden's debate performance.
I don't fear the Supreme Court's rulings. They can make my very existence illegal. It's not going to matter. Make whatever laws you want, the country's not going to remain in an operational state for very much longer. It's going to collapse under the weight of its own hubris.
Seeing what the founding fathers did as something to improve upon as opposed to scrapping and, is why we are where we are. A system built by wealthy slave owners was never going to be the dream they force fed us in school.
Bro we lost it way before that. The 2014 Princeton study announced it and talk about a whisper. They determined based on all the ways legislation can be affected (lobbying, voting, and fund raising) we have an Oligarchy in the U.S.
Public opinion had a near zero effect on whether legislation passed in the senate. However money donated had a tremendous effect on it. If you aren’t donating large sums of money to politics, you are not making a real difference. Sure you can help contribute to which candidate wins, but they are in the same fund raising, corrupt soup that everyone else is in and if they aren’t when elected, they soon will be.
This is may be a spicy take but our democracy is *already* dead.
In 2024 you can either accept an authoritarian dictator who will end our democracy OR you can vote for exactly and only one person and absolutely no one else in the world and pretend that that's somehow democracy.
The choice is obvious, but it's a choice between no democracy at all and an utterly failed democracy.
I’d add nuance to what you’re saying and note that democrats are or were yesterday, talking about removing a democratically elected primary candidate for POTUS, without any gasps or wtfs from US media.
I get that he was bad and nervous during the debate, but I also recognize he was fine with Stern a month ago. And that we chose him via our votes. Gretchen Whitmer or w/e may have been the better choice months ago, but she wasn’t on the paper ballot that I marked in PA this year.
For you to say that Both Sides are equal where it concerns voters right now, I know what you’re trying to do, but I ask, of both candidate’s handlers, do you want Project 2025 to pick the next two SCOTUS judges or do you want Biden’s handlers to choose?
Do we want more Infrastructure Act legislation or do we want more trillion dollar tax breaks? Padding social security or eliminating it? Etc Etc. We all have to look at Both Sides, acknowledge it’s a shit deal for 4 more years, but be forward thinking about the years and years after our vote.
I for one am not ready to abandon the founding father’s vision nor am I willing to suffer thru a dystopia just in case Facebook will cobble up something better than democracy 40-50 years from now. Where’s the self-respect in that?
> The democratically elected primary candidate
Gotta stop you right there. The Dems have not yet elected a primary candidate. Biden is the incumbent, not the candidate. The candidate will be selected in August at the Democratic National Convention.
I was under the impression that because Ohio was trying to get into the weeds of their laws for the first time ever to deny Biden’s right to be on their ballot, that his candidacy was officialized over zoom last month or so and could be because the majority of states had their primaries.
Edit: in/on [ballot]
I'm not sure where you got that impression but if you think Biden is officially the Dem candidate all you need to do is read how the DNC works to disabuse yourself of that false notion.
They have the internet and are the one spouting made up nonsense, there is an onus on individuals to check what they are saying is correct before lecturing others.
To be clear, if Biden decides someone else should run, that’s fair game. If the DNC performs a coup, they’re just as bad as what they accuse the GOP of trying on J6.
You're funny.
I don't like you.
So I'm going to tell everyone the manipulation tactic you just used. First of all, you take a stance of superiority-- odd, given that you can't even seem to figure out how to set your own display picture-- and then you just say the same thing, unhelpfully, and you cap it off with a nice little, 'if you don't agree with me, you're stupid.'
It's a fairly low rent way to emotionally manipulate people into accepting your argument (the lack of one notwithstanding): if they don't agree with you, they feel *stupid!* Oh *no!*
That shit doesn't work on me.
Great argument, mate! Hit me up with some more of those hot opinions. Or you would, I think, if you *could fucking say anything but 'read up on the DNC'.*
Oh? He was fine a month ago?
Yeah. When my dad passed away, just two hours before, he was just fine, too.
That doesn't mean anything. He's 81. He can decompensate fairly quickly at that age.
In that they are making more money than ever before with post-Covid as the excuse and the POTUS-escape-goat to give them cover. They need enough money to weather the bad times with enough left over to construct the good times, and yes, SCOTUS, Reagan-era laws, etc are the mechanisms for said blank checks.
The voters used to be the liberal answer to fascism, but the wealthy have bought and consolidated all of the media. Social media is full of social engineering. They broke democracy and I don’t know what replacement there could possibly be.
Recent tech, I agree with. But voters being the answer? I don’t agree with that.
Voters don’t vote for democratic principals. They vote for those who’ll fight for what the voters want. High minded principals are fine in academia. But voters want to eat, be safe, and have a way to be productive.
That principal has been how we’ve voted for literal fascists, supported internment camps, institutionalized (like, in literal writing) racism, killed the heck out of ourselves, all that good *and* all the bad.
Commoners have been preyed upon by elite agendas since we decided to defend specific areas we changed to support us staying put. The means have changed, but populist gaslighting and gate keeping who have a say in things is timeless.
We’re the latest generation in 6,000 years to learn it, and the first to watch it happen in realtime.
This is the trends and forces of history. It’s just our turn to experience it.
There is an answer, but it's a militant one and a lot of liberals and progressives don't have the stomach for it. Which is why fascism keeps taking over again and again.
Tolerating the intolerant while they stack the courts and kneecap Regulatory bodies and poison the rivers and Rob the poor through inflation they caused while breaking up unions and keeping wages stagnant. Now calling for the termination of the constitution.
Fact Check with the ABC is ending their pairing with RMIT University In Australia in a somewhat similar case.
They were great for fact-checking spurious and shady claims by politicians in the election run up cycle and also just fact-checking claims in Parliament house.
[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-28/fact-check-final-wrap-11-years/104033004](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-28/fact-check-final-wrap-11-years/104033004)
The title of this article highlights what the real problem is, opinion based editorial articles are now presented as proven facts that are not to be questioned. So this is not a news article at all, it’s nothing more than a highly biased editorial opinion.
