Sorry, but ads count as my definition of "signal noise." Since my goal is to maximize my own signal/noise ratio, I usually do this by unfollowing any social media that are contaminated with such signal noise. Ads are, to me, what irrelevant posts are to, say, Haskellites and category theorists, and what commercials are to, say, television viewers.
Benjamin Russell Having read many of your posts, it is obvious to me that you are very bright. But I do not align with your reasoning here. I would happily adapt to the inconvenience of a few advertising interruptions in exchange for the benefits that I have received from my presence on G+. I understand that one of the fundamental realities of existence in present human culture is that "there is no free lunch."
Todd Q My reasoning is similar to the reasoning adopted by many readers of USENET who use newsreaders to follow dedicated newsgroups. Most newsreaders are equipped with many filters designed specifically to filter out what USENET readers consider to be "line noise."
Perhaps this is a matter of USENET culture, but it is rather customary among programmers of functional programming languages (such as Haskell) and pure mathematicians (such as category theorists) to maximize what is referred to as their "signal/noise ratio." By this, they typically mean the ratio of interesting content to uninteresting content.
Prior to becoming a user of Google+, back in the early 2000s, I used to be a reader of various USENET newsgroups, such as comp.lang.scheme and comp.lang.haskell, and mailing lists, such as Haskell-Cafe and Haskell-Beginners (the latter of which I founded).
Most readers of such newsgroups and mailing lists were very concerned with their "signal/noise ratio." They read such newsgroups and mailing lists specifically because they were interested in specific topics, and in those specific topics only. Anything off-topic was routinely treated as "line noise," and either moderated out by a moderator (as on Haskell-Cafe), or filtered out using a newsreader filter (as on comp.lang.haskell).
This culture still persists among programmers of functional programming languages (such as Haskell), certain types of mathematicians (such as category theorists and other pure-mathematicians), and professors of computer science and pure mathematics.
Such researchers typically are extremely pressed for time. They need to publish or perish, and every second counts. A second saved is a second earned, available for the next research grant.
Prior to graduation, I used to be an undergraduate student in the Department of Computer Science at my alma mater. There, most professors and researchers were extremely concerned with their "signal/noise ratio."
When I read posts on Google+, I typically treat them in the same manner as computer scientists treat newsgroup or mailing list posts. Similarly to them, I also try to maximize my own "signal/noise ratio."
The only difference is my definition of "line noise." To a typical Haskellite, anything not related to Haskell is "line noise," and to a typical category theorist, anything not related to either Haskell or pure mathematics fits that definition. By contrast, to me, anything not related to some interest of mine (Haskell, Scheme, poetry, anime, or some otaku-related pursuit) fits that definition.
To most people who grew up in the age of the USENET, there is such a thing as "line noise." The difference is that what constitutes "line noise" is different to different users. To most Haskellites and category theorists, most of what I write outside of their communities fits that category. To me, ads fit that category.
If you can convince most professors/researchers of computer science and pure mathematics at my alma mater to stop treating most of what I write as "line noise," you might be able to convince me to stop treating ads as line noise.
However, both such people and I do share one trait in common: Both they and I are primarily interested in content, not relationships.
Benjamin Russell But what happens to your signal/noise ratio when the medium you are communicating on ceases to exist? Seems to me that it would go to 0/0.
Surely some noise, necessary to keep the medium open (which would allow signals to continue), is preferable to failure of the medium.
Benjamin Russell I would respectfully respond that I understand your thesis, yet I would hasten to add that in terms of human communication it is rarely advisable to allow the perfect (idealized) be the enemy of the good. In a perfect world, intelligence might well be rewarded without regard to the less informed or willfully ignorant. Unfortunately, that is not what we observe. I stand by my assertion that if G+ could be saved by the addition of a modest advertising component to satisfy capitalistic concerns, I would be amenable to such. TNQ
Wi aM hEFF! > But what > happens to your signal/noise > ratio when the medium you > are communicating on ceases > to exist? Seems to me that it > would go to 0/0.
Well, let's imagine that I am the Haskellite researcher who put me on his /ignore list and started treating everything that I wrote thereafter as "line noise" as soon as he discovered that my non-Haskell interests (online titles for solo-play) were different from his interests (offline titles).
In that case, I am an extremely busy Haskell researcher employed at an academic institution working for research grants. I need to publish or perish. Every second counts. I get an average of 3 to 4 hours of sleep every night, and pull an average of 2 all-nighters per week in doing research.
Now imagine that, like that researcher, I use Google+, but am only interested in topics related to Haskell, category theory, and Minecraft (his particular favorite title).
Now Google+ is about to go kerplunk. I can choose to decrease my signal/noise ratio, or choose an alternative social medium. What do I do?
First, I look at what my fellow researchers do. What do they do? They usually don't use Google+. Instead, they usually use USENET. When I ask them what they plan to do, they tell me that this is a good opportunity to stop "wasting time in goofing off," and that they plan to reduce the amount of time spent on social media in general. They then tell me that they plan to go back to NNTP (the protocol used for USENET).
So what do I do? I do what my fellow researchers do. That is, I, too, go back to NNTP.
In other words, I fire up my favorite newsreader (typically either Forté Agent or GNUS) and read Haskell-Cafe, Haskell-Beginners, comp.lang.haskell, and gmane.science.mathematics.categories.
Therefore, I do what that researcher does: In the worst case, I go back to NNTP.
He and I both care about our "signal/noise ratio." He treats most of what I write as "line noise" (unless it specifically concerns Haskell, category theory, or Minecraft, and is posted in some forum that he reads regularly) Well, I treat ads as "line noise," too.
Todd Q > in terms of human > communication it is rarely > advisable to allow the perfect > (idealized) be the enemy of > the good.
This issue is not about human communication. This issue is about who behaves as the more typical academician.
Professor Drew V. McDermott of the Department of Computer Science of my alma mater once told me, "I don't think that you're cut-out for computer science." He probably meant to say that my scholastic aptitude was more suited for some subject different from computer science. However, his statement can also be interpreted to have meant that my personality-type was not suited for becoming a researcher.
Most of my life revolves around denying the second possible interpretation. Therefore, whenever some scholar behaves in a manner that is typical of scholars at my alma mater, I behave in that manner, too.
One staff member of the Office of Admissions at my alma mater once published a response to a letter in the college newspaper in which an undergraduate student had complained that he could not study because his roommate spent too much time with his girlfriend in their dormitory room. That staff member, in response to that letter, then replied, "It cannot be the policy of [this] university to encourage friendship." Apparently, it was the policy of the university to encourage scholastic research, even at the expense of friendship.
Therefore, it is not my own policy to encourage friendship, either. It is my own policy to encourage my own type of research (even if it is not related to computer science or mathematics, and is occasionally related to research into otaku subculture).
