Suppression/Propaganda in Media

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Belligerent Savant wrote:

However misrepresented or not the above link may be, there is no doubt Obama is no 'advocate' for the commoner.

Very much in keeping with the theme of this thread:

No, no, no, you can't just say "Oh well the information at the link was bogus BUT...." just because it fits your narrative, that's not how it works.

You are misrepresenting and/or misinterpreting what I typed.

I typed:

However misrepresented or not the above link may be, there is no doubt Obama is no 'advocate' for the commoner.

I am not making a call on the link provided by Grizzly, which is the link you took issue with. I did not look at the link to this point and have no opinion on it. But irrespective of how faulty Grizz's link may or may not be, it is clear, upon any sober assessment, that Obama is NOT an advocate for the commoner. THIS is my point.
(the same point can be made about practically any current/former president over the past ~50yrs, and historically, to various degrees)

I then provided a link for a separate article that expounds a bit on my point -- that Obama has, at a minimum, ulterior motives -- by way of an example.

Is that clearer to you now?

If not, please state your case more clearly. Let's say Grizzly's link is inaccurate in its content, for argument's sake. Now what? Are you here to claim that because the link is inaccurate that Obama is .... what? an advocate for peace? As if a single hyperlink -- accurate or not -- is what hinges on the entirety of Obama's intentions/M.O.?

Of course, there is potential/probability of disinfo/misinfo coming from all sides on a given topic. That's part of the point of this thread. AND as such: if your point is that we all need to be diligent in our assessment of any/all information irrespective of source: duly noted, and agreed.

Is this what you're attempting to convey here, or do you have a larger point to make?

[DrEvil]

digital fingerprints, that can tell you the source of the image.

Even before we arrive at who controls any putative Bureau of Authentic Fingerprints we must first contend with 'AI' generated fingerprints, as you seem to recognise though I am genuinely mystified that you appear to have learned so little from your time at RI.

People will believe what they want to believe you say, as though this is more relevant to almost anyone else at RI than it is to you.

What are you talking about? I didn't say "you people". It was a general observation, which very much includes myself, and I wasn't in any way advocating digital fingerprints if that's what you think.

And what am I supposed to have learned exactly? That you can always be more paranoid? At the very least I would prefer the paranoia to be adjacent to reality. Maybe Obama wants to track people (of course he does), but that's not what he's talking about in this case, even though the article says it is. Did Obama say he wanted to track people? No? Then don't claim he did, or at the very least supplement with other sources that makes it clear that's what he wants.

Edit: ^^@BelSav: The point seems very simple to me: don't make shit up.

Also, if you see a sensationalist headline like that from a website or person you've never heard of before, for fuck's sake, take a look under the hood before uncritically posting it.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
He is absolutely referring and alluding to forms of control. To touch on just 1 aspect of the statements attributed to him (where he is quoted directly): who determines what is "misinformation"? Who the fuck is the arbiter of what may be deemed "misinfo"? Fuck him and whatever bullshit ostensible narratives he's presenting in this article and whatever else he's involved in overtly or covertly.

In any event, Obama is a fucking mouthpiece -- a variation of a puppet that operates at the behest of other larger interests, as is the case with just about all presidents, particularly those that presided in the late 20th and 21st centuries to date.

And again: what Obama presents here, front-facing, is separate and apart from larger objectives and agendas in play (this was particularly a factor, of course, during his actions as sitting President as well).

The fact you apparently continue to take the statements of hi-level politicians at their front-facing word is baffling to me.

[Grizzly]

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/misinformation/youtube-removes-video-rfk-jr-jordan-peterson-misinformation-rcna90060

Fuck Censor ship

[Grizzly]

Not to mention millions of JP Morgan's lost JE email's

[DrEvil]

.
He is absolutely referring and alluding to forms of control. To touch on just 1 aspect of the statements attributed to him (where he is quoted directly): who determines what is "misinformation"? Who the fuck is the arbiter of what may be deemed "misinfo"? Fuck him and whatever bullshit ostensible narratives he's presenting in this article and whatever else he's involved in overtly or covertly.

In any event, Obama is a fucking mouthpiece -- a variation of a puppet that operates at the behest of other larger interests, as is the case with just about all presidents, particularly those that presided in the late 20th and 21st centuries to date.

