| Your banner could be here!
Find out how!
|Reader's login | Writer's login|
|mark211||Is social media Douglas Adam’s Babel Fish and will we survive it?||2017-10-01 13:21:55|
|mark211||Thank you to everyone - Modelling_Mushi, Branden Szabo (Wesson), Gordon Rowlinson, Rick Tornello, dandrew72, Ironspider, and Michele Dutcher – who participated in last week’s discussion thread and for helping to answer the question as to whether or not there was a controversy there – evidently, there very much is! This week I wondered about the Internet. It has clearly had a positive influence – QM being a perfect example, for instance.||2017-10-01 13:22:05|
|mark211||But continuing on from last week, I was thinking about the negative impact that the Internet and specifically social media has had – hence the question – ‘Is social media Douglas Adam’s Babel Fish and will we survive it?’ I am thinking of this quote in particular: “The Babel fish has led to significant and profound consequences for the Universe; apart from the philosophical implications, the Babel fish has started more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation, because it has removed all barriers to communication.”||2017-10-01 13:22:11|
|mark211||I don’t know about you, but before social media came along I feel I was probably quite innocent of all manner of weird, wonderful and – to be frank – downright vile opinions on everything from cosmetic products to sports to policing to currency and so on. I can’t help thinking that a lot of the increase in violence we are seeing is due in part because we can in effect ‘hear’ gossip about ourselves and are heartily indignant at the perceived insults.||2017-10-01 13:22:19|
|mark211||So what do you think? Is it Babel fish like and can we as a species survive it?||2017-10-01 13:22:25|
|rt||If facebooger and thing like that are the only place people get their "news", then we have a serious problem. Any one can state anything, and if repeated enough times becomes "fact". This is true in the print media too but is a fact to the Nth degree especially considering the instant send button of death.||2017-10-01 14:34:55|
|Ironspider||I'd have to agree with rt, even the UK's main news providers lean heavily upon social media, drawing instant information, whether accurate or not, even while events are still unfolding. The BBC, for example, state that they do try to verify information gleaned from social media with a number of sources, but if all those sources are repeating the same inaccuracy, that becomes the accepted truth - it can then be hard to dislodge the inaccuracy. And, if social media is your only news source, you partake in the promulgation of the 'fake' truth and that can become the reality.||2017-10-02 23:20:52|
|Health Benefits of Maca Root||Took me time to understand all of the comments, but I seriously enjoyed the write-up. It proved being really helpful to me and Im positive to all of the commenters right here! Its constantly nice when you can not only be informed, but also entertained! I am certain you had enjoyable writing this write-up. Health Benefits of Maca Root||2017-10-03 12:09:56|
Where's the NSA cyber war team when we really need them???
|mark211||"TROLL TROLL" - How deliciously ironic. I think it's a wonderful example of the kind of thing that might start "more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation, because it has removed all barriers to communication"||2017-10-04 12:39:46|
while at the same time allowed unfettered jamming of legitimate conversations.Health Roots is not communication, it's the insertion of commercial advertising or psyops(in extreme cases)and just plain old disruption and a pain in the ass.
|Ironspider||Maybe 'Health Benefits' is a good exemplar of Babel - while the meaning of the words is quite clear, the meaning of the message is obscure. Is it truly an innocuous advert for maca root (look it up on the font of all unknowledge - Wikipedia), or is it a scam after your money or your identity? Or something even worse - a covert government op' to determine the gullibility factor of citizens? Whichever, it's an annoying intrusion...||2017-10-04 23:24:22|
|Modelling_Mushi||Today I heard an interesting perspective on this issue. It was stated that one of the prime drivers for the increasing level of vitriolic attacks as opposed to reasoned and respectful debate & argument is the internet, and in two specific ways: (i) it lets any person with any viewpoint at all find a ready made audience and support for any idea, thought or viewpoint, no matter what it is; and (ii) the speed with which commentary and viewpoints spread and multiply mean that more than ever you have to get in there quick, first and overwhelming to get your opinion across. As a result, with a ready made cheer squad at anyone's disposal, plus the drive to "strike first, strike hard" being hammered home, it reflects in how we interact with each other. So mark211 from my viewpoint yes, perhaps so, I dont know if it will kill us but a look at some of Ben Eltons more recent novels give some appalling possibilities!||2017-10-05 06:23:49|
|Wesson||I'd argue the reason more people are turning to social media and alternative sources of news is because the mainstream media isn't doing it's job. Journalists and, by extension, the creative community have become cartels dominated by liberal idealogues who refuse to admit they're idealogues. So, in that context, I don't believe social media is a negative force, just a normal response to a rigged game. And as far as discussion goes, there's nothing wrong with letting someone arrive at their own conclusions. It's inevitable, we're not the Borg.||2017-10-05 16:29:59|
Here we go again, you bandy the word "liberal press" WDF does that mean? Yes the press is owned by a small group of people but when you look at the ownership of most of the media (that also has a choke hold on the press), you find that many of the owners are in fact right wing in their support of political candidates.