Generally speaking, I think and behave in a manner that is very similar in personality to that of most computer scientists and pure-mathematicians whom I have encountered. Most computer scientists and pure-mathematicians whom I have encountered seem to care only about content. They do not hesitate to put me on their /ignore list as soon as they decide that whatever I write exhibits a "signal/noise ratio" that they deem to be too low.
Therefore, I behave similarly: I do not hesitate to put on my own /ignore list any social network service that exhibits a "signal/noise ratio" that I, too, deem to be too low.
If you can convince other computer scientists and researchers to stop putting me on their /ignore list even if whatever I write exhibits an insufficient "signal/noise ratio," you might be able to convince me to stop putting social media with an insufficient "signal/noise ratio" on my own /ignore list as well.
What you cannot do is to prevent me from emulating the personality and behavior of other computer scientists and pure-mathematicians.
Benjamin Russell I'm going to interpret everything you've posted here as satire, because anyone who is on G+ can't be all that worried about signal/noise.
Benjamin Russell In my opinion expending energy emulating the personality and behavior of other computer scientists and pure-mathematicians is itself a form of noise.
Wouldn't that energy better be spent on generating content and therefore boosting signal?
Emlyn O'Regan > I'm going to > interpret everything you've > posted here as satire, > because anyone who is on G+ > can't be all that worried about > signal/noise.
It's not satire.
The reason that I became more active on Google+ was that I became tired of being treated as a second-class citizen by certain professors of pure mathematics (in particular, by a certain French professor of mathematics who flamed one of my questions on mathematics on Haskell-Cafe).
Generally speaking, most computer scientists and pure-mathematicians and I do share one trait in common: We all care more about content than about relationships.
The reason that I moved to Google+ was not that I was not worried about signal/noise. The reason that I moved to Google+ was that I wanted to find a place where I could behave similarly to a computer scientist or pure-mathematician, preferably without getting flamed with some abstruse proof of mathematics that was way beyond my understanding.
Fortunately, now I am slightly better at category theory than before. If I return to Haskell-Cafe, there is a certain probability that I might cut it this time. (Also, that French mathematics professor mysteriously stopped appearing on Haskell-Cafe shortly after that, and, at least to my knowledge, has not posted there for years.)
Wi aM hEFF! > Wouldn't that > energy better be spent on > generating content and > therefore boosting signal?
That's exactly what I used to try to do on Haskell-Cafe. It never worked, principally because my abilities were always much better suited to haiku poetry composition than to writing either mathematical proofs or computer programs.
Once, I even attended an international conference on functional programming here in Tokyo. There, I met a certain professor of computer science who discussed Haskell with me. However, he seemed unimpressed with my knowledge of Haskell, and when I tried to continue the conversation later in e-mail, he simply ignored me.
It is extremely difficult for a born poet to become a respected researcher in computer science or pure mathematics.
Also, generally speaking, I am much more interested in otaku subculture than in either computer science or mathematics. Alas, it is not clear how to establish a reputation as a scholar by becoming more familiar with otaku subculture.
Essentially, I am a born otaku who happens to be much better at haiku composition than at computer science, but who majored in computer science in order to write his own game program, but is never treated seriously by any accomplished computer scientist or pure-mathematician because his talents are much better suited to writing poetry than to writing either computer programs or mathematical proofs, even though he has no interest in writing poetry and just wants to become a combined scholar/otaking (king of otaku).
Benjamin Russell And you are convinced that emulating the personality and behavior of respected computer scientists and pure-mathematicians would make you better at Haskell and category theory, and therefore more likely to be likewise respected in the computer science/pure-mathematics academic subculture?
Wi aM hEFF! > And you are > convinced that emulating the > personality and behavior of > respected computer scientists > and pure-mathematicians > would make you better at > Haskell and category theory
That is not the goal. As I have mentioned before, personally, I am much more interested in otaku subculture than in either computer science or mathematics. Ideally, I would like to become a professor of narratology (game-related plots) with the same degree of reputation as an accomplished computer scientist or mathematician; that is one reason that I discourage the use of violence and Internet slang and encourage the use of deep plots and correct grammar in gaming titles.
There are at least 3 prerequisites for this:
1) The current academic reputation associated with gaming must achieve at least the level of reputation currently accorded to film, and
2) Departments of Narratology must be created at universities of relatively high reputation (ideally, at Harvard, Yale, MIT, Cambridge, and Oxford, as starters), and
3) The academic topic of narratology should be restructured so that a certain basic familiarity with writing mathematical proofs in discrete mathematics is required (otherwise, computer scientists will simply claim, "Oh, narratology is a gut topic chosen by gamers because they don't know how to compute"; this potential claim must be nulllified).
My interest is not in Haskell or category theory per se. My interest is in finding a way to achieve the degree of reputation currently accorded to Haskellites and category theorists, but by study of something more interesting, such as otaku subculture.
The problem with studying otaku subculture in academia is that it does not even have the level of reputation currently accorded to film. Instead, it is treated as some sort of gut topic chosen by gamers who don't know how to study. This reputation needs to be changed.
Hence my eventual goal of creating a virtual world in which all otaku can study otaku subculture at a virtual university, and within that university, be treated with the same degree of respect as that currently accorded to computer scientists and mathematicians at established universities.
To this end, the general level of reputation of gaming as a whole needs to be elevated (in particular, violence should be de-emphasized in gaming in the same manner as it is in classical films), and the academic topic of narratology should be restructured so that it not only requires students to write papers well, but also to write mathematical proofs of correctness and efficiency of algorithms for basic gaming routines well as well.
As I have hinted at before, I am an otaku at heart who wishes to become a scholar/otaking, not a scholar at heart who occasionally pursues otaku activities as a pastime.
Wi aM hEFF! One reason for my emphasis on Haskell is that, among functional programming languages, it is relatively mathematical in nature, and if Haskell can be used as a tool for writing games in a functional style, that usage can be leveraged for introducing the topic of gaming into computer science.
This would be much more difficult using a less mathematical programming language because the problem with most gamers is that they are not familiar enough with mathematics, and this aspect needs to be changed.
Forcing gamers to study Haskell would force them to study mathematics, which would help to elevate the reputation of game programming and game algorithms written in a functional programming style in general.
Benjamin Russell I would offer this to my respected friend Benjamin Russell
In as much as you, and a significant percentage of my contacts on G+ are capable of logical and well-reasoned debate about any number of significant topics; whether I agree with you or not is of less importance than the quality of your thinking.
I am left only to assume that many of us on this platform are, and will continue to be, grateful for the abundance of sagacious minds that have made this place our home.
I continue to feel despair at the loss of this relatively unique if ostensibly unprofitable platform.
I expect that until such time as an almost identical resource proves viable, my Internet experience will be largely focused on the consumption of information and less so on interpersonal interaction.
Unfortunate in my opinion considering how much I have profited from so many of the incredible minds that have chosen to make G+ their "go to" alternative to the most pedestrian and popular alternatives. (Eg: I have never established a Facebook or Twitter account)
Todd Q > I expect that until > such time as an almost > identical resource proves > viable
Have you ever tried Dreamwidth?