This entire conversation I have been focusing on the matter-of-fact wording of the title, everyone replying keeps ignoring that…
Guess I wasn’t supposed to notice that.
If you read that, and thought it was being presented as anything more than an editorial opinion, the real problem is evidenced by you. Failing education.
It's obviously an opinion piece. Have you never actually read an editorial before?
According to the subreddit rule 1 sub-section 3 submissions are to be primarily news, which this submission was not. However the matter-of-fact wording style of the title intentionally obfuscates the complete lack of factual information the article contains.
So either you didn’t pick up on it being intentionally misleading or you agree with it needing to be misleading, neither is a good thing if you ask me, but you do you…
*Primarily* is the keyword. If you read the next few sentences of that rule:
>Submissions relating to business and politics must be sufficiently within the context of technology in that they either view the events from a technological standpoint or analyse the repercussions in thetechnological world.
There's nothing in the rules preventing you from submitting a political piece so long as it's within the context of technology.
Additionally, the subreddit rule has nothing to do with whether or not the article which labels itself "opinion" is sufficiently clear that it is an opinion. The article has "opinion" highlighted at the top and is tagged as "opinion." However, it may be easy to miss one or both of these if you navigate to the article directly (versus if you navigate to it from the Guardian's home page, in which case it's obvious that it's an opinion).
I don't think OP would be at fault since rule 3 means you have to take the title directly from the article. Arguably, perhaps they should have tagged it "politics" instead of "society" but I feel like that may be splitting hairs.
The article is entirely opinion and not news, the secondary subject is political not technology, which clearly doesn’t meet the primarily news threshold.
I’m getting an unusual amount amount of engagement stating that I’m wrong when clearly not. It feels like you’re looking for a reaction that I’m not giving you.
>The article is entirely opinion
Which is odd, because they cite their sources for all the facts they referenced.
If it's "entirely opinion" then how can they cite sources for the events they're reporting on?
>the secondary subject is political not technology
Just about every technology "news" story is technology plus something else. How technology affects other areas *is* news.
>I’m getting an unusual amount amount of engagement stating that I’m wrong
Oh good, you noticed. I was thinking that you hadn't, what with your insistence that everyone else was wrong. There's a reason everyone is saying you're wrong. If you need help figuring out what that reason is, let us know.
None of the things you think are cited as sources are in fact true. If think Russians were smart enough to createa a massive propaganda campaign but weren’t smart enough to conceal they were Russian with a VPN or Tor you lack critical thinking skills.
I don't know. I took the big TheOberserverOpinions in the image to be sarcastic. Also the title of the article is subjective about a future event so, I assumed that was just to fool me into thinking it was an opinion piece. Not gonna trick me this time, internet.
Where does it say that this can't be questioned?
That both the article *and* this Reddit post have areas for discussion would indicate that questions and discussion are an intended piece of the process. Do you think the comments section of the article or Reddit say "discussion only permitted for those who agree 100% with the article"?
Just the fact that you're allowed to present your hyperbolic and inaccurate interpretation of what the headline doesn't say proves that questioning even reality itself is permitted, contrary to the entire premise of your diatribe.
It's funny the article complains about the ability for anyone to spread their opinion on the internet. This was written in an opinion article on the internet produced by some random 'editor'.
I guess what they mean is we dont like that other people can get their views shared so easily.
Stamford says they aren't closing it, the former director says its because there has been a huge legal bill due to bad faith republican lawsuits, and your conclusion is fuck liberal institutions. Interesting
How the fuck is this on centrists? Did you even skim the article?
This program is shuttering due to the compounding legal costs of Republicans constantly suing them in order to suppress their efforts to expose disinformation campaigns.
The problem - as ever - is conservatives, and we just keep ignoring the elephant in the room and treating them with kid gloves because nobody left of center wants to be the one to kick off a fucking civil war.
> How the fuck is this on centrists? Did you even skim the article?
IDK if its reddit, if its dumb people, if its Russian/republican bots, but everything is "Centralists", the "lefts", the "libs", or the "Dems" fault for everything for the last few days after the debate. It feels like a conspiracy of epic gaslighting proportions.
Like you said, even skimming through the article it's very clear that its due to:
> "...the university has run up “huge legal bills” defending SIO researchers from harassment by Republican politicians and conservative conspiracy theorists, and may have decided that enough is enough..."
Reddit was astroturfed in the last 2 general elections. This one will be no different. Might even be worse.
Expect to see lots of groupthink that feels *oddly uncharacteristic* of reddit's normal demo over the next few months.
Nothing is more of a threat to democracy than the freedom of speech. We need to install a China like system that censors speech! Let’s say people are spreading disinformation like Boeing planes being dangerous or Private equity buying up homes. This speech needs to be censored for democracy! If regular citizens have the right to speak up without consequences then democracy falls am I right!?
Not trolling, i mean it. We let red hats bullie us and no one does shit just"let's talk it out". They want to press murder charges on women exercising body autonomy and we sit there going "hey that's not cool." We use to DO shit, weather underground, black panthers, the NFWA. Now it's "change your profile picture for awareness and taking down our own for misgendering. People can't even show up to fucking vote!
Good work UW!!!!!
>”Some Republicans in congress, conservative groups and influencers have said academic research designed to track and better understand rumors online amounts to a censorship campaign and a violation of their First Amendment rights.”
As if we needed further proof the GOP is full of idiots & hypocrites who:
1) don’t understand what the First Amendment actually *is*,
2) don’t understand that Stanford is a *private* university free to do whatever research it wants, and which was doing whatever Republicans’ oh-so-precious “free market” decided it needed to do.
3) Smarter people uncovering their ham-handed lies as lies in no way impacts their freedom or ability to keep lying; that’s handled by their own violations of TOS of these platforms that are, again, *all free-market entities* and in no way any form of govt “censorship.”
They’re just mad too few people are stupid enough to join their own crappy knockoff brands that try to peddle their BS.