And again: what Obama presents here, front-facing, is separate and apart from larger objectives and agendas in play (this was particularly a factor, of course, during his actions as sitting President as well).

The fact you apparently continue to take the statements of hi-level politicians at their front-facing word is baffling to me.

That's not the issue. Don't claim someone said something they didn't. If he really meant something else then they should supply some evidence along with the claims, otherwise they're just making shit up. Is Obama a piece of shit? Yes. Did he say what they claimed he did? No. Ergo, they're lying. Why is the concept of "not lying" so hard for you to grasp?

[Belligerent Savant]

I'm referring to the article I linked, and to the words quoted/attributed to Obama on misinformation, etc.
Are you referring to another link? I have not looked at any other recent link Re: Obama in this thread, only the one I quoted.

[DrEvil]

I'm specifically referring to the line in the article about Obama wanting to track and identify people online, and the part about mandatory digital fingerprints, neither of which are things he actually says, at least not as quoted in that article. What he does talk about is digital fingerprints so you can tell what the source of an image is, and more generally about informing people about these issues.

It's like claiming your digital camera is tracking you because every image you take has metadata attached. It's tracking the same way your signature on a painting tracks you. We can speculate what Obama might want to do with that metadata if it's generated on a connected device (NSA says hello. If they don't already have a real time Google Street View stitched together from everyone's phones I'll eat someone's hat), but he doesn't say anything about that in the article.

I don't trust Obama any more than you do, I just think twisting what people are actually saying like that article did is counterproductive. If you want to counter people's bullshit, don't do it with more bullshit.

The problem is, the issues he raises are real issues, because AI is stampeding along and getting better and better at creating fake everything, I just don't want him anywhere near any potential "solutions" because there aren't any good solutions. You either trust nothing or you track everything. Best case we get some way to confirm that, yes, this picture was taken by an AP photographer and depicts what's being claimed in this Tweet, and no one will use it. More likely we get shitty paid AI services that will confirm if a picture is real or not with a whopping 25% accuracy rate, and rule 34 goes supernova.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
I've no dispute with your points above, though I never blanket endorsed the content in the article and only focused on Obama's references to 'misinformation' as part of his messaging.

No doubt, the rise of spoofing with 'deepfakes' and AI-generated imagery/text (etc.) would benefit from non-fungible 'digital fingerprints' (NFTs are another attempted method in tackling this, but susceptible to scams) but of course, we must be mindful of messaging (and messengers) out there when it comes to 'solutions' to 'problems'. Caveat Lector.

[DrEvil]

The optimist in me wants to believe that with "misinformation" Obama means straight up fabrications, like the pictures of Trump getting arrested and fighting with the cops, the pope wearing a fancy coat, or the Youtube videos of Obama, Biden and Trump ranking all the boss fights in Elden Ring, but the misanthrope in me knows he really means "anything that doesn't fit the western imperialist agenda". It's not the tracking part I'm most worried about (the horse is two counties over and the barn burned down), but their desire to control the narrative, which ironically just got a lot easier with the advent of coherent AI output. You don't need shills or troll factories anymore, just a good LLM. It's not misinformation he's against, but misinformation he can't control.

[Grizzly]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36477936
JP Morgan fined by SEC for deleting email records

"Accidentally"

[Grizzly]

https://www.leefang.com/p/billionaire-biden-donor-bankrolled
Billionaire Biden Donor Bankrolled 2020 Election Social Media Censorship Effort

Newly disclosed document confirms billionaire Pierre Omidyar financed the public-private partnership to censor election-related Twitter and Facebook posts.

[Belligerent Savant]

@bridgietherease
·
now Lead for Elections Content Policies at Meta




I could not possibly hate this stuff more. wearing "democracy" like a skinsuit

https://twitter.com/bridgietherease/sta ... 35078?s=20

[Grizzly]

https://www.academia.edu/4460251/Complete_List_of_Commercial_Films_Produced_with_Assistance_from_the_Pentagon
(PDF) Complete List of Commercial Films Produced with Assistance from the Pentagon | Stephen Underhill - Academia.edu

[Grizzly]

How the FBI secretly shapes movies and TV shows about Bureau
https://nypost.com/2023/07/01/revealed-how-fbi-secretly-shapes-movies-and-tv-shows-about-bureau/