Personally, I have an account on Dreamwidth and have read some of the posts there, and the general atmosphere there is somewhat similar to that of a community newspaper known in Manhattan as The Village Voice.
Although some of the posts (and especially images) there can be quite vulgar (or, in certain cases, due to no censorship unless the posts directly violate the Terms of Service, even disgusting), at least the posts tend to focus on discussion, and the overall atmosphere is one of a counter-culture.
Benjamin Russell No, but I will considering that you have recommended it. I am an adult (57) and as such am not easily (or ever really) offended by the written word. I am quite simply inspired and enamored by those among us who recognize the incredible attributes of human intelligence. I thank you for your thoughtful contributions and recommendations. TNQ
Todd Q > I am an adult (57) > and as such am not easily > (or ever really) offended by > the written word.
It is not the written word, but the images, which are potentially offensive on Dreamwidth. Specifically, under the "Explore" menu in Dreamwidth, there is an entry labelled "Latest Things." Selecting this entry brings up the public feed. However, some of the moving images in this public feed are occasionally extremely graphically explicit and obscene (sexually, not violently).
However, Dreamwidth has a policy of never censoring a post unless it specifically violates its own Terms of Service.
Dreamwidth has reported that it was refused service by PayPal for "refusing to censor posts that did not violate its own Terms of Service, but that made PayPal uncomfortable." I suspect that it was these types of posts that were problematic, since I have yet to encounter them on any other social network service.
The images that I have encountered so far are not violent. They do not depict any form of mutilation. However, some of them can be graphically disgusting.
Nevertheless, the content of many of the posts on Dreamwidth is quite interesting, and the overall atmosphere on Dreamwidth is that of a counter-culture diametrically opposed to any form of censorship. As such, Dreamwidth has many discussions focused on counter-culture topics that would normally be either censored or shadow-censored on most other social network services (e.g., topics that might appear in The Village Voice, but never in The New York Times or the Wall Street Journal).
Also, unlike discussions on Minds, those on Dreamwidth do not usually focus on capital. The emphasis seems to be on counter-culture topics that would normally be censored on other social network services because they are not normally considered suitable for a public audience, or because they are considered NSFW.
Todd Q Generally speaking, I would not consider Dreamwidth for either scholarly or work-related discussions because some of the posts there can be graphically extremely vulgar.
However, it can be quite entertaining as a form of counter-culture for reading alone at home in the same manner that one might, for example, read The Village Voice or certain counter-culture cartoons at home.
Dreamwidth posts can be extremely NSFW. However, because Dreamwidth refuses to censor any post that does not directly violate its own Terms of Service, it can be quite interesting as a forum for discussing topics that would usually be censored or shadow-censored elsewhere (e.g., hallucinations, vivid dreams, drugs, non-capital-focused political conspiracy theories, UFOs, extra-terrestrial beings, comparative MMORPG discussion, manga, anime, hentai anime, etc.).
First, the likelihood is effectively nil, so the question is moot. My answer regardless of that is no: I'd be continuing my present, and actually previous course prior to the G+ sunset announcement of setting up camp elsewhere.
The longer answer is that advertising inevitably corrupts media, and always has. It is a very large measure of what's wrong, toxic, and a clear and present danger to liberal democracy in today's online, advertising-fueled, Internet. And in ways that individual ad-blockers don't come close to fully addressing.
I'd become engrossed in the past few years -- preceding the 2016 US elections -- on the nature and role of media and society. That it is effectively the feedback and information system for society. And had come to realise, belatedly, that much of "information technology" is in fact media -- the Gutenberg and rotary web press, radio and cable television, were the high tech of their times, if the low tech of today.
(Much of the rest of information technology is the information and feedback system for automated and mechanised processes, though the two are increasingly tightly interconnected, as with the Internet of Shit.)
One of the best readings I've found on this topic is a 1909 lecture by Hamilton Holt, a magazine publisher, at the University of California, Commercialism and Journalism. It's a quick and fact-filed 115 page read at the Internet Archive. On the third page, Holt quotes an unnamed New York journalist, actually John Swinton:
There is no such thing in America as an independent press. I am paid for keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation, like Othello's, would be gone. The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the foot of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. We are the tools or vassals of the rich men behind the scenes. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.
In much the same way, Google's own introductory paper "Backrub" notes the inherent conflicts between advertisers and users of advertising-backed systems. Brin and Page apparently thought they could catch that tiger by the tail. It now appears to have them.
The theme continues for much of the 20th, and now 21st, centuries. I've highlighted a few sources addressing this (and other media issues) in "Media, Advertising, Sustainability, Externalities, and Impacts: A light reading list" (the title is ... slightly ... tongue-in-cheek)
Advertising is not the only problem, but is a large component of a set of conflicts concerning information and media. It both directly and indirectly promotes disinformation and misinformation, opens avenues to propaganda and manipulation, and fails to promote and support high-quality content. It also has very real costs: globally advertising is a $600 billion/year industry, largely paid out of consumer spending among the world's 1 billion or so wealthy inhabitants of Europe, North America, and Japan. This works out to about $600/year per person in direct expense. On top of the indirect and negative-externality factors. Internet advertising is roughly $100 billion, or $100/yr. per person if you live in the US, Canada, EU, UK, Japan, Australia, or New Zealand. The "free" Internet is not free.
And the system itself is directly implicated in a tremendous amount of the breakdown of media, politics, and society over the past several years. Jonathan Albright, ex-Googler, now a scholar of media at the Tow Center (and its research director), Columbia University in New York, "Who Hacked the Election? Ad Tech did. Through “Fake News,” Identity Resolution and Hyper-Personalization", and editor of d1g (estT) (on Medium).)
"[S]cores of highly sophisticated technology providers — mostly US-based companies that specialize in building advanced solutions for audience 'identity resolution,' content tailoring and personalization, cross-platform targeting, and A/B message testing and optimization — are running the data show behind the worst of these 'fake news' sites."_
Again, the conclusion to "would I use an advertising-supported Google+" is: "no."
Google are killing its misbegotten social network, because reasons -- whether you believe the stated ones or not. That's exceedingly unlikely to change.
There were (and remain) many things wrong with the service. Its freedom from advertising pressures and perverse incentives were a key strength, however.
Published news (print or digital) is unbiased while it fits our own prejudices - but for unbiased news we would need to seek out many sides and draw our own conclusions. Almost all of us would still, lean towards what supports our own opinion. Sometimes Al Jazeera brings a whole wide world perspective, instead of parochial national news.
That - what is happening in ... from someone who is there, was one of the magic aspects of G+. Remembering riots in London and Turkey.
The whistleblower is out of work, home and personal safety.