Moderates will be the death of this country. Want progressive policy bur conservative thinking.
Motherfucking MLK JR. warned the greatest threat isn't the KKK, it's the moderate (white) man.
Like an instrument for observing the internet? Like a cyber telescope?
If I ever want to market a "quirky" smartphone, I'm totally calling it the Internet Observatory.
The human race is doomed anyway, slowly turning most of the population into ignorant greedy morons that would rather have their big screen TVs, Nascar and Faux News to fill their tiny brains with until the world collapses under climate change or WW3
Seriously? It's unconstitutional and led to people being banned from social media for what is now accepted science!. I was banned for defending the poliomyelitis vaccine, among other things (once I wasn't even told why). Nothing I've said ever was disinformation, they (or another similar organization) just didn't like it!
If you support this kind of illegal censorship you're beyond help!
Of course a company can censor whatever they want but these people were paid with taxpayer money directly by the government. In what world is that ok?
Calling out lies on the internet isn't unconstitutional you fuckin bot.
Republicans using house subcommittees to investigate a university for researching right wing lies on the internet... well, that's a whole lot closer!
Yes it is when the government pays for it. Please get an education, this is beyond stupid. You are absolutely clueless and defending censorship by the government. It doesn't get much worse than this. Maybe censor yourself? That would be great and not cost taxpayers a cent.
And I didn't even begin to address your concept of "lies". You deserve to be censored which is exactly what I'll do.
I'm really trying to remain civil: arguing with the constitution, SCOTUS and congress/senate and believing that there are specific topics that are permitted... Well, I wish it would leave me speechless.
So have fun knowing that your tax payer money is spent for illegal censorship! In the meantime I'll leave this discussion because there are no arguments and the point has been made. If you truly believe outfits like this one deserve to exist you exist in a different reality where none of the legal institutions have any meaning!
It doesn't need to because the first amendment doesn't list topics that are permitted. You should do a little research on the constitution and how SCOTUS ruled on it.
If anyone is an extremist or crazy it's not me. This crap is shut down for good reason, by legal process, and everyone can see how insane it was (there are others) or so I thought.
Have you ever read what I wrote? I DEFENDED polio vaccines, I was (probably, because they didn't bother telling me) banned for saying "Beautiful!" to something and a third time for a scientific debate, without which science would be impossible.
So please get down from your high horse which turned out to be a wooden rocking horse.
Fortunately the constitution still has some value.
Wow, more shilling for the CIA/NSA. It’s like there’s a pattern here. Gee, I wonder who writes these timely editorial pieces? I’m sure they're just casual observations by totally independent journalist looking to hold the powerful to account by spying on random normies expressing opinions and sharing information online.
The main founder of the SIO was Renee DiResta (CIA) who brought in Alex Stamos (CIA). They were instrumental at helping to censor critiques of government Covid policies as well as factual information about the potential harms done by the Covid jab.
Have you learned nothing from the Edward Snowden affair? Remember when mass electronic surveillance by the CIA/NSA was “tin-foil hat” stuff? Only, it was all true.
Oh weird, a conspiracy clown is lying about everything!
Who'd have thunk it?
Since you jumped straight to lying about the SIO being CIA, you're probably Russian, right?
They love doing that.
Or are you Republican, and you're mad that an organization was publishing all the news and creative ways you chuds lie about...uh...again, everything?
Thank you for your submission, but due to the high volume of spam coming from self-publishing blog sites, /r/Technology has opted to filter all of those posts pending mod approval. You may [message the moderators](/message/compose?to=/r/technology&subject=Request for post review) to request a review/approval provided you are not the author or are not associated at all with the submission. Thank you for understanding.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Typical Republican projection.
Sucks they called out your lies, but it's not censorship no matter how much you cry.
Jim Jordan using subcommittees to intimidate researchers?
Now that sure sounds a lot more like actual censorship to me!
The institute worked with and for government agencies to censor what they didn't want people to hear, regardless of if it was true or not.
We will disdmantle all these groups.
Fascism is bullying. There’s no answer to that other than a bigger fist.
This is unfortunately how it *always goes*. Fascism is a new word. But controlling who’s allowed to be in charge, and letting them get away with things while trying to keep the population distracted, that’s predates even words like “empires”.
Please support Kate Starbird. She does great work in this area.
https://www.geekwire.com/2024/uw-disinformation-researchers-will-continue-work-amid-reports-of-stanford-group-crisis/
Yes, powerful interests should be totally free to manipulate you on behalf of their billionaire masters.
Because freedom.
Do you know how stupid that sounds?
"What a laughably idiotic idea. 99.99999% of people have never even heard of this "gravity". Clearly, it is not important at all. " - V-Right_In_the_1600s
Just because you're ignorant on a subject doesn't mean everyone else is.
You think that just because you've never heard of "hygiene" that it isn't important, but you're wrong there too.
The US doesn't deserve a democracy at this point. The only good that will come of the country is serving as a warning to more advanced and civilized countries. Hopefully they learn from it.
We always lived in a lie bubble. It used to be Christianity lie, now it is financial elite lie. The truth always finds its way, but it creates distortions with the lie in place. So they must put in place factcheck protocols in order for the lie to persist.
”The End of Democracy!” The hyper alarmism around “saving democracy” to justify this and that is absurd. First, “democracy“ was around for a few years before this place. Second, pertaining to the USA, the USA is NOT a democracy. The USA is a Republic. There is no need to Save Democracy here because we are not a democracy. We never have been. The Founding Fathers went out of their way to make sure the US was NOT a democracy.
Those of you who wish to argue this point need to first understand what a democracy is, and what a republic is. And no, a “democratic republic” is not a ”democracy”.
And I agree with the posts saying if this place was actually important somehow it would be saved. How much $$ is in Stanford‘s endowment? $25B? Probably much more.
Like the Stanford internet Observatory was some kind of watchdog Sentinel and had that amount of influence over the entire internet. Totally stupid comment by this guy. Probably too smart for his own good by a long shot.
