Shared from here.
Shared from here.
Continuing from the last post, here is a concrete example of segregation performed by the corporate social media. The result of the US election is a consequence of this phenomenon.
Yesterday I posted on Google+ the article Donald Trump is moving to the White House, and liberals put him there | Thomas Frank | Opinion | The Guardian and I received an anti-Trump comment (reproduced at the end of this post). I was OK with the comment and did nothing to suppress it.
Today, after receiving some more comments, this time bent towards Trump, I noticed that the first one disappeared. It was marked as spam by a Google algorithm.
I restored the comment classified as spam.
The problem is, you see, that Google and Facebook and Twitter, etc, all corporate media are playing a segregation game with us. They don’t let us form opinions based on facts which we can freely access. They filter our worldview. They don’t provide us means for validation of their content. (They don’t have to, legally.)
The idiots from Google who wrote that piece of algorithm should be near the top list of people who decided the result of these US elections.
UPDATE: Bella Nash, the identity who posted that comment, now replies the following:
“It says the same thing on yours [i.e. that my posts are seen as spam in her worldview] and I couldn’t reply to it. I see comments all over that google is deleting posts, some guy lost 28 new and old replies in an hour. How the hell can comments be spam? I’m active on other boards so I don’t care what google does, it’s their site and their ambiguous rules.”
Theory of spam relativity 🙂
To be clear, I’m rather pleased about the results, mainly because I’m pissed beyond limits by these tactics. This should not limit the right to be heard of other people, at least not in my worldview. Let me decide if this comment is spam or not:
“In Chicago roughly a thousand headed for the Trump International Hotel while chanting against racism and white nationalism. Within hours of the election result being announced the hashtag #NotMyPresident spread among half a million Twitter users.
UPDATE 2: Some people are so desperate that I’m censored even on 4.chan 🙂 I tried to share there this post, several times, I had a timeout. I tried to share this ironical Disclaimer
which should be useful on any corporate media site, and it disappeared.
The truth is that the algorithmic idiocy started with walled garden techniques. If you’re on one social media site, then it should be hard to follow a link to another place. After that, it became hard to know about people with different views. Discussions became almost impossible. This destroys the Internet.
There were two moments which make me sympathetic with the result of the elections in the US. My understanding is that those who tipped the balance in favor of Trump over Clinton are people who gave a negative vote. Here are the two moments I mentioned.
1. Year is 2014 and in a country in Eastern Europe there are elections for a new president. There are two candidates, coming after a powerful albeit controversial president. One of the candidates has behind him all the supporters and actors of the secret police which destroyed my country for decades. The other candidate is a bland, unremarkable one, with not as clear support. Every google news was about the first candidate. Every facebook feed was about the first candidate. In the election day I felt I need to breath and went on the streets, knowing that all is a big lie, that somebody important made a deal with the local secret police and we are the victims. The other candidate won, despite the media bias. It was a negative vote cast by the people. Those people in power in US had some local interest in this part of the world and despite their public principled stance, they had absolutely no problem to ally with the scum of the earth. Sounds familiar? (Well if you want to know what happened after, the answer is: not that much. There are limits to the negative votes, you’ll see.)
2. Recall the SJW fighting against machoism in the games industry? Very well, they did it and it’s a cause worth pursuing. But… But when, who’s a woman, created Scihub, what happened was that almost nobody among the US women supporters was impressed. Nah, let’s talk about copyright. Nah, it’s happening someplace far far away, even if Scihub was accessible to anybody, like for example to US research institutions who did not hesitated to make massive downloads from that site. So, if it’s a woman, but not a californian, or a women from US, forget about social justice.
All is a huge wrap of hypocrisy, bundled in merciless propaganda.
The result of the vote shows that US people deserve to be congratulated because they have not yet lost their stamina.
And don’t let me start talking about intellectuals yet idiots. To be clear: and IYI is not an intellectual, is a hypocrite propagandist, which happens to occupy, mainly by byzantine techniques, an intellectual position. Do not confound intellectuals with them.
Do you recognize that blend?
The real intellectual annoys you by having opinions which are ahead of their time. Not mainstream, not promoted by corporate media.
There are a lot of ideas circulating in, or around the chemlambda universe. So, what will happen with them?
First of all there is a way to turn this
highly hallucinatory content (as witnessed by many discussions and participants) into a solid and user friendly experience of exploration. Indeed to the point of convergence with the real world applications. One thing I learned the hard way is that there are moments when it is not good for a project to be too open too soon. One of the features of the chemlambda universe I’m proud about is that for the intelligent and creative people there is a sort of transparency available into the approx 50GB of material available. For the rest, though, things are not clear. This is done on purpose, but it does not scale with the growth of the project. A solution is needed.
Secondly, there is a solution into the frame of Open Science.
I need to make some preliminary experiments and I hope to not make too many mistakes in the process. Thirdly, as concerns the funding problem, there is a solution to that as well. It is a mistake to see this problem as the main and the most important to solve, though. I would be very much relieved if by some miracle this problem is solved instantly, sure, but my experience and gut feeling are telling me that’s not the main concern here. OK, the TLDR is that I’m not yet in the position to disclose much, although I could go again and again into uncharted territory. I really want to communicate with you, but it is simply not yet the right moment.
That is why I shall leave this post as it is, with the unnecessary parts “
computing with space | open notebook
The Decentralised Internet is Here
An experimental 3d voxel rendering algorithm
Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process
a personal view of the theory of computation