Edward Morbius ty for reminding on the massive downside of advertizing. Though, when put as "advertising inevitably corrupts media" - I am not sure, that on a basic level there is any remedy for that, or that in societies, there is some kind of an endless struggle between corruption and renewal. At any rate pluralist societies are built on the struggle between different interest groups, but the system needs to be designed in a way, that theses dynamics level themselves out to a degree, that keeps the basic system running, or even preferably flourishing at times. Also the economy is build on the market system, and I suppose there is (or could be) also an upside to the advertisement of products!?
I am not saying that proper control, strong state regulations, etc. are not needed, but I think it is difficult to determine what the key factors of the global system are, and what needed to be done first (or rather at the same time) to cause improvements. So, I wonder, if the problem has also to do a lot (and maybe at the core) with the way power and resources are distributed globally, and are about to change geopolitically, with less focus on the West.
In that sense, I think to describe it as "set of conflicts concerning information and media" might not be comprehensive enough (although that depends of course on the definition of "information and media") after all!?
Diana Studer I remember watching the Soviet coverage of the UK miners strike. It was certainly far more factually correct than anything in the UK. Many other things that the establishment feared vanished as thoroughly as Tianamen did from China: the battle of the beanfield for example despite being an important moment when the establishment turned on those rejecting it simply vanished...
One thing I learned from a historian was that you always try to look at sources that don't care about the issue you want to understand. If you want to know about housing don't look at housing pictures look at pictures of other things (like say trains) and study the houses.
So it seems with news. If you want to get a good view on Brexit then some of the foreign press completely isolated from it are most enlightening. If you want to understand the US then it's fun to look at Japanese and Indian coverage of them. Equally I wouldn't read anything in an Indian paper to learn about India 8)
Alan Cox > One thing I learned > from a historian was that you > always try to look at sources > that don't care about the issue > you want to understand.
Agreed; after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster on March 11, 2011, the Japanese government put a block on Japanese media coverage of the disaster. However, this block has not affected news coverage overseas. Therefore, whenever researching this issue, I always focus on non-Japanese media coverage, which tends to be much more candid than Japanese media coverage.
Diana Studer > blocking > Japanese media, leading to > news coverage for first and > second class citizens.
The problem isn't with Japanese media per se, but with the media of the country with a vested interest in the issue.
When I was living in Manhattan, I once read a misleading news article in the NYT depicting people wearing masks in Tokyo to avoid pollution. Having lived in Tokyo prior to then living in Manhattan (and then later moving back to Tokyo), I knew that people wear masks in Tokyo not to avoid pollution, but to prevent other people from catching their influenza (and sometimes to keep from catching influenza themselves).
Misleading media is present is probably every country. The problem isn't Japanese media per se, but misleading media whenever the country (or city) has a vested interest in the issue.
Benjamin Russell Agreed (re media in every Country) and what a miserable shame for the citizenry of all such locations. Unfortunately, only a few of us have the required age, intellect, interest, and free time to deeply explore and evaluate the arguments about often critical aspects of important issues.
I have come to think that there may not be any sufficient answer to this conundrum. I think that the best we can hope for (minus any ethical medical intervention/manipulation of human nature and intelligence) is some variation of the stated goal of the US Constitution, ie; efforts To form a MORE perfect Union.
Any pretense to a Utopian ideal is doomed to fail, imho
Todd Q > I think that the best > we can hope for (minus any > ethical medical > intervention/manipulation of > human nature and > intelligence) is some variation > of the stated goal of the US > Constitution, ie; efforts To > form a MORE perfect Union.
The problem with that idea is that, in practice, it essentially implies the existence of a world government, which creates a whole new bag of worms. Any world government essentially means rule by the wealthy and the influential, and this would create the exact antithesis of the type of nation that was the goal of the Constitution.
Benjamin Russell Again I find myself agreeing with you completely. I did not mean to suggest that I support any kind of globalist agenda, at least not currently. Unfortunately, I think we may well be many decades; centuries in fact, away from having enough unity and maturity as a species for a world government.
But I do not think that it is asking too much, nor granting supernatural, unrealistic standards to journalistic endeavors to simply ask for well-sourced, unbiased, straight up reporting.
I am old enough to remember a time (in the US at least) when substaintial facts held more sway than editorial opinion and unsupported assertions.
Journalism; MSM reporting has taken a decidedly unfortunate turn imho. Do you disagree? TNQ
Todd Q > Journalism; MSM > reporting has taken a decidedly > unfortunate turn imho. Do you > disagree?
You are probably correct. Part of the problem seems to stem from information overflow; specifically, as witnessed on Facebook, when too many users with very little knowledge attempt to discuss the same topic at the same time, what seems to happen is a rapidly flowing stream of very short comments with very little verifiable information per comment.
For this reason, it seems that social network services with too many users actually seem to have less substantial discussion.
Benjamin Russell I wasn't picking on Japan, simply responding to your comment. In South Africa we have our own version of needing to dig for the truth, in our turn.
Todd Q I wonder. Or were we simply less aware before visible social media, quite how much the news (radio or newspaper) was controlled by the invisible ones who paid and decided.
In a city with two newspapers readers would know which supported and which opposed, their own political views. Which of the two is right and true??
Diana Studer I see. Everyone country seems to have some version of the same issue because public media seems typically to be controlled by someone or some group that is either influential or wealthy.
Diana Studer Your point is well taken and I have little (no) doubt that "news" could have been more accurately described as propaganda for many decades. I do however think that the standards of what passes for intelligent discourse or valid argument has taken a precipitous fall during the last few several years. TNQ
Todd Q yes - years ago I enjoyed reading the Cape Times. It was thoughtful and intelligent with a weekly magazine section (book reviews) Now it is all about warping the news to fit the politics of the owner and presumably reaching a very different audience. Frequently called out for sensationalist news which is plain factually wrong.
Diana Studer Thank you. All of us who are old enough and have paid attention could probably enumerate many of our own (subjective) examples. Let us hope that innate human intelligence and a desire to be fair will outweigh political tribalism. Objectively, empirically speaking, we have precious little recourse but to find a compromise as members of the human (homo sapien, sapiens) species. TNQ
New comments on this blog are moderated. If you do not have a Google identity, you are welcome to post anonymously. Your comments will appear here after they have been reviewed. Comments with vulgarity will be rejected.
MY LOVE FOR MY FRIENDS IS STRONGER THAN A THIRTY SECONDS
ReplyDeleteOnly because I still find lots of engagement here.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but ads count as my definition of "signal noise." Since my goal is to maximize my own signal/noise ratio, I usually do this by unfollowing any social media that are contaminated with such signal noise. Ads are, to me, what irrelevant posts are to, say, Haskellites and category theorists, and what commercials are to, say, television viewers.
ReplyDeleteI've become an expert at ignoring ads. It's my superpower.
ReplyDeleteBenjamin Russell Having read many of your posts, it is obvious to me that you are very bright. But I do not align with your reasoning here. I would happily adapt to the inconvenience of a few advertising interruptions in exchange for the benefits that I have received from my presence on G+. I understand that one of the fundamental realities of existence in present human culture is that "there is no free lunch."