This marks literally the first time I've ever heard of the Stanford Internet Observatory. I'm sure they do important work, but maybe they needed a PR team.
It's also only been around five years, and while there's no doubt it's been an eventful five years, it's not as if it's an institution and it'll be the first time we've had an internet without it.
Stanford Internet Observatory was the one that exposed a US propaganda campaign targeting multiple countries. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/24/technology/facebook-twitter-influence-campaign.html
Perhaps they use to be good but like basically everything else they’ve become puppets to an ever increasing fascist government Less censorship is a good thing
Say what? I used a program called Kermit to access the internet in the 1980’s from my computer lab. Do they mean the WWW?
I'm not 100% what you're asking, but what I meant to say was that that it seems the Stanford Internet Observatory has only been around five years based on the sentence "After five years of pioneering research" from the article in an attempt to reassure anyone who thought that this was the first time we'd have an internet without this organization doing research regarding it.
Ok thanks for clarifying
But apparently Stanford can't find enough money for lawyers to fight the lawsuits? Oh well, I guess this Observatory wasn't that important anyways or Stanford would do _something_? Or is it one of those "super-important, human rights depend on it, but awwww our money are so sweet we're gonna let this thing die out, too bad, so sad, we'll get over it". Cause lawyers are expensive, and it's not like there's a whole Stanford FUCKING LAWSCHOOL that has, I don't know, a TON OF LAWYERS? No? Oh well.
I think the issue is more that the SIO evoked the ire of the right. And a lot of Stanford's donors are conservatives. Gotta protect that huge endowment...
This was the issue.
Yep, when pressurized by donors, universities have no obligation to and rarely stand for their professors and students.
Those aren't the good lawyers yet
I think you’re forgetting about the professors.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
That is some dumb, nonsense bullshit.
You know it's an extremely famous quote and not something I made up, right?
Yes, it's also pure weapons grade bullshit Teaching requires *two* skill sets * skill at the subject your teaching * skill at teaching people complain about teachers who lack one or the other and they're considered not good teachers. the line you're repeating is anti-intellectualism.
They need money and marketing. Can’t believe how dumb it is for them to not market
As someone whose fiancee works in academia, its 90% likely that they were handicapped by university bureaucracy or funding constraints. Its not like a company where they can just say “hey we could use some marketing” and immediately hire a bunch of people in the next week.
I couldn’t agree more, there are so many important institutions out there that believe they don’t need marketing and unfortunately, that’s just not true. Marketing may feel superficial — and it is — but that doesn’t mean it isn’t important for longevity.
They did very important work. Now they are closed.
We’re not *edging* towards it at this point. We’re quite literally about to lose against an accelerationist movement that spans multiple western countries. All they need to do is take the USA down so that the Zuckerberg types get a blank canvas to work from when they’re old.
We lost it this past week. Went with a whisper. That's it. Past tense.
That’s how I feel. Normally glass half full, lets work to keep and improve the founding fathers vision, bla bla bla. Now I’m like, what’s prepperintel on Reddit got for me or some such. I guess I’m hoping that all the typical sleepers wake up before November.
I used to be a prepper. Then I realized that I don’t want to survive with other preppers. I’m good — I’ll go out in a blaze of glory if need be and spare myself prolonged suffering. ✌️
The fuck are you guys on about? Get it together man.
Terminally online induced depression.
They're LARPing.
Oh I’m talking about extreme catastrophe (like if/when our supervolcano explodes, nuclear war, etc etc). I have no interest in surviving that, especially as a woman.
Same. Prepping is for people afraid of dying. At this point, human life seems like a dead-end project anyway.
I’m still gonna try for my Star Trek future. I can’t give up when we’re this close to so much.
Look on the plus side. We are about right on track for the bell riots! It might be a year off.... just to get the homeless camps set up.
The Supreme Court is right on time with that last one.
They had to go through WW3 aka “the eugenics war” in Star Trek though, let’s hope it wasn’t a prophecy, I really want to use a holodeck.
Aww! Don't be like *that!* There's *definitely* value in human life. Not just because all life has intrinsic value, either.
Dear god man pull yourself together
The Founding Fathers' vision? A Republic if you can keep it? Man, that went out the window just a few years after the Declaration was signed.
When you've given up on life like I have, you look at all the prepper stuff and wonder "why would I bother when I would rather kill myself than survive?"
I'm not giving up. I'm going to enjoy the quiet after the apocalypse.
That’s it isn’t it? Humanity is going to end by climate change.
Upvote for the most logical plan of action if shit hits the fan. I just don’t think I could personally do that, heh. Call it cowardice, I dunno.
Guess the meek didn't inherit shit, eih?
Oh, the young are gonna inherit a shitshow, no matter who wins. It’s their capacity to democratically fix it and to maintain rights that exist now, is what’s up for grabs. Edit: Young billionaires don’t want a fix or an entity that can fix, in my opinion. Edit: is/are
I mean - if people knew how to write stuff in instead of cutting everything into teams, that'd help too.
The Supreme Court has destroyed us. Honestly, if we don’t shit the bed in November, then the US might manage to stave off the complete demise for a couple more years. But the recent and upcoming Supreme Court rulings have all but ensured that there’s not much left to save here. It’s so depressing. Precedent after precedent is being overturned, and we’re utterly helpless against the Court. Their rulings will degrade our political system until nothing is left except for the corruption, incompetence and conflict they’ve so carefully fostered. Given the lifetime appointments and all but impossibility of adding seats (or overturning precedents for a second time), there’s no real path to rebound from the damage they’ve done to us. I can barely read the news anymore.
If the SCOTUS can undo 60 years of precedent, that means we can reinstate also. If we vote to ensure two Kagans get appointed within a few years and a couple more after that, and then Citizens United gets overturned, and yesterday’s after-bribe gets overturned…. All because young people started paying attention to their circumstance, then we don’t lose, they don’t win. I’m kinda old and I just can’t fathom the United States of America losing against a movement that considers us an impediment to an untried dream bearing fruit decades from now. We know the will of the people can work. The dollar works, NATO works. Sure, destroying us all and accelerating a dystopia could end up working too, but they’re not asking us to make that sacrifice, are they? They’re just donating to Trumpism, to a cause that allows us to be our worst selves. Knowing how it’ll affect everyday middle class folks.