The NYT has a number of editors from both sides of the spectrum, and yes there is a degree of censorship especially if you consider the CHOMSKY Propaganda Model works, see below from Wiki.
The propaganda model is a conceptual model in political economy advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky to explain how propaganda and systemic biases function in mass media. The model seeks to explain how populations are manipulated and how consent for economic, social, and political policies is "manufactured" in the public mind due to this propaganda. The theory posits that the way in which news is structured creates an inherent conflict of interest that acts as propaganda for undemocratic forces.
|GordonRowlinson||Social media is great in that it gives the common man a forum to vent and it gives feedback to media. However the relative anonymity of the internet brings two downsides. Some people use social media to vent anger. Worse is that corporate organizations and Russian groups hire people to spam social media. All is not reality on social media. I don't see any liberal bias in the mainstream media. The mainstream media are corporations and thus subject to the rules of capitalism. The Mainstream media, be it TV, print or internet, strives to increase their audience and be able to charge higher fees for advertising. If you report something biased or inaccurate, you risk alienating and losing chunks of your audience and advertising revenue. If you lose enough revenue and don't perform for the stockholders, you lose your job. I would say the bias in the media is to report the sex, the scandals and the gore and to shy away from complex boring issues. If it bleeds, it leads.||2017-10-06 15:51:04|
|Wesson||@RT - Calm down. There's a reason I hang around here like a cold sore: to give alternative perspectives that are sorely lacking in SFF these days. Your comments about the media are inaccurate, journalists widely support democrats over republicans. The majority of reporters, editors and anchors donated to Clinton and Obama. This is on top of contributions from rich moguls like George Soros and the majority of Hollywood - also democrats. Big corporations like Google, Apple and Facebook have gone left as well, even the CEO of Goldman Sachs (a bank! The stereotypical symbol of wealth and oppression) tossed tons of money into the Clinton Campaign. The NYT editorial board openly endorsed Hillary for president while implying that the issues didn't matter. This should at least give you an idea about why people don't sanctify journalists anymore. You can't blame it all on the influence of a few rich people, many of them are on your side now.||2017-10-06 17:54:47|
I disagree, they are not the owners of the papers and or the radio stations, many of whom own both outlets. They are held by just a few individuals who are supporters of the current reactionary political movement.
As for trust, I'm not sure I agree with your assessment especially regarding thinking individuals. If you are referring to those who are reacting to the circus news that has become TV, FOX being an example, that's a different story. The lack of deep research there in is overwhelming, but feed the mass hysteria of those associated with a lack of CIVICS, history and science.
calm? me not calm?
|Wesson||They *are* thinking, they're just not arriving at the conclusions you want them to. Besides, the only hysteria I see is on websites like this one. Seriously, flip through all the stories out there and pick the crisis you want to jerk off to: CO2 emissions are destroying the world, the Russians are taking over the government, women are going to be enslaved, cats and dogs are living together, etc. The end is always neigh to you people.||2017-10-07 12:04:10|
|Wesson||Spelled it wrong, the end is always nigh.||2017-10-07 12:05:49|
|r.tornello||@ anyone who can answer the following questions with data, not speculation.
1, How many gigatons of CO2 and methane will it take to screw with the oxygen breathing inhabitants of this planet?
2, When was the last time the planet had that much or more CO2 and methane in the atmosphere and was was the environment like, again for oxygen breathing inhabitants?
3, Where are we now in relation to those numbers and the affects they will bring, based upon the current level of scientific knowledge?
We shamelessly accept handouts!Give generously to the United Wa - uh, we mean Quantum Muse. It keeps Mike off the streets from scaring small children and the Web Goddess from spray painting Town Hall - again.
Quantum Museletter! Be the first to know when new stories and artwork have arrived.
Subscribe to Quantum Museletter by filling out the following form.