ReplyDeleteJust my opinion. TNQ
Benjamin Russell and others, you may also find this useful: qz.com - All the URLs you need to block to *actually* stop using Facebook
ReplyDeleteTodd Q My reasoning is similar to the reasoning adopted by many readers of USENET who use newsreaders to follow dedicated newsgroups. Most newsreaders are equipped with many filters designed specifically to filter out what USENET readers consider to be "line noise."
ReplyDeletePerhaps this is a matter of USENET culture, but it is rather customary among programmers of functional programming languages (such as Haskell) and pure mathematicians (such as category theorists) to maximize what is referred to as their "signal/noise ratio." By this, they typically mean the ratio of interesting content to uninteresting content.
Prior to becoming a user of Google+, back in the early 2000s, I used to be a reader of various USENET newsgroups, such as comp.lang.scheme and comp.lang.haskell, and mailing lists, such as Haskell-Cafe and Haskell-Beginners (the latter of which I founded).
Most readers of such newsgroups and mailing lists were very concerned with their "signal/noise ratio." They read such newsgroups and mailing lists specifically because they were interested in specific topics, and in those specific topics only. Anything off-topic was routinely treated as "line noise," and either moderated out by a moderator (as on Haskell-Cafe), or filtered out using a newsreader filter (as on comp.lang.haskell).
This culture still persists among programmers of functional programming languages (such as Haskell), certain types of mathematicians (such as category theorists and other pure-mathematicians), and professors of computer science and pure mathematics.
Such researchers typically are extremely pressed for time. They need to publish or perish, and every second counts. A second saved is a second earned, available for the next research grant.
Prior to graduation, I used to be an undergraduate student in the Department of Computer Science at my alma mater. There, most professors and researchers were extremely concerned with their "signal/noise ratio."
When I read posts on Google+, I typically treat them in the same manner as computer scientists treat newsgroup or mailing list posts. Similarly to them, I also try to maximize my own "signal/noise ratio."
The only difference is my definition of "line noise." To a typical Haskellite, anything not related to Haskell is "line noise," and to a typical category theorist, anything not related to either Haskell or pure mathematics fits that definition. By contrast, to me, anything not related to some interest of mine (Haskell, Scheme, poetry, anime, or some otaku-related pursuit) fits that definition.
To most people who grew up in the age of the USENET, there is such a thing as "line noise." The difference is that what constitutes "line noise" is different to different users. To most Haskellites and category theorists, most of what I write outside of their communities fits that category. To me, ads fit that category.
If you can convince most professors/researchers of computer science and pure mathematics at my alma mater to stop treating most of what I write as "line noise," you might be able to convince me to stop treating ads as line noise.
However, both such people and I do share one trait in common: Both they and I are primarily interested in content, not relationships.
Benjamin Russell But what happens to your signal/noise ratio when the medium you are communicating on ceases to exist? Seems to me that it would go to 0/0.
ReplyDeleteSurely some noise, necessary to keep the medium open (which would allow signals to continue), is preferable to failure of the medium.
Benjamin Russell I would respectfully respond that I understand your thesis, yet I would hasten to add that in terms of human communication it is rarely advisable to allow the perfect (idealized) be the enemy of the good. In a perfect world, intelligence might well be rewarded without regard to the less informed or willfully ignorant. Unfortunately, that is not what we observe. I stand by my assertion that if G+ could be saved by the addition of a modest advertising component to satisfy capitalistic concerns, I would be amenable to such. TNQ
ReplyDeleteWi aM hEFF! > But what
ReplyDelete> happens to your signal/noise
> ratio when the medium you
> are communicating on ceases
> to exist? Seems to me that it
> would go to 0/0.
Well, let's imagine that I am the Haskellite researcher who put me on his /ignore list and started treating everything that I wrote thereafter as "line noise" as soon as he discovered that my non-Haskell interests (online titles for solo-play) were different from his interests (offline titles).
In that case, I am an extremely busy Haskell researcher employed at an academic institution working for research grants. I need to publish or perish. Every second counts. I get an average of 3 to 4 hours of sleep every night, and pull an average of 2 all-nighters per week in doing research.
Now imagine that, like that researcher, I use Google+, but am only interested in topics related to Haskell, category theory, and Minecraft (his particular favorite title).
Now Google+ is about to go kerplunk. I can choose to decrease my signal/noise ratio, or choose an alternative social medium. What do I do?
First, I look at what my fellow researchers do. What do they do? They usually don't use Google+. Instead, they usually use USENET. When I ask them what they plan to do, they tell me that this is a good opportunity to stop "wasting time in goofing off," and that they plan to reduce the amount of time spent on social media in general. They then tell me that they plan to go back to NNTP (the protocol used for USENET).
So what do I do? I do what my fellow researchers do. That is, I, too, go back to NNTP.
In other words, I fire up my favorite newsreader (typically either Forté Agent or GNUS) and read Haskell-Cafe, Haskell-Beginners, comp.lang.haskell, and gmane.science.mathematics.categories.
Therefore, I do what that researcher does: In the worst case, I go back to NNTP.
He and I both care about our "signal/noise ratio." He treats most of what I write as "line noise" (unless it specifically concerns Haskell, category theory, or Minecraft, and is posted in some forum that he reads regularly) Well, I treat ads as "line noise," too.
I'd stay but I'd build an ad blocker :-)
ReplyDeleteTodd Q > in terms of human
ReplyDelete> communication it is rarely
> advisable to allow the perfect
> (idealized) be the enemy of
> the good.
This issue is not about human communication. This issue is about who behaves as the more typical academician.
Professor Drew V. McDermott of the Department of Computer Science of my alma mater once told me, "I don't think that you're cut-out for computer science." He probably meant to say that my scholastic aptitude was more suited for some subject different from computer science. However, his statement can also be interpreted to have meant that my personality-type was not suited for becoming a researcher.
Most of my life revolves around denying the second possible interpretation. Therefore, whenever some scholar behaves in a manner that is typical of scholars at my alma mater, I behave in that manner, too.
One staff member of the Office of Admissions at my alma mater once published a response to a letter in the college newspaper in which an undergraduate student had complained that he could not study because his roommate spent too much time with his girlfriend in their dormitory room. That staff member, in response to that letter, then replied, "It cannot be the policy of [this] university to encourage friendship." Apparently, it was the policy of the university to encourage scholastic research, even at the expense of friendship.
Therefore, it is not my own policy to encourage friendship, either. It is my own policy to encourage my own type of research (even if it is not related to computer science or mathematics, and is occasionally related to research into otaku subculture).
Generally speaking, I think and behave in a manner that is very similar in personality to that of most computer scientists and pure-mathematicians whom I have encountered. Most computer scientists and pure-mathematicians whom I have encountered seem to care only about content. They do not hesitate to put me on their /ignore list as soon as they decide that whatever I write exhibits a "signal/noise ratio" that they deem to be too low.