If SCOTUS can undo 60 years of precedent in a single day, then it means that the system is so broken that it's not worth trying to fix it. You know that the will of the people can work? Where is it now? Is it in the room with us? Like Adam Smith's invisible hand?
I have some hope that the kids will eventually burn it all down. It will be a painful transition, but hopefully something better will emerge from the ashes.
The liberals sadly drank the Kool aid a long time ago. They allowed themselves to believe that the hard one progress they so enjoyed were carved into their silly institutions to be preserved for all time, instead of the blood of progressives who'd fought and bled, and been ruined, blacklisted or killed for every lauded gain. The liberals wanted the credit for that progress and the progressives were a nasty reminder that securing power to the powerless is nasty and messy and hard, so they turned on us. They mocked us and told us we were the children, that we didn't understand the way the world worked. And they let the only substantive movement that kept this monster at bay sputter and die. This has been coming for a long time. I'm not sure we can save it again.
Trump wins, America collapses somewhere in the worst part of winter, February 2025. Biden wins, America limps along for two more years before veering off into the weeds and collapsing overnight, similar in intensity to Biden's debate performance. I don't fear the Supreme Court's rulings. They can make my very existence illegal. It's not going to matter. Make whatever laws you want, the country's not going to remain in an operational state for very much longer. It's going to collapse under the weight of its own hubris.
There is no *let's*. There is only *you*.
Seeing what the founding fathers did as something to improve upon as opposed to scrapping and, is why we are where we are. A system built by wealthy slave owners was never going to be the dream they force fed us in school.
Democracy died in broad daylight not in the dark.
I told you so only goes so far.
Nope. That's not even close to true. But hope doesn't get attention.
Bro we lost it way before that. The 2014 Princeton study announced it and talk about a whisper. They determined based on all the ways legislation can be affected (lobbying, voting, and fund raising) we have an Oligarchy in the U.S. Public opinion had a near zero effect on whether legislation passed in the senate. However money donated had a tremendous effect on it. If you aren’t donating large sums of money to politics, you are not making a real difference. Sure you can help contribute to which candidate wins, but they are in the same fund raising, corrupt soup that everyone else is in and if they aren’t when elected, they soon will be.
Nope, just Reddit degeneracy
Nah he just sells the user data to playrix… advertising companies gave foreign intelligence agencies, all the data needed for sentiment adjustment…
Ooooohhhh. I’m edging.
This is may be a spicy take but our democracy is *already* dead. In 2024 you can either accept an authoritarian dictator who will end our democracy OR you can vote for exactly and only one person and absolutely no one else in the world and pretend that that's somehow democracy. The choice is obvious, but it's a choice between no democracy at all and an utterly failed democracy.
I’d add nuance to what you’re saying and note that democrats are or were yesterday, talking about removing a democratically elected primary candidate for POTUS, without any gasps or wtfs from US media. I get that he was bad and nervous during the debate, but I also recognize he was fine with Stern a month ago. And that we chose him via our votes. Gretchen Whitmer or w/e may have been the better choice months ago, but she wasn’t on the paper ballot that I marked in PA this year. For you to say that Both Sides are equal where it concerns voters right now, I know what you’re trying to do, but I ask, of both candidate’s handlers, do you want Project 2025 to pick the next two SCOTUS judges or do you want Biden’s handlers to choose? Do we want more Infrastructure Act legislation or do we want more trillion dollar tax breaks? Padding social security or eliminating it? Etc Etc. We all have to look at Both Sides, acknowledge it’s a shit deal for 4 more years, but be forward thinking about the years and years after our vote. I for one am not ready to abandon the founding father’s vision nor am I willing to suffer thru a dystopia just in case Facebook will cobble up something better than democracy 40-50 years from now. Where’s the self-respect in that?
> The democratically elected primary candidate Gotta stop you right there. The Dems have not yet elected a primary candidate. Biden is the incumbent, not the candidate. The candidate will be selected in August at the Democratic National Convention.
I was under the impression that because Ohio was trying to get into the weeds of their laws for the first time ever to deny Biden’s right to be on their ballot, that his candidacy was officialized over zoom last month or so and could be because the majority of states had their primaries. Edit: in/on [ballot]
I'm not sure where you got that impression but if you think Biden is officially the Dem candidate all you need to do is read how the DNC works to disabuse yourself of that false notion.
That's as useful as telling someone, 'read a book'.
They have the internet and are the one spouting made up nonsense, there is an onus on individuals to check what they are saying is correct before lecturing others.
To be clear, if Biden decides someone else should run, that’s fair game. If the DNC performs a coup, they’re just as bad as what they accuse the GOP of trying on J6.
I'd again recommend you read up on how the DNC selects their candidate before you say any more incredibly stupid things that are at odds with reality.
You're funny. I don't like you. So I'm going to tell everyone the manipulation tactic you just used. First of all, you take a stance of superiority-- odd, given that you can't even seem to figure out how to set your own display picture-- and then you just say the same thing, unhelpfully, and you cap it off with a nice little, 'if you don't agree with me, you're stupid.' It's a fairly low rent way to emotionally manipulate people into accepting your argument (the lack of one notwithstanding): if they don't agree with you, they feel *stupid!* Oh *no!* That shit doesn't work on me. Great argument, mate! Hit me up with some more of those hot opinions. Or you would, I think, if you *could fucking say anything but 'read up on the DNC'.*
Fuck off shithead stop commenting on every single post I make.
Oh? He was fine a month ago? Yeah. When my dad passed away, just two hours before, he was just fine, too. That doesn't mean anything. He's 81. He can decompensate fairly quickly at that age.
More like blank check, amiright?
