For years, technologists and other utopians have argued that online news would be a boon to democracy. That has not been the case.Funny that he does not mention the partisans who believe that Bush stole the 2000 election. Maybe because the NY Times itself spread that myth.
More than a decade ago, as a young reporter covering the intersection of technology and politics, I noticed the opposite. The internet was filled with 9/11 truthers, and partisans who believed against all evidence that George W. Bush stole the 2004 election from John Kerry, or that Barack Obama was a foreign-born Muslim. (He was born in Hawaii and is a practicing Christian.)
The argument about Obama was that he was not a natural born citizen, and that Islamic law would consider him a Muslim. Those are both legitimate arguments.
But the bigger point is that Donald Trump is a major Presidential candidate, even tho he is opposed by all of the mainstream news media. His candidacy is only viable because millions of ppl can use the internet to see that the media elites are lying to them about him.
Among voters who are deciding for themselves, Trump is much more popularity. His rallies are huge, while no one likes or trusts Clinton. Trump has been chosen by the people, as the elites would never choose him. The internet has made that possible.
The only point that fellow has is that the internet has upped the craziness factor by 100. However, good and informed argument is to be found just about everywhere on the internet, and there are ways to at least be able to test if someone is giving you a pile of BS or whether they are telling you something that has some backing. References are now available at the touch of a button on a smartphone you carry in your pocket. Also, with the cameras on your smartphone, if you witness anything newsworthy then it can be uploaded to the internet in seconds. It is a lot harder for the elite mainstream media to feed people BS. If the price of making it harder for the mainstream media to feed us all BS is that everyone else is able to feed us BS, then I think that is a price worth paying. In the long run it will be better argument that wins the day.
I recall the internet being praised for helping the Obama election. So now it is bad because it might help get elected Mr Literally Hitler. I have read his 100 day plan of action pledge to the American people, and quite frankly if he can achieve even a third of it, it will have been worth electing Trump. If I were able to vote for him, I would give him 2 terms upfront for delivering all of it, and of course, that beautiful wall.
Anonymous, don't be a pompous ass that thinks you have a God's Eye View of what is "crazy." If people want to elect a HillBilly, that's their choice, but the states that turned blue were pure white... I can't help it if white trash became overeducated in the northeast and northwest because of the self-esteem movement. They should pass the bar exam before commenting...
I read more journal articles in a week than you probably do in a year but I predicted it all outside them. Even the Cubs! How did your Nate Silver and Sam Wang do, by the way?
I'm all footnotes: https://twitter.com/i/moments/795644840151289856
I honestly do not know what you are talking about. Try reading what I actually wrote again, and think about how you might have got it just about the wrong way around.
If you still can see it, I will be shrugging my shoulders and leave you with the last word.
Post a Comment