Therefore, I behave similarly: I do not hesitate to put on my own /ignore list any social network service that exhibits a "signal/noise ratio" that I, too, deem to be too low.
If you can convince other computer scientists and researchers to stop putting me on their /ignore list even if whatever I write exhibits an insufficient "signal/noise ratio," you might be able to convince me to stop putting social media with an insufficient "signal/noise ratio" on my own /ignore list as well.
What you cannot do is to prevent me from emulating the personality and behavior of other computer scientists and pure-mathematicians.
Benjamin Russell I'm going to interpret everything you've posted here as satire, because anyone who is on G+ can't be all that worried about signal/noise.
ReplyDeleteBenjamin Russell In my opinion expending energy emulating the personality and behavior of other computer scientists and pure-mathematicians is itself a form of noise.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't that energy better be spent on generating content and therefore boosting signal?
Emlyn O'Regan > I'm going to
ReplyDelete> interpret everything you've
> posted here as satire,
> because anyone who is on G+
> can't be all that worried about
> signal/noise.
It's not satire.
The reason that I became more active on Google+ was that I became tired of being treated as a second-class citizen by certain professors of pure mathematics (in particular, by a certain French professor of mathematics who flamed one of my questions on mathematics on Haskell-Cafe).
Generally speaking, most computer scientists and pure-mathematicians and I do share one trait in common: We all care more about content than about relationships.
The reason that I moved to Google+ was not that I was not worried about signal/noise. The reason that I moved to Google+ was that I wanted to find a place where I could behave similarly to a computer scientist or pure-mathematician, preferably without getting flamed with some abstruse proof of mathematics that was way beyond my understanding.
Fortunately, now I am slightly better at category theory than before. If I return to Haskell-Cafe, there is a certain probability that I might cut it this time. (Also, that French mathematics professor mysteriously stopped appearing on Haskell-Cafe shortly after that, and, at least to my knowledge, has not posted there for years.)
Wi aM hEFF! > Wouldn't that
ReplyDelete> energy better be spent on
> generating content and
> therefore boosting signal?
That's exactly what I used to try to do on Haskell-Cafe. It never worked, principally because my abilities were always much better suited to haiku poetry composition than to writing either mathematical proofs or computer programs.
Once, I even attended an international conference on functional programming here in Tokyo. There, I met a certain professor of computer science who discussed Haskell with me. However, he seemed unimpressed with my knowledge of Haskell, and when I tried to continue the conversation later in e-mail, he simply ignored me.
It is extremely difficult for a born poet to become a respected researcher in computer science or pure mathematics.
Also, generally speaking, I am much more interested in otaku subculture than in either computer science or mathematics. Alas, it is not clear how to establish a reputation as a scholar by becoming more familiar with otaku subculture.
Essentially, I am a born otaku who happens to be much better at haiku composition than at computer science, but who majored in computer science in order to write his own game program, but is never treated seriously by any accomplished computer scientist or pure-mathematician because his talents are much better suited to writing poetry than to writing either computer programs or mathematical proofs, even though he has no interest in writing poetry and just wants to become a combined scholar/otaking (king of otaku).
Benjamin Russell And you are convinced that emulating the personality and behavior of respected computer scientists and pure-mathematicians would make you better at Haskell and category theory, and therefore more likely to be likewise respected in the computer science/pure-mathematics academic subculture?
ReplyDeleteWi aM hEFF! > And you are
ReplyDelete> convinced that emulating the
> personality and behavior of
> respected computer scientists
> and pure-mathematicians
> would make you better at
> Haskell and category theory
That is not the goal. As I have mentioned before, personally, I am much more interested in otaku subculture than in either computer science or mathematics. Ideally, I would like to become a professor of narratology (game-related plots) with the same degree of reputation as an accomplished computer scientist or mathematician; that is one reason that I discourage the use of violence and Internet slang and encourage the use of deep plots and correct grammar in gaming titles.
There are at least 3 prerequisites for this:
1) The current academic reputation associated with gaming must achieve at least the level of reputation currently accorded to film, and
2) Departments of Narratology must be created at universities of relatively high reputation (ideally, at Harvard, Yale, MIT, Cambridge, and Oxford, as starters), and
3) The academic topic of narratology should be restructured so that a certain basic familiarity with writing mathematical proofs in discrete mathematics is required (otherwise, computer scientists will simply claim, "Oh, narratology is a gut topic chosen by gamers because they don't know how to compute"; this potential claim must be nulllified).
My interest is not in Haskell or category theory per se. My interest is in finding a way to achieve the degree of reputation currently accorded to Haskellites and category theorists, but by study of something more interesting, such as otaku subculture.
The problem with studying otaku subculture in academia is that it does not even have the level of reputation currently accorded to film. Instead, it is treated as some sort of gut topic chosen by gamers who don't know how to study. This reputation needs to be changed.
Hence my eventual goal of creating a virtual world in which all otaku can study otaku subculture at a virtual university, and within that university, be treated with the same degree of respect as that currently accorded to computer scientists and mathematicians at established universities.
To this end, the general level of reputation of gaming as a whole needs to be elevated (in particular, violence should be de-emphasized in gaming in the same manner as it is in classical films), and the academic topic of narratology should be restructured so that it not only requires students to write papers well, but also to write mathematical proofs of correctness and efficiency of algorithms for basic gaming routines well as well.
As I have hinted at before, I am an otaku at heart who wishes to become a scholar/otaking, not a scholar at heart who occasionally pursues otaku activities as a pastime.
Wi aM hEFF! One reason for my emphasis on Haskell is that, among functional programming languages, it is relatively mathematical in nature, and if Haskell can be used as a tool for writing games in a functional style, that usage can be leveraged for introducing the topic of gaming into computer science.
ReplyDeleteThis would be much more difficult using a less mathematical programming language because the problem with most gamers is that they are not familiar enough with mathematics, and this aspect needs to be changed.
Forcing gamers to study Haskell would force them to study mathematics, which would help to elevate the reputation of game programming and game algorithms written in a functional programming style in general.
Benjamin Russell I would offer this to my respected friend Benjamin Russell
ReplyDeleteIn as much as you, and a significant percentage of my contacts on G+ are capable of logical and well-reasoned debate about any number of significant topics; whether I agree with you or not is of less importance than the quality of your thinking.
I am left only to assume that many of us on this platform are, and will continue to be, grateful for the abundance of sagacious minds that have made this place our home.
I continue to feel despair at the loss of this relatively unique if ostensibly unprofitable platform.
I expect that until such time as an almost identical resource proves viable, my Internet experience will be largely focused on the consumption of information and less so on interpersonal interaction.
Unfortunate in my opinion considering how much I have profited from so many of the incredible minds that have chosen to make G+ their "go to" alternative to the most pedestrian and popular alternatives. (Eg: I have never established a Facebook or Twitter account)
TNQ
Todd Q > I expect that until
ReplyDelete> such time as an almost
> identical resource proves
> viable
Have you ever tried Dreamwidth?