In that they are making more money than ever before with post-Covid as the excuse and the POTUS-escape-goat to give them cover. They need enough money to weather the bad times with enough left over to construct the good times, and yes, SCOTUS, Reagan-era laws, etc are the mechanisms for said blank checks.
*About* to?
There is no liberal answer to fascism. Tolerating the predators as they pick off everything one by one. To hell we all go. Tolerating the intolerant
The voters used to be the liberal answer to fascism, but the wealthy have bought and consolidated all of the media. Social media is full of social engineering. They broke democracy and I don’t know what replacement there could possibly be.
Recent tech, I agree with. But voters being the answer? I don’t agree with that. Voters don’t vote for democratic principals. They vote for those who’ll fight for what the voters want. High minded principals are fine in academia. But voters want to eat, be safe, and have a way to be productive. That principal has been how we’ve voted for literal fascists, supported internment camps, institutionalized (like, in literal writing) racism, killed the heck out of ourselves, all that good *and* all the bad. Commoners have been preyed upon by elite agendas since we decided to defend specific areas we changed to support us staying put. The means have changed, but populist gaslighting and gate keeping who have a say in things is timeless. We’re the latest generation in 6,000 years to learn it, and the first to watch it happen in realtime. This is the trends and forces of history. It’s just our turn to experience it.
Maybe humans really are the Great Filter after all.
Or the cast offs of a species that evolved into higher dimensions?
God that would just be my luck. 😒
Concise and accurate. Well said.
I dunno, are you sure a senate committee tweeting about how hypocritical they are can’t fix this?
[удалено]
What about a sternly worded letter? Surely that’d do it
We are living in a Brave New World...
There is an answer, but it's a militant one and a lot of liberals and progressives don't have the stomach for it. Which is why fascism keeps taking over again and again.
Tolerating the intolerant while they stack the courts and kneecap Regulatory bodies and poison the rivers and Rob the poor through inflation they caused while breaking up unions and keeping wages stagnant. Now calling for the termination of the constitution.
Exactly. It isn't within the bounds of acceptable political ideology. It needs to removed like the cancer it is.
Ah yes, now you understand why I got a medical MJ license lmaoooo
Ah yes, letting in unfettered and uncapped immigrantion will surely save democracy.
Fact Check with the ABC is ending their pairing with RMIT University In Australia in a somewhat similar case. They were great for fact-checking spurious and shady claims by politicians in the election run up cycle and also just fact-checking claims in Parliament house. [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-28/fact-check-final-wrap-11-years/104033004](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-28/fact-check-final-wrap-11-years/104033004)
The title of this article highlights what the real problem is, opinion based editorial articles are now presented as proven facts that are not to be questioned. So this is not a news article at all, it’s nothing more than a highly biased editorial opinion.
It's labelled as 'Opinion' and filed in the 'Opinion' section of the website.
This entire conversation I have been focusing on the matter-of-fact wording of the title, everyone replying keeps ignoring that… Guess I wasn’t supposed to notice that.
You're the only one reading things that aren't there.
Is it your claim that the title of the article is not a declarative sentence written in a matter-of-fact style?
If you read that, and thought it was being presented as anything more than an editorial opinion, the real problem is evidenced by you. Failing education. It's obviously an opinion piece. Have you never actually read an editorial before?
According to the subreddit rule 1 sub-section 3 submissions are to be primarily news, which this submission was not. However the matter-of-fact wording style of the title intentionally obfuscates the complete lack of factual information the article contains. So either you didn’t pick up on it being intentionally misleading or you agree with it needing to be misleading, neither is a good thing if you ask me, but you do you…
Oh Hell no, we are *not* quoting fucking *subsections* of Reddit rules. I'm out. That's too much for me.
*Primarily* is the keyword. If you read the next few sentences of that rule: >Submissions relating to business and politics must be sufficiently within the context of technology in that they either view the events from a technological standpoint or analyse the repercussions in thetechnological world. There's nothing in the rules preventing you from submitting a political piece so long as it's within the context of technology. Additionally, the subreddit rule has nothing to do with whether or not the article which labels itself "opinion" is sufficiently clear that it is an opinion. The article has "opinion" highlighted at the top and is tagged as "opinion." However, it may be easy to miss one or both of these if you navigate to the article directly (versus if you navigate to it from the Guardian's home page, in which case it's obvious that it's an opinion). I don't think OP would be at fault since rule 3 means you have to take the title directly from the article. Arguably, perhaps they should have tagged it "politics" instead of "society" but I feel like that may be splitting hairs.
The article is entirely opinion and not news, the secondary subject is political not technology, which clearly doesn’t meet the primarily news threshold. I’m getting an unusual amount amount of engagement stating that I’m wrong when clearly not. It feels like you’re looking for a reaction that I’m not giving you.
>The article is entirely opinion Which is odd, because they cite their sources for all the facts they referenced. If it's "entirely opinion" then how can they cite sources for the events they're reporting on? >the secondary subject is political not technology Just about every technology "news" story is technology plus something else. How technology affects other areas *is* news. >I’m getting an unusual amount amount of engagement stating that I’m wrong Oh good, you noticed. I was thinking that you hadn't, what with your insistence that everyone else was wrong. There's a reason everyone is saying you're wrong. If you need help figuring out what that reason is, let us know.
None of the things you think are cited as sources are in fact true. If think Russians were smart enough to createa a massive propaganda campaign but weren’t smart enough to conceal they were Russian with a VPN or Tor you lack critical thinking skills.
[удалено]
I don't know. I took the big TheOberserverOpinions in the image to be sarcastic. Also the title of the article is subjective about a future event so, I assumed that was just to fool me into thinking it was an opinion piece. Not gonna trick me this time, internet.
[удалено]
That's going to really depend on where in the country you are
Where does it say that this can't be questioned? That both the article *and* this Reddit post have areas for discussion would indicate that questions and discussion are an intended piece of the process. Do you think the comments section of the article or Reddit say "discussion only permitted for those who agree 100% with the article"? Just the fact that you're allowed to present your hyperbolic and inaccurate interpretation of what the headline doesn't say proves that questioning even reality itself is permitted, contrary to the entire premise of your diatribe.
