Started by Morgan Williams · · 👁 1.2K views · 18K replies
…
restlesssurfer97 said:Basically a government lawyer over at the IRS and an archival supervisor for the Department of Mineral Research and Wasting Time, SS.
Am I even in the ballpark here? Since I honestly have zero clue what you guys actually do for a living 🤣
btw, just drop the Alan Ford-style office name, even if it fits your profile perfectly 🤣
Justin James10 said:Compared to a major federal agency like the Office of Management and Budget, that guy is absolutely nothing ☕
ruggedjackal46 said:I assume this realization hits you after every single post you make. 🤣
shadowmarlin22 said:The problem right now is that the media landscape is way too skewed to the left. You want the perfect example? Just look at this whole circus surrounding Cambridge Analytica and Trump. Everyone is losing their minds over it, but if you go back ten years, everyone was practically worshiping Obama for doing the exact same thing. He leveraged big data and high-level analytics to win—back then, the conservatives just complained that the Democrats had outmaneuvered them strategically. Now, Trump pours a massive amount of money into those same tactics, and suddenly he’s the villain stealing data. It’s the same playbook; the players just changed.🙏🙏It isn't just about what the news outlets are reporting—it’s about how that media influence actually guts platforms like Facebook. They lost a massive chunk of their market cap in a single day because of it. People tend to follow the herd, and honestly, the most effective way to control a crowd these days is through the media. It’s become incredibly easy to profile users and feed them exactly what they want to hear while keeping everything else quiet. Look, Trump might be an idiot, but that’s not really the point here.
People love to trash the current system these days—and honestly, I get it—but let’s be real: the framework we have in most developed nations right now is still the best one we've ever managed to put together. That said, if anyone actually believes we have true freedom of speech today, especially in the media, they’re dead wrong. In a dictatorship, sure, the news outlets just follow whatever orders the ruling party hands down. But in a free society, the theory is that everyone should be reporting the truth. The problem is that "truth" isn't exactly served up on a silver platter. Instead, you're fed a constant stream of one-sided perspectives from a specific ideological bubble—mostly on the left—which shapes your worldview before you even realize it. And today? They have the most sophisticated technology imaginable—basically a high-tech weapon—designed specifically to feed you exactly what they want you to hear until you eventually just nod along.
The logic behind free speech is fundamentally broken if you try to balance it by giving every minority group total license to do whatever they want. It’s a contradiction. If you start placing restrictions on people just because their words might offend someone, you aren't actually protecting expression—you're effectively shielding the very people whose freedom of speech forms the foundation of this entire system.
If you’re under the impression that what we have here is actual democracy, you’re mistaken. Real democracy exists in Switzerland—not here in the States. What we’re dealing with in America is really just another incremental step toward a democratic system, nothing more. Think about the progression: you had monarchies where one person ruled indefinitely based purely on bloodlines. Then you had totalitarian regimes where a small group held absolute power for an unlimited time, all driven by ideology. Now, we’ve moved to a stage where a group leads with a single head of state, but for a limited term. Some might argue we’ve simply shortened the duration of a one-party dictatorship, but the distinction is that the people actually get a say in who they want. Of course, "the people" are essentially choosing from whatever is served to them—a menu of empty promises that politicians have zero intention of actually keeping. True direct democracy—the kind they practice in Switzerland—is the only real deal. It’s a system where citizens head to the polls for referendums on every major issue and law. If the public decides they hate a specific law, they can vote it down. That creates the only legitimate check on power: the government doesn't get to do whatever it wants because the people hold the ultimate control.
Naturally, the big question is how this would actually play out in other places—like here in America. Is the public actually self-aware enough to vote for the long-term good of the country rather than just what lines their own pockets? And can the media truly stay independent, or will they just spin the narrative to push people toward a specific vote before a referendum even happens? In my opinion, the answer is no—and we’re nowhere near being ready for that level of maturity. I'm just saying, you don't really have a true democracy, or actual power in the hands of the people, without a system like this in place. Anything else is just a facade—you're basically just picking which group gets to rule over you for a set term.
shadowmarlin22 said:The problem right now is that the media landscape is way too skewed to the left. You want the perfect example? Just look at this whole circus surrounding Cambridge Analytica and Trump. Everyone is losing their minds over it, but if you go back ten years, everyone was practically worshiping Obama for doing the exact same thing. He leveraged big data and high-level analytics to win—back then, the conservatives just complained that the Democrats had outmaneuvered them strategically. Now, Trump pours a massive amount of money into those same tactics, and suddenly he’s the villain stealing data. It’s the same playbook; the players just changed.🙏🙏It isn't just about what the news outlets are reporting—it’s about how that media influence actually guts platforms like Facebook. They lost a massive chunk of their market cap in a single day because of it. People tend to follow the herd, and honestly, the most effective way to control a crowd these days is through the media. It’s become incredibly easy to profile users and feed them exactly what they want to hear while keeping everything else quiet. Look, Trump might be an idiot, but that’s not really the point here.
People love to trash the current system these days—and honestly, I get it—but let’s be real: the framework we have in most developed nations right now is still the best one we've ever managed to put together. That said, if anyone actually believes we have true freedom of speech today, especially in the media, they’re dead wrong. In a dictatorship, sure, the news outlets just follow whatever orders the ruling party hands down. But in a free society, the theory is that everyone should be reporting the truth. The problem is that "truth" isn't exactly served up on a silver platter. Instead, you're fed a constant stream of one-sided perspectives from a specific ideological bubble—mostly on the left—which shapes your worldview before you even realize it. And today? They have the most sophisticated technology imaginable—basically a high-tech weapon—designed specifically to feed you exactly what they want you to hear until you eventually just nod along.