Personally, I have an account on Dreamwidth and have read some of the posts there, and the general atmosphere there is somewhat similar to that of a community newspaper known in Manhattan as The Village Voice.
Although some of the posts (and especially images) there can be quite vulgar (or, in certain cases, due to no censorship unless the posts directly violate the Terms of Service, even disgusting), at least the posts tend to focus on discussion, and the overall atmosphere is one of a counter-culture.
Essentially, it is the antithesis of Facebook.
Benjamin Russell No, but I will considering that you have recommended it. I am an adult (57) and as such am not easily (or ever really) offended by the written word. I am quite simply inspired and enamored by those among us who recognize the incredible attributes of human intelligence. I thank you for your thoughtful contributions and recommendations. TNQ
ReplyDeleteI use an adblocker anyway
ReplyDeleteTodd Q > I am an adult (57)
ReplyDelete> and as such am not easily
> (or ever really) offended by
> the written word.
It is not the written word, but the images, which are potentially offensive on Dreamwidth. Specifically, under the "Explore" menu in Dreamwidth, there is an entry labelled "Latest Things." Selecting this entry brings up the public feed. However, some of the moving images in this public feed are occasionally extremely graphically explicit and obscene (sexually, not violently).
However, Dreamwidth has a policy of never censoring a post unless it specifically violates its own Terms of Service.
Dreamwidth has reported that it was refused service by PayPal for "refusing to censor posts that did not violate its own Terms of Service, but that made PayPal uncomfortable." I suspect that it was these types of posts that were problematic, since I have yet to encounter them on any other social network service.
The images that I have encountered so far are not violent. They do not depict any form of mutilation. However, some of them can be graphically disgusting.
Nevertheless, the content of many of the posts on Dreamwidth is quite interesting, and the overall atmosphere on Dreamwidth is that of a counter-culture diametrically opposed to any form of censorship. As such, Dreamwidth has many discussions focused on counter-culture topics that would normally be either censored or shadow-censored on most other social network services (e.g., topics that might appear in The Village Voice, but never in The New York Times or the Wall Street Journal).
Also, unlike discussions on Minds, those on Dreamwidth do not usually focus on capital. The emphasis seems to be on counter-culture topics that would normally be censored on other social network services because they are not normally considered suitable for a public audience, or because they are considered NSFW.
Todd Q Generally speaking, I would not consider Dreamwidth for either scholarly or work-related discussions because some of the posts there can be graphically extremely vulgar.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it can be quite entertaining as a form of counter-culture for reading alone at home in the same manner that one might, for example, read The Village Voice or certain counter-culture cartoons at home.
Dreamwidth posts can be extremely NSFW. However, because Dreamwidth refuses to censor any post that does not directly violate its own Terms of Service, it can be quite interesting as a forum for discussing topics that would usually be censored or shadow-censored elsewhere (e.g., hallucinations, vivid dreams, drugs, non-capital-focused political conspiracy theories, UFOs, extra-terrestrial beings, comparative MMORPG discussion, manga, anime, hentai anime, etc.).
First, the likelihood is effectively nil, so the question is moot. My answer regardless of that is no: I'd be continuing my present, and actually previous course prior to the G+ sunset announcement of setting up camp elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteThe longer answer is that advertising inevitably corrupts media, and always has. It is a very large measure of what's wrong, toxic, and a clear and present danger to liberal democracy in today's online, advertising-fueled, Internet. And in ways that individual ad-blockers don't come close to fully addressing.
I'd become engrossed in the past few years -- preceding the 2016 US elections -- on the nature and role of media and society. That it is effectively the feedback and information system for society. And had come to realise, belatedly, that much of "information technology" is in fact media -- the Gutenberg and rotary web press, radio and cable television, were the high tech of their times, if the low tech of today.
(Much of the rest of information technology is the information and feedback system for automated and mechanised processes, though the two are increasingly tightly interconnected, as with the Internet of Shit.)
One of the best readings I've found on this topic is a 1909 lecture by Hamilton Holt, a magazine publisher, at the University of California, Commercialism and Journalism. It's a quick and fact-filed 115 page read at the Internet Archive. On the third page, Holt quotes an unnamed New York journalist, actually John Swinton:
There is no such thing in America as an independent press. I am paid for keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation, like Othello's, would be gone. The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the foot of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. We are the tools or vassals of the rich men behind the scenes. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.
https://archive.org/stream/commercialismjou00holtuoft#page/2/mode/2up
In much the same way, Google's own introductory paper "Backrub" notes the inherent conflicts between advertisers and users of advertising-backed systems. Brin and Page apparently thought they could catch that tiger by the tail. It now appears to have them.
http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html
The theme continues for much of the 20th, and now 21st, centuries. I've highlighted a few sources addressing this (and other media issues) in "Media, Advertising, Sustainability, Externalities, and Impacts: A light reading list" (the title is ... slightly ... tongue-in-cheek)
https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/7k7l4m/media_advertising_sustainability_externalities/
As I wrote there:
Advertising is not the only problem, but is a large component of a set of conflicts concerning information and media. It both directly and indirectly promotes disinformation and misinformation, opens avenues to propaganda and manipulation, and fails to promote and support high-quality content. It also has very real costs: globally advertising is a $600 billion/year industry, largely paid out of consumer spending among the world's 1 billion or so wealthy inhabitants of Europe, North America, and Japan. This works out to about $600/year per person in direct expense. On top of the indirect and negative-externality factors. Internet advertising is roughly $100 billion, or $100/yr. per person if you live in the US, Canada, EU, UK, Japan, Australia, or New Zealand. The "free" Internet is not free.
ReplyDeleteAnd the system itself is directly implicated in a tremendous amount of the breakdown of media, politics, and society over the past several years. Jonathan Albright, ex-Googler, now a scholar of media at the Tow Center (and its research director), Columbia University in New York, "Who Hacked the Election? Ad Tech did. Through “Fake News,” Identity Resolution and Hyper-Personalization", and editor of d1g (estT) (on Medium).)
"[S]cores of highly sophisticated technology providers — mostly US-based companies that specialize in building advanced solutions for audience 'identity resolution,' content tailoring and personalization, cross-platform targeting, and A/B message testing and optimization — are running the data show behind the worst of these 'fake news' sites."_
Again, the conclusion to "would I use an advertising-supported Google+" is: "no."
Google are killing its misbegotten social network, because reasons -- whether you believe the stated ones or not. That's exceedingly unlikely to change.
There were (and remain) many things wrong with the service. Its freedom from advertising pressures and perverse incentives were a key strength, however.
Published news (print or digital) is unbiased while it fits our own prejudices - but for unbiased news we would need to seek out many sides and draw our own conclusions. Almost all of us would still, lean towards what supports our own opinion.
ReplyDeleteSometimes Al Jazeera brings a whole wide world perspective, instead of parochial national news.
That - what is happening in ... from someone who is there, was one of the magic aspects of G+. Remembering riots in London and Turkey.