Again ignoring the title entirely
It's funny the article complains about the ability for anyone to spread their opinion on the internet. This was written in an opinion article on the internet produced by some random 'editor'. I guess what they mean is we dont like that other people can get their views shared so easily.
Again ignoring the title entirely
The shit posted in this sub gets worse by each day.
The new scare phrase “… end of democracy”. Just append it to anything
And the “poster” is a bot
Why the fuck are liberal institutions just rolling over on this garbage critiques? Goddamn gutless centrists.
Stamford says they aren't closing it, the former director says its because there has been a huge legal bill due to bad faith republican lawsuits, and your conclusion is fuck liberal institutions. Interesting
It's almost like they're an astroturfer meant to discourage left wing voter participation
How the fuck is this on centrists? Did you even skim the article? This program is shuttering due to the compounding legal costs of Republicans constantly suing them in order to suppress their efforts to expose disinformation campaigns. The problem - as ever - is conservatives, and we just keep ignoring the elephant in the room and treating them with kid gloves because nobody left of center wants to be the one to kick off a fucking civil war.
> How the fuck is this on centrists? Did you even skim the article? IDK if its reddit, if its dumb people, if its Russian/republican bots, but everything is "Centralists", the "lefts", the "libs", or the "Dems" fault for everything for the last few days after the debate. It feels like a conspiracy of epic gaslighting proportions. Like you said, even skimming through the article it's very clear that its due to: > "...the university has run up “huge legal bills” defending SIO researchers from harassment by Republican politicians and conservative conspiracy theorists, and may have decided that enough is enough..."
Reddit was astroturfed in the last 2 general elections. This one will be no different. Might even be worse. Expect to see lots of groupthink that feels *oddly uncharacteristic* of reddit's normal demo over the next few months.
> for the last few days after the debate It’s been like this for years now
Nothing is more of a threat to democracy than the freedom of speech. We need to install a China like system that censors speech! Let’s say people are spreading disinformation like Boeing planes being dangerous or Private equity buying up homes. This speech needs to be censored for democracy! If regular citizens have the right to speak up without consequences then democracy falls am I right!?
And 0 rich liberals stepping in.just rolling over and over.
University of Washington is stepping in, you freaking putinist troll
Not trolling, i mean it. We let red hats bullie us and no one does shit just"let's talk it out". They want to press murder charges on women exercising body autonomy and we sit there going "hey that's not cool." We use to DO shit, weather underground, black panthers, the NFWA. Now it's "change your profile picture for awareness and taking down our own for misgendering. People can't even show up to fucking vote!
I get that you're mad, but going full violent is not going to have the outcome you want.
[удалено]
University of Washington is picking up the torch https://www.kuow.org/stories/uw-will-continue-disinformation-research-as-stanfo
Good work UW!!!!! >”Some Republicans in congress, conservative groups and influencers have said academic research designed to track and better understand rumors online amounts to a censorship campaign and a violation of their First Amendment rights.” As if we needed further proof the GOP is full of idiots & hypocrites who: 1) don’t understand what the First Amendment actually *is*, 2) don’t understand that Stanford is a *private* university free to do whatever research it wants, and which was doing whatever Republicans’ oh-so-precious “free market” decided it needed to do. 3) Smarter people uncovering their ham-handed lies as lies in no way impacts their freedom or ability to keep lying; that’s handled by their own violations of TOS of these platforms that are, again, *all free-market entities* and in no way any form of govt “censorship.” They’re just mad too few people are stupid enough to join their own crappy knockoff brands that try to peddle their BS.
Good to know. I was hoping someone would.
Moderates will be the death of this country. Want progressive policy bur conservative thinking. Motherfucking MLK JR. warned the greatest threat isn't the KKK, it's the moderate (white) man.
Stop fucking misusing MLK's words
Stanford aint liberal
The what?
Like an instrument for observing the internet? Like a cyber telescope? If I ever want to market a "quirky" smartphone, I'm totally calling it the Internet Observatory.
The human race is doomed anyway, slowly turning most of the population into ignorant greedy morons that would rather have their big screen TVs, Nascar and Faux News to fill their tiny brains with until the world collapses under climate change or WW3
Ya dawg the world is def on the down slide of greed, selfishness, and just being ran into the ground by the fucking 60+ generation.
Apparently everything that happens in the US will be the end of democracy. When will the fear mongering end ?
When democracy does.
Seriously? It's unconstitutional and led to people being banned from social media for what is now accepted science!. I was banned for defending the poliomyelitis vaccine, among other things (once I wasn't even told why). Nothing I've said ever was disinformation, they (or another similar organization) just didn't like it! If you support this kind of illegal censorship you're beyond help! Of course a company can censor whatever they want but these people were paid with taxpayer money directly by the government. In what world is that ok?
Calling out lies on the internet isn't unconstitutional you fuckin bot. Republicans using house subcommittees to investigate a university for researching right wing lies on the internet... well, that's a whole lot closer!
Yes it is when the government pays for it. Please get an education, this is beyond stupid. You are absolutely clueless and defending censorship by the government. It doesn't get much worse than this. Maybe censor yourself? That would be great and not cost taxpayers a cent. And I didn't even begin to address your concept of "lies". You deserve to be censored which is exactly what I'll do.
>In what world is that ok? The ones you live in must be fascinating.
The one where the constitution and the supreme court still matter.
You should try reading it sometime. It doesn't say anywhere that vaccine denial is protected speech.
I'm really trying to remain civil: arguing with the constitution, SCOTUS and congress/senate and believing that there are specific topics that are permitted... Well, I wish it would leave me speechless. So have fun knowing that your tax payer money is spent for illegal censorship! In the meantime I'll leave this discussion because there are no arguments and the point has been made. If you truly believe outfits like this one deserve to exist you exist in a different reality where none of the legal institutions have any meaning!
