tambienben

I agree, but only so far. There is also the enormous amount of corruption that keeps these political machines opaque and inaccessable to the public, by design.

My point isn't that we are blameless, but that this has been forced upon us in varying degrees. Our options each election year are purposefully limited, and no matter the campaign promise, we get the same results each time--and those are the officials we have a modicum of control over through elections.

We're responsible for fixing it, but distrust in the system is an integral part of fixing it.

It still sounds as though they accuse the public for this, though. I can't abide that.

>The group also cited concerns over public distrust of political leaders and the media, saying it is drawing away from the focus on real threats.

So... depending on how they meant to word that, are they seriously wagging their finger at the public for not blindly falling in line behind this unprecedented, petty shit-show? That's an impressive amount of hubris.

You're going to have to qualify that claim.

>Luckily, we have more than two parties to vote for

Not to most americans--especially when it comes time to vote.

You wouldn't transfer a car to Google Play, would you?

Still, implicating other countries so soon seems premature and reactonary to me. Its like corporate news jumping to 'terrorism' immediately after any domestic tragedy. Our threat models need to include more than just nation states. Otherwise, we end up contributing to escalation through untethered fear.

Like I said, it really depends on the circumstances.

Sometimes having control over your fight-or-flight reaction is better for you, personally, given your value system, than say trampeling fellow coworkers in a panic on your way out the door.

Don't judge too harshly people who don't share your starry-eyed view of the world. Let them have their peace if they're so resolved.

They can be assumptions because life is complex & sometimes people tell themselves convenient lies to make themselves feel better.

It depends on the circumstances.

If true, Armageddon can't get here fast enough.

So why implicate Russia at all, if its so easy? Sounds like a red herring to me, and also just as conspiratorial as the parent comment.

Events specifically related to an incoming ICBM? Context matters. People will react differently depending on the circumstances, which means there are things to learn there.

The least nefarious reason for a 3 letter agency to do this would be to dry-run a reaction plan to such an event, and take what they learn from reactions & apply what they learn to improve said plan

Then again, it could be a dry-run to measure peoples sentiments toward a war with NK. Less likely, but still possible.

Pranksters=/=Russia.

COINTELPRO is a poor comparison. A better example would be Operation Mockingbird (CIA, before the Church Committee & all that that entailed), or Operation Northwoods--to a lesser extent (also before the Church Committee, under JFK).

Its my personally held opinion that Operation Mockingbird never died. I feel that the intelligence arms are the deep state running the show through misinformation campaigns. My personal opinion held in this, the 2nd paragraph, is 100% conjecture. I wouldn't be surprised if it were found to be true, though.

Yeah, not very convincing. Come back once your balls have dropped.

Do you have a reference for that claim? This is the first I've heard of your scenario.

Not sure why you would avoid a still relevant question.

The transaction costs will hopefully come down once Lightning Network is implemented.

>Since day 1 I thought Bitcoin was a pyramid/Ponzi kind of scheme.

So, how well do you actually understand it?

What about those whose jobs are boring & mundane under management positions? I understand the quote isn't yours, but what makes management so special?

Do you have any reading suggestions that helped you open your eyes to the grooming phenomena you describe?

What happens when the highest bidder rents up all of the infrastructure?

I believe your suggestion is already practiced with phone carriers. The infrastructure is finite & there are physical bandwidths limitations, at least currently.

>But this is ignoring the whole debate: proponents of net freedom don't consider fast lanes to be a problem.

And they literally wouldn't be if internet service was delivered in a free market. The problem is that the market isn't free. ISPs have spent years rigging the market in their favor, politically. The landscape is already hostile to the consumer--they intend to make it more so.

My point being that if the issue is spam, as you say, then why is spam-news different?

I guess you have observed the reasons for this firsthand, then. I was left guessing at incentives for those at the helm of said companies.

Are articles that pull cheap punches & empty-headed loudmouths on Twitter a good metric for what's actually popular, though?

So if I'm still being emailed promotions for penile enhancement today, how are we going to regulate those promotions on a government level?

I'm genuinely asking. I don't intend for my question to be a slight against your argument.

Publicly elected officials on what level? The FCC? What powers are we giving them?

When I hear a Senator Dianne Feinstein scolding a panel of tech giants, I don't hear a benevolent leader with our best interests at heart, I hear someone infantalizing me for their own gain.

If the topic is data retention, let's target everyone. No one should be safe unless they can justify it under scrutiny & demonstrate security.

If the topic is "fake news", then its a battle of definitions, & regulation is unconstitutional on any government level--no matter how you spin it.

Regulation by whome, exactly? At least in its current state, I get to choose between my state-sponsored media attacks...

If your opaque point is that we need to break these companies up for... reasons... (Because maybe Russia-something?) Then I suppose I disagree with you less, but not on that principle.

It seems to me that these problems are better solved through education, rather than censorship & policing. But educating is impossible because it would lead to a more informed public.