The whistleblower is out of work, home and personal safety.
Edward Morbius ty for reminding on the massive downside of advertizing. Though, when put as "advertising inevitably corrupts media" - I am not sure, that on a basic level there is any remedy for that, or that in societies, there is some kind of an endless struggle between corruption and renewal. At any rate pluralist societies are built on the struggle between different interest groups, but the system needs to be designed in a way, that theses dynamics level themselves out to a degree, that keeps the basic system running, or even preferably flourishing at times.
ReplyDeleteAlso the economy is build on the market system, and I suppose there is (or could be) also an upside to the advertisement of products!?
I am not saying that proper control, strong state regulations, etc. are not needed, but I think it is difficult to determine what the key factors of the global system are, and what needed to be done first (or rather at the same time) to cause improvements.
So, I wonder, if the problem has also to do a lot (and maybe at the core) with the way power and resources are distributed globally, and are about to change geopolitically, with less focus on the West.
In that sense, I think to describe it as "set of conflicts concerning information and media" might not be comprehensive enough (although that depends of course on the definition of "information and media") after all!?
Dran Fren Remedies are part of the research I've been doing. Some form of public media may be the only real solution.
ReplyDeleteDiana Studer I remember watching the Soviet coverage of the UK miners strike. It was certainly far more factually correct than anything in the UK. Many other things that the establishment feared vanished as thoroughly as Tianamen did from China: the battle of the beanfield for example despite being an important moment when the establishment turned on those rejecting it simply vanished...
ReplyDeleteOne thing I learned from a historian was that you always try to look at sources that don't care about the issue you want to understand. If you want to know about housing don't look at housing pictures look at pictures of other things (like say trains) and study the houses.
So it seems with news. If you want to get a good view on Brexit then some of the foreign press completely isolated from it are most enlightening. If you want to understand the US then it's fun to look at Japanese and Indian coverage of them. Equally I wouldn't read anything in an Indian paper to learn about India 8)
Alan Cox > One thing I learned
ReplyDelete> from a historian was that you
> always try to look at sources
> that don't care about the issue
> you want to understand.
Agreed; after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster on March 11, 2011, the Japanese government put a block on Japanese media coverage of the disaster. However, this block has not affected news coverage overseas. Therefore, whenever researching this issue, I always focus on non-Japanese media coverage, which tends to be much more candid than Japanese media coverage.
Alan Cox saw a tourist in a T shirt - Brexshit
ReplyDeleteBenjamin Russell blocking Japanese media, leading to news coverage for first and second class citizens.
ReplyDeleteDiana Studer > blocking
ReplyDelete> Japanese media, leading to
> news coverage for first and
> second class citizens.
The problem isn't with Japanese media per se, but with the media of the country with a vested interest in the issue.
When I was living in Manhattan, I once read a misleading news article in the NYT depicting people wearing masks in Tokyo to avoid pollution. Having lived in Tokyo prior to then living in Manhattan (and then later moving back to Tokyo), I knew that people wear masks in Tokyo not to avoid pollution, but to prevent other people from catching their influenza (and sometimes to keep from catching influenza themselves).
Misleading media is present is probably every country. The problem isn't Japanese media per se, but misleading media whenever the country (or city) has a vested interest in the issue.
Benjamin Russell Agreed (re media in every Country) and what a miserable shame for the citizenry of all such locations. Unfortunately, only a few of us have the required age, intellect, interest, and free time to deeply explore and evaluate the arguments about often critical aspects of important issues.
ReplyDeleteI have come to think that there may not be any sufficient answer to this conundrum. I think that the best we can hope for (minus any ethical medical intervention/manipulation of human nature and intelligence) is some variation of the stated goal of the US Constitution, ie; efforts To form a MORE perfect Union.
Any pretense to a Utopian ideal is doomed to fail, imho
TNQ
Todd Q > I think that the best
ReplyDelete> we can hope for (minus any
> ethical medical
> intervention/manipulation of
> human nature and
> intelligence) is some variation
> of the stated goal of the US
> Constitution, ie; efforts To
> form a MORE perfect Union.
The problem with that idea is that, in practice, it essentially implies the existence of a world government, which creates a whole new bag of worms. Any world government essentially means rule by the wealthy and the influential, and this would create the exact antithesis of the type of nation that was the goal of the Constitution.
Benjamin Russell Again I find myself agreeing with you completely. I did not mean to suggest that I support any kind of globalist agenda, at least not currently. Unfortunately, I think we may well be many decades; centuries in fact, away from having enough unity and maturity as a species for a world government.
ReplyDeleteBut I do not think that it is asking too much, nor granting supernatural, unrealistic standards to journalistic endeavors to simply ask for well-sourced, unbiased, straight up reporting.
I am old enough to remember a time (in the US at least) when substaintial facts held more sway than editorial opinion and unsupported assertions.
Journalism; MSM reporting has taken a decidedly unfortunate turn imho. Do you disagree? TNQ
Todd Q > Journalism; MSM
ReplyDelete> reporting has taken a decidedly
> unfortunate turn imho. Do you
> disagree?
You are probably correct. Part of the problem seems to stem from information overflow; specifically, as witnessed on Facebook, when too many users with very little knowledge attempt to discuss the same topic at the same time, what seems to happen is a rapidly flowing stream of very short comments with very little verifiable information per comment.
For this reason, it seems that social network services with too many users actually seem to have less substantial discussion.
I.e., in some cases, less is actually more.
Benjamin Russell I wasn't picking on Japan, simply responding to your comment. In South Africa we have our own version of needing to dig for the truth, in our turn.
ReplyDeleteTodd Q I wonder. Or were we simply less aware before visible social media, quite how much the news (radio or newspaper) was controlled by the invisible ones who paid and decided.
ReplyDeleteIn a city with two newspapers readers would know which supported and which opposed, their own political views. Which of the two is right and true??
Diana Studer I see. Everyone country seems to have some version of the same issue because public media seems typically to be controlled by someone or some group that is either influential or wealthy.
ReplyDeleteDiana Studer Your point is well taken and I have little (no) doubt that "news" could have been more accurately described as propaganda for many decades. I do however think that the standards of what passes for intelligent discourse or valid argument has taken a precipitous fall during the last few several years. TNQ
ReplyDeleteTodd Q yes - years ago I enjoyed reading the Cape Times. It was thoughtful and intelligent with a weekly magazine section (book reviews) Now it is all about warping the news to fit the politics of the owner and presumably reaching a very different audience. Frequently called out for sensationalist news which is plain factually wrong.
ReplyDeleteDiana Studer Thank you. All of us who are old enough and have paid attention could probably enumerate many of our own (subjective) examples. Let us hope that innate human intelligence and a desire to be fair will outweigh political tribalism. Objectively, empirically speaking, we have precious little recourse but to find a compromise as members of the human (homo sapien, sapiens) species. TNQ
ReplyDelete