Admin at Slrpnk.net
Pronouns: they/he
The Five Filters of the Propaganda Model
Admins PM me for access to Fedi Admin Guild Loomio
When this article was written, the world population was 7.742 billion people. 6 billion people dying would mean more than 75% of the world population.
The shock of this prediction is only slightly blunted when you consider that the world population is currently increasing linearly, and is expected to peak at current growth rates around 10 billion people near 2100. Six billion people dying of climate-related causes is not that crazy over the timescale of 75 years.
His prediction is pretty optimistic compared to the prediction of “Only about 10 per cent of the planet’s population would survive at 4 C.” by professor Kevin Anderson of the U.K.’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change.
Fuck the Heritage Foundation.
Threads.net federation status on major Lemmy instances:
Also, in memoriam:
The !news team has recently changed course and opted out of the bot. AFAIK it will still operate in !world and !politics, but I want to share the news and thank everyone who has given feedback, downvoted, and protested the bot. This isn’t over, but I feel we’ve reached an inflection point.
I’ve experienced Rooki acting inappropriately and immaturely as well. This recent incident is part of a pattern of behavior.
Dave M. Van Zandt rates Al Jazeera English as “Credibility: Medium” and “Factual Reporting: Mixed”; this is depite the news outlet being recognized worldwide as one of the best in the world.
On Dave’s page, he lists two stories out of the enormous corpus they’ve produced in the last five years as evidence of his biased assessment.
The real issue Dave has with Al Jazeera, as evidenced by his pattern of bad, unscientific, and arbitrary classifications of middle-eastern journalism, is that their journalists occasionally do investigative reporting critical of the Israeli government. He has repeated the indefensible opinion that criticism of Israel is antisemitic.
Dave’s personal credibility gatekeeper site, MBFC, is a flak organization is to center corporate news that is favorable to power, and push voices critical of it to the periphery. This is the fourth filter of the Propaganda Model.
MBFC claiming CNN is Left-Center, when it is owned by conservative billionaire John Malone, one of the largest landlords in the world. An example of this right-wing bias is when they put an obvious Trump Supporter on their recent panel of ‘undecided voters’.
If you want to understand bias, learn the five filters of the propaganda model.
According to Parker Molloy from The New Republic, this isn’t “an isolated case of questionable representation in CNN’s voter panels. In fact, it appears to be part of a troubling pattern stretching back years.” She suggests it could be “a potential willingness to mislead viewers for the sake of compelling television.” - media ownership and their profit motive, and complicity of the media elite are the first and third filters of the propaganda model.
I have too much of a hair trigger because I have run across multiple multiple examples today and I just regard everything with suspicion.
There’s a saying that if everywhere you go smells like shit, look under your shoe. You’re so quick to label posters and sources as bad faith actors, I’m starting to think it’s a case of projection.
I’m quite certain if I ignored the warning, I would earn a ban. The difference isn’t between the World and ML mods, it’s between me trying to play nice with their inconsistent bullshit rules, and the people getting banned from ML not respecting the predictable bullshit rules of that instance.
It’s obviously more than a disagreement about how to define ‘spamming.’ The MBFC bot is now the most downvoted account in Lemmy history, and it is now more unpopular than the most popular Lemmy account is popular. It appears in every !news, !world, and !politics thread where it is experienced as spam by the vast majority of users.
But the harm it does is greater than merely taking up pagespace. It distorts the discussion in favor of MBFC’s author’s right-wing views, and gives the World mods the pretense of neutrality when removing left-wing voices from their communities. The MBFC has been widely discredited. For example, Wikipedia’s Reliable Sources Noticeboard rates sources as generally reliable (green), no consensus (yellow), mostly unreliable (red).
Giving this joke of a resource an institutional place in the flagship communities of the Lemmy’s largest instance are an embarrassment to the entire Threadiverse project. Due to WP’s policy of neutrality, it’s even more damning when you look under the hood and read the specific criticisms that lead its policy of not linking MBFC in its pages. I am being threatened by the mods for reposting excepts from those criticisms in reply to the MBFC bot spam.
since the source seems clearly oriented towards defeating positive change instead of creating it, I will and plan to continue to regard it with suspicion.
Fuck, it’s always this with you.
I wish you wouldn’t try to derail the conversation.
Merely being better than Trump was 4 years ago is not going to stop climate change. This criticism of Biden and Harris needs to be amplified, not sidetracked.
We will take immediate action to reverse the Trump Administration’s dangerous and destructive rollbacks of critical climate and environmental protections. We will rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement
Biden rejoined the Paris Agreement in early 2021. Have they not updated their climate platform in 3 years?
If your criticism of the bot is too regular or too persuasive, the mods will call you a spammer.
The irony saying that while the World mods are actively censoring criticism.
Shout out to SLRPNK’s own !fullyautomatedrpg@slrpnk.net also discussing this subject back in April.
What do Wikipedia editors think about MBFC?
I got as far as reading that the BBC often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes, that China Daily [the official mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party] is the most credible media source and that Most content on Wikipedia is well sourced with minimal bias before deciding I wouldn’t trust this site in the slightest. I totally oppose this proposal or any variant of it.
– Iridescent
What do Wikipedia editors think about MBFC?
No, it’s not a reliable source for anything other than itself. I’ve looked at it before in some detail and agree with the negative comments above. Sometimes it may get a site’s left-right bias right, other times it is clearly wrong and sometimes it’s just confusing.
– Doug Weller
I support opening up vote logs to moderators in their own communities. Voting records add useful context to the nature of the exchanges happening, eg. if two people are having a back and forth, but neither is downvoting the other, it contextualizes the disagreement as less hostile.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to give every new user the burden of using that information responsibly. A minority would use it to retaliate, stalk, and harass, and there would be too many of them to reasonably hold them accountable.
Like the stupid titles and vocabulary of the Klan, or the infantile memes of frenworld.