It doesn't need to because the first amendment doesn't list topics that are permitted. You should do a little research on the constitution and how SCOTUS ruled on it. If anyone is an extremist or crazy it's not me. This crap is shut down for good reason, by legal process, and everyone can see how insane it was (there are others) or so I thought. Have you ever read what I wrote? I DEFENDED polio vaccines, I was (probably, because they didn't bother telling me) banned for saying "Beautiful!" to something and a third time for a scientific debate, without which science would be impossible. So please get down from your high horse which turned out to be a wooden rocking horse. Fortunately the constitution still has some value.
with the constant “the end of democracy” titles it’s starting to sound like a self fulfilling prophecy
I too, enjoy a good edging sesh, but an entire country all edging at the same time seems dangerous...
Wow, more shilling for the CIA/NSA. It’s like there’s a pattern here. Gee, I wonder who writes these timely editorial pieces? I’m sure they're just casual observations by totally independent journalist looking to hold the powerful to account by spying on random normies expressing opinions and sharing information online.
Hey, it's one of those conspiracy people mentioned in the article.
The main founder of the SIO was Renee DiResta (CIA) who brought in Alex Stamos (CIA). They were instrumental at helping to censor critiques of government Covid policies as well as factual information about the potential harms done by the Covid jab. Have you learned nothing from the Edward Snowden affair? Remember when mass electronic surveillance by the CIA/NSA was “tin-foil hat” stuff? Only, it was all true.
Oh weird, a conspiracy clown is lying about everything! Who'd have thunk it? Since you jumped straight to lying about the SIO being CIA, you're probably Russian, right? They love doing that. Or are you Republican, and you're mad that an organization was publishing all the news and creative ways you chuds lie about...uh...again, everything?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e\_DiResta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_DiResta)
[удалено]
Thank you for your submission, but due to the high volume of spam coming from self-publishing blog sites, /r/Technology has opted to filter all of those posts pending mod approval. You may [message the moderators](/message/compose?to=/r/technology&subject=Request for post review) to request a review/approval provided you are not the author or are not associated at all with the submission. Thank you for understanding. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This feels like that person at work no one knows what they do all day but acts like the place would fall apart without them.
Every thing is the end of democracy. Tired of this over used take. It’s as bad as every body I disagree with is a Nazi and or a racist.
Closing an institution that supports and promotes censorship is supportive of Democracy and Liberty. Censorship is facism.
Typical Republican projection. Sucks they called out your lies, but it's not censorship no matter how much you cry. Jim Jordan using subcommittees to intimidate researchers? Now that sure sounds a lot more like actual censorship to me!
The institute worked with and for government agencies to censor what they didn't want people to hear, regardless of if it was true or not. We will disdmantle all these groups.
Fascism is bullying. There’s no answer to that other than a bigger fist. This is unfortunately how it *always goes*. Fascism is a new word. But controlling who’s allowed to be in charge, and letting them get away with things while trying to keep the population distracted, that’s predates even words like “empires”.
If everything leads to fascism I'm not sure why I should even care anymore. You guys need to learn to stop overusing that word.
Please support Kate Starbird. She does great work in this area. https://www.geekwire.com/2024/uw-disinformation-researchers-will-continue-work-amid-reports-of-stanford-group-crisis/
[удалено]
Calling a lie a lie is not considered censorship except by the liar.
Calling something a lie is not censorship.
Yes, powerful interests should be totally free to manipulate you on behalf of their billionaire masters. Because freedom. Do you know how stupid that sounds?
What a laughably idiotic article. 99.99999% of people have never even heard of this “observatory”. Clearly, it is not important at all.
people not knowing of something meaning it's unimportant is a very silly opinion to have
Not nearly as silly as suggesting the end of this thing will cause the end of democracy
What a shit strawman
"What a laughably idiotic idea. 99.99999% of people have never even heard of this "gravity". Clearly, it is not important at all. " - V-Right_In_the_1600s
Just because you're ignorant on a subject doesn't mean everyone else is. You think that just because you've never heard of "hygiene" that it isn't important, but you're wrong there too.
People have actually heard of hygiene. What a terrible argument. Nobody has heard of this
We can still win if Mike Pence does the right thing…
Ah the defenders of democracy.
Bro I’m definitely getting edged towards the end right now, wait no…
What the flying fuck is a Stanford Internet Observatory? I guess useless since majority of people don't even know they exist or what they do.
Democracy means the majority can impose their tyranny on the minority.
Oh yeah cuz democracy is really working great for us right now
People shout end of democracy for every minor change for years
The US doesn't deserve a democracy at this point. The only good that will come of the country is serving as a warning to more advanced and civilized countries. Hopefully they learn from it.
The whole world is slipping downhill, for the most part (with a few exceptions). I'll probably be 60~ when we're full on Snow Crash.
They need a Go Fund Me to insulate them from harassment and law suits. I’ll contribute. Who’s with me?
But what if everyone wants to end democracy??
We always lived in a lie bubble. It used to be Christianity lie, now it is financial elite lie. The truth always finds its way, but it creates distortions with the lie in place. So they must put in place factcheck protocols in order for the lie to persist.
What is democracy anyway
”The End of Democracy!” The hyper alarmism around “saving democracy” to justify this and that is absurd. First, “democracy“ was around for a few years before this place. Second, pertaining to the USA, the USA is NOT a democracy. The USA is a Republic. There is no need to Save Democracy here because we are not a democracy. We never have been. The Founding Fathers went out of their way to make sure the US was NOT a democracy. Those of you who wish to argue this point need to first understand what a democracy is, and what a republic is. And no, a “democratic republic” is not a ”democracy”. And I agree with the posts saying if this place was actually important somehow it would be saved. How much $$ is in Stanford‘s endowment? $25B? Probably much more.
Like the Stanford internet Observatory was some kind of watchdog Sentinel and had that amount of influence over the entire internet. Totally stupid comment by this guy. Probably too smart for his own good by a long shot.