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.
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.
I’m thinking about money lately and I want to share with you a definition of money related to cloning. It may be relevant to virtual currencies.
What is money in an exchange transaction? In such a transaction there are two parts, say Alice and Bob. There are two items involved in the transaction, call them A and B.
Before the transaction:
- Alice has A
- Bob has B
After the transaction:
- Alice has B
- Bob has A
The question is: which one, A or B, is money? Mind that there are exchanges where none of them is money.
The proposed answer is the following: the money is that item which is hard to clone for both Alice and Bob and the transaction is made for the other item, which is hard to clone for only one part, Alice or Bob.
More clearly, say Alice has the money, item A. She cannot clone it, nor can Bob. So she exchanges it for B (say a pair of shoes), which is hard for Alice to clone (that’s why she obtains it from an exchange), but is easier for Bob to clone (that’s why he sells it, getting in exchange a hard to clone item).
So if we have a system where p2p exchanges are possible, then the money will be those items which are exchanged because they are hard to clone by everybody, and they will tend to be exchanged for items which are easy to clone by at least somebody.
If any of the hard/easy cloning properties change, then money disappear:
- mints are cloning devices for real money, but if it becomes easy to mint money otherwise then that’s no longer money
- for real or virtual money, of one can double spend a money item, it means it can be cloned, so it ceases to be money
- money has to be scarce, as an effect of the fact it can’t be cloned
- if a coin made of gold, minted by a king, is in circulation, then at some point the technology allows to clone it, for example by taking from each coin a minute amount of gold and mint new coins from this extra gold, by using a forged mint (for a virtual equivalent see the Ethereum gas-related hacks)
- money has to be hard to clone “objectively”, i.e. it is not enough to declare that money is hard to clone. There has to be some provably hard way to clone it.
Congratulations! Via a comment by roy. If there is any other news you have then you’re welcome here, as in the old days.
Bruce Dell has a way to speak, to choose colors and music which is his own. Nevertheless, to share the key speaker honor with Steve Wozniak is just great.
It rubs me a bit in the wrong direction when he says that he has the “world first new virtual lifeforms” at 7:30. Can they replicate? Do they have a metabolism? On their own, in random conditions?
If I sneeze in a Holoverse room, will they cough the next day? If they run into me, shall I dream
new ideas about bruises later?
Times are changing fast and old time thinking dies hard and ugly. We have winners and losers.
Winners side: the #ASAPbio hashtag signals that biologists are ready to adopt the arXiv model of research communication.
“On Feb. 29, Carol Greider of Johns Hopkins University became the third Nobel Prize laureate biologist in a month to do something long considered taboo among biomedical researchers: She posted a report of her recent discoveries to a publicly accessible website, bioRxiv, before submitting it to a scholarly journal to review for “official’’ publication.” [source: NYTimes]
OK, many people are still confused about “preprints”, mainly because the fake open movement Gold OA enshrined this distinction preprint-postprint into the brains of honest researchers looking for Internet Age ways of communication. The goal was, without doubt, to throw a shade over the well known arXiv model (which used the name “eprints” before Gold OA was a thing). And to preserve for a while longer the obsolete print business (as witnessed by their immediate association with the legacy publishers against Sci-Hub). But now, with bioRxiv, there seems to be a historical shift.
Biologists are already leaders into imagining ways to share and validate big volumes of data. They are certainly aware that sharing all data, aka Open Science, is a necessary part of the scientific method.
The scientific publishing industry, a largely useless business in the Internet Age, is the only loser in this story.
Losers side: Alphabet, the mother company of Google, sells Boston Dynamics. To be clear, BD is one of those research groups who does real impact, hard research. According to Bloomberg:
“Executives at Google parent Alphabet Inc., absorbed with making sure all the various companies under its corporate umbrella have plans to generate real revenue, concluded that Boston Dynamics isn’t likely to produce a marketable product in the next few years and have put the unit up for sale, according to two people familiar with the company’s plans.”
I am sure that there are all sort of reasons for this move. Short term reasons.
Why is this important, for researchers: because it shows that it is time to seriously acknowledge that, technically:
- we need more data and access to research data, not more filters and bottlenecks in the way of research communication
- and research data on the Internet is a particular kind of big data. Not even very big compared with the really big data collected, archived and used today by big commercial companies. It is technically possible to manage it by those who are the most interested, the researchers. This is not a new idea. Besides arXiv, and now bioRxiv, see for example Bjorn Brembs calls for a modern scientifc infrastructure.
- Big commercial companies are not reliable for that. At any point they might dump us. Social media venues for research news and discussions are great, but the infrastructure is not to be trusted when it comes to the management of research data.