Jump to content


AnBr

Member Since 21 January 2012 - 01:48 AM
Offline Last Active Nov 18 2019 04:26 AM
-----

Topics I've Started

Trump and Social Media

02 November 2019 - 04:20 PM

Given how so much of the Russian and right-wing's manipulations are via social media as well as where Twitler's texting diarrhea occurs I thought I would start a thread for it. First up, an Axios article entitled "Zuckerberg’s power to hurt Trump".

Quote


Top Republicans are privately worried about a new threat to President Trump’s campaign: the possibility of Facebook pulling a Twitter and banning political ads.

Why it matters: Facebook says it won't, but future regulatory pressure could change that. If Facebook were to ban — or even limit — ads, it could upend Trump’s fundraising and re-election plan, GOP officials tell Axios.
  • Trump relies heavily — much more so than Democrats — on targeted Facebook ads to shape views and raise money.

Red flag: Kara Swisher, of Recode, the super plugged-in tech writer, predicted on CNBC's "Squawk Box" that Mark Zuckerberg will ultimately buckle on allowing demonstrably false political adds on Facebook: "He's going to change his mind — 100% ... [H]e's done it before."

Charles Darwin, the Father of Economics

31 October 2019 - 11:32 AM

https://evonomics.co...charles-darwin/

Quote

Cornell economist Robert Frank is highly respected within his profession and well known to the general public through his books such as The Winner Take All Society and Luxury Fever. In his latest book The Darwin Economy, he predicts that 100 years from now Charles Darwin, and not Adam Smith, will be regarded as the father of economics. I interviewed Bob in his office on August 20, 2015. I began by asking him to explain his prediction and we ended by discussing how to cut 100 years to 10 years.

Facebook Ad Policy

26 October 2019 - 09:24 AM

Policy challenged by false claim Republican Graham backs Green New Deal

Quote

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A left-leaning political group is challenging Facebook’s policy not to fact-check some political ads by running a spot that falsely claims Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has endorsed the Green New Deal, a plan by prominent Democrats.

Facebook Inc (FB.O) has come under fire in recent weeks over its decision to not fact-check ads run by politicians. The new ad comes days after Green New Deal champion Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez grilled Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on whether his site would allow such an ad.

“Could I run ads targeting Republicans in primaries saying that they voted for the Green New Deal?,” Ocasio-Cortez asked the tech executive at a congressional hearing on Wednesday.

“Congresswoman, I don’t know the answer to that off the top of my head,” Zuckerberg replied. “I think probably.”

Are we city dwellers or hunter-gatherers?

20 October 2019 - 11:01 AM

I put this in Political because I think it has political ramifications.

New research suggests that the familiar story of early human society is wrong – and the consequences are profound.

Quote

1. In the beginning was the word[/b]

For centuries, we have been telling ourselves a simple story about the origins of social inequality. For most of their history, humans lived in tiny egalitarian bands of hunter-gatherers. Then came farming, which brought with it private property, and the
n the rise of cities which meant the emergence of civilisation properly speaking. Civilisation meant many bad things (wars, taxes, bureaucracy, patriarchy, slavery) but also made possible written literature, science, philosophy and most other great human achievements.

Almost everyone knows this story in its broadest outlines. Since at least the days of the 18th-century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, it has framed what we think the overall shape and direction of human history to be. This is important because the narrative also defines our sense of political possibility. Most see civilisation, hence inequality, as a tragic necessity. Some dream of returning to a past utopia, of finding an industrial equivalent to “primitive communism”, or even, in extreme cases, of destroying everything, and going back to being foragers again. But no one challenges the basic structure of the story.

There is a fundamental problem with this narrative: it isn’t true. Overwhelming evidence from archaeology, anthropology and kindred disciplines is beginning to give us a fairly clear idea of what the last 40,000 years of human history really looked like, and in almost no way does it resemble the conventional narrative. Our species did not, in fact, spend most of its history in tiny bands; agriculture did not mark an irreversible threshold in social evolution; the first cities were often robustly egalitarian. Still, even as researchers have gradually come to a consensus on such questions, they remain strangely reluctant to announce their findings to the public – or even scholars in other disciplines – let alone reflect on the larger political implications. As a result, those writers who are reflecting on the “big questions” of human history – Jared Diamond, Francis Fukuyama, Ian Morris and others – still take Rousseau’s question (“what is the origin of social inequality?”) as their starting point, and assume the larger story will begin with some kind of fall from primordial innocence.

Misc Political Posts

13 October 2019 - 05:40 PM

Posted Image