The logic behind free speech is fundamentally broken if you try to balance it by giving every minority group total license to do whatever they want. It’s a contradiction. If you start placing restrictions on people just because their words might offend someone, you aren't actually protecting expression—you're effectively shielding the very people whose freedom of speech forms the foundation of this entire system.
If you’re under the impression that what we have here is actual democracy, you’re mistaken. Real democracy exists in Switzerland—not here in the States. What we’re dealing with in America is really just another incremental step toward a democratic system, nothing more. Think about the progression: you had monarchies where one person ruled indefinitely based purely on bloodlines. Then you had totalitarian regimes where a small group held absolute power for an unlimited time, all driven by ideology. Now, we’ve moved to a stage where a group leads with a single head of state, but for a limited term. Some might argue we’ve simply shortened the duration of a one-party dictatorship, but the distinction is that the people actually get a say in who they want. Of course, "the people" are essentially choosing from whatever is served to them—a menu of empty promises that politicians have zero intention of actually keeping. True direct democracy—the kind they practice in Switzerland—is the only real deal. It’s a system where citizens head to the polls for referendums on every major issue and law. If the public decides they hate a specific law, they can vote it down. That creates the only legitimate check on power: the government doesn't get to do whatever it wants because the people hold the ultimate control.
Naturally, the big question is how this would actually play out in other places—like here in America. Is the public actually self-aware enough to vote for the long-term good of the country rather than just what lines their own pockets? And can the media truly stay independent, or will they just spin the narrative to push people toward a specific vote before a referendum even happens? In my opinion, the answer is no—and we’re nowhere near being ready for that level of maturity. I'm just saying, you don't really have a true democracy, or actual power in the hands of the people, without a system like this in place. Anything else is just a facade—you're basically just picking which group gets to rule over you for a set term.
Matthew Young35 said:How can anyone possibly deny it when we’re staring down the barrel of stolen data and a coordinated flood of fake news?
What should we even make of this? Should we just call him incredibly gifted?
The leader steals, peddles fake news, and then acts like the victim the moment someone actually calls them out on it. Is that really how we're playing this?
Sandra Johnson58 said:Seriously, still nobody is actually answering my question. Like, what’s even the difference between an online smear campaign and the old-school stuff you see on TV or in tabloids? With traditional media, if they lie about you, the retraction gets buried on page 28 or aired during some random news segment after midnight. But online? It's different. There isn't really a difference in the *intent*, it's just that modern tech gives individuals this insane level of access. What Cambridge Analytica pulled was a massive breach of trust, period. And honestly, I feel like the only ones who might actually sue them are Meta, and even then, maybe only if they feel like staying in the headlines for this scandal. They basically allow all this data harvesting and targeted ad creation—they even do it themselves!—but then they act surprised when people ask to have their data deleted. There weren't even any real contracts in place; everything was just handled under the table, which is exactly how they got screwed over. I mean, sure, the guy who built that personality test found a loophole in the algorithm and exploited it, even though it broke the rules, but at the end of the day... it's still Facebook's fault.😁
ironpanther5 said:Since we’re already talking about the upcoming elections, I have to point out that this specific moment from the debate was actually a massive turning point back during the Obama vs. Romney era. Unlike McCain, who just couldn't quite get his footing, Mitt was actually within striking distance until the mainstream media decided to loop this exact clip on a continuous cycle and basically assassinated his campaign. So, please, go ahead and enjoy all that condescending leftist lecturing; he shut them down so hard it felt like watching the Cold War end in real-time—Russia can kiss my ass 🙏
Matthew Young35 said:Well, for heaven's sake... The difference is that the data was STOLEN.
the data was collected through an app called thisisyourdigitallife, built by academic Aleksandr Kogan, separately from his work at Cambridge University. Through his company Global Science Research (GSR), in collaboration with Cambridge Analytica, hundreds of thousands of users were paid to take a personality test and agreed to have their data collected for academic use.
However, the app also collected the information of the test-takers’ Facebook friends, leading to the accumulation of a data pool tens of millions-strong. Facebook’s “platform policy” allowed only collection of friends’ data to improve user experience in the app and barred it being sold on or used for advertising.
Sandra Johnson58 said:Look, I guess Obama was doing data mining back then too, it's just that Facebook actually let them do it back then. They had this app where voters would basically give permission for their info to be used—and it included their friends' info too, since they were consenting on their behalf. I think Obama's campaign manager even bragged about how they totally leveraged that stuff during the 2012 election at a TED talk. It wasn't exactly the same situation, but yeah, it was all about harvesting data.
But honestly? There's no theft involved because Facebook is a private company. They have these Terms of Service that everyone just clicks "accept" on without ever actually reading. And in those terms, people basically agree to let them use their personal info to provide a "better" service. Check out this quote from the New York Times—pay attention to the bold part.the data was collected through an app called thisisyourdigitallife, built by academic Aleksandr Kogan, separately from his work at Cambridge University. Through his company Global Science Research (GSR), in collaboration with Cambridge Analytica, hundreds of thousands of users were paid to take a personality test and agreed to have their data collected for academic use.
However, the app also collected the information of the test-takers’ Facebook friends, leading to the accumulation of a data pool tens of millions-strong. Facebook’s “platform policy” allowed only collection of friends’ data to improve user experience in the app and barred it being sold on or used for advertising.
Like I said, Facebook allows data collection, they just don't allow people to sell it. Maybe the only ones who could actually sue are Facebook themselves, though I don't know if they'd even want to, since it wasn't really a theft—just a violation of some informal agreements.
Matthew Young35 said:It isn't just a mess; it's a complete disaster.
And while we're on the subject, what exactly are we going to do about the spread of fake news?
