The most obnoxious and incorrect voices are often amplified, while the truth is drowned out, stifled, then beaten to death through groupthink, and mass pile-ons.
2/
*** THREAD ***
Accuracy or Entertainment, Which Do You Prefer?
The Importance of Listening to Experts
1/
The most obnoxious and incorrect voices are often amplified, while the truth is drowned out, stifled, then beaten to death through groupthink, and mass pile-ons.
2/
I'm a student, loosely.
But there ARE experts and I have always tried to point my followers to them.
3/
Let's compare...
4/
I daresay it IS entertaining.
But, alas, it isn't accurate, which I will soon show you.
https://t.co/zsgIyHNooc
5/
https://t.co/WEbJMvW8UH
6/
While such a characterization may be entirely innocent, the net result is that potentially 300,000 Twitter followers have been unnecessarily whipped into a frenzy over a few words.
7/
This is IMPORTANT, because it means something entirely different...calls for an entirely different response...
8/
Here's the response to John's article and expertise, from General Michael Hayden, the only man to have served as Director of both the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency.
9/
Twitter personality cults are fun entertainment, particularly because they tell us what we want to hear.
But choosing to listen to them over experts, ultimately, isolates us from the truth.
10/
It's the best intelligence expertise you'll find, for normies like us.
https://t.co/aHxbpfSJ0f
11/
More from For later read
The common understanding of propaganda is that it is intended to brainwash the masses. Supposedly, people get exposed to the same message repeatedly and over time come to believe in whatever nonsense authoritarians want them to believe /1
And yet authoritarians often broadcast silly, unpersuasive propaganda.
Political scientist Haifeng Huang writes that the purpose of propaganda is not to brainwash people, but to instill fear in them /2
When people are bombarded with propaganda everywhere they look, they are reminded of the strength of the regime.
The vast amount of resources authoritarians spend to display their message in every corner of the public square is a costly demonstration of their power /3
In fact, the overt silliness of authoritarian propaganda is part of the point. Propaganda is designed to be silly so that people can instantly recognize it when they see it
Propaganda is intended to instill fear in people, not brainwash them.
The message is: You might not believe in pro-regime values or attitudes. But we will make sure you are too frightened to do anything about it.
And yet authoritarians often broadcast silly, unpersuasive propaganda.
Political scientist Haifeng Huang writes that the purpose of propaganda is not to brainwash people, but to instill fear in them /2
"propaganda is often not used for indoctrination, but rather to signal the government\u2019s strength in being able to afford significant resources and impose on its citizens...not meant to 'brainwash', but rather to forewarn the society about how strong it is" https://t.co/mFAurhEHeO pic.twitter.com/WXKKJaPqWQ
— Rob Henderson (@robkhenderson) June 18, 2020
When people are bombarded with propaganda everywhere they look, they are reminded of the strength of the regime.
The vast amount of resources authoritarians spend to display their message in every corner of the public square is a costly demonstration of their power /3
In fact, the overt silliness of authoritarian propaganda is part of the point. Propaganda is designed to be silly so that people can instantly recognize it when they see it
Authoritarians do not use propaganda for brainwashing, "but to demonstrate their strength in social control...propaganda may need to be dull and unpersuasive, to make sure citizens know it is propaganda when they see it and hence get the implicit message" https://t.co/PqRpxjaIPL pic.twitter.com/1y67d2RCjB
— Rob Henderson (@robkhenderson) June 19, 2020
Propaganda is intended to instill fear in people, not brainwash them.
The message is: You might not believe in pro-regime values or attitudes. But we will make sure you are too frightened to do anything about it.
This response to my tweet is a common objection to targeted advertising.
@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.
Some counterpoints 👇
1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.
This does not seem self-evident to me
Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇
If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted
2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.
But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.
Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.
3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:
"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."
To
"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."
IMO the latter statement is incorrect.
@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.
Some counterpoints 👇
That targeted ads allow for "free" products for consumers is a common talking point and we're going to see more of it in the coming months.: https://t.co/Xty3My3f0u (1/14)
— Kevin Coates (@KevinCoates) February 16, 2021
1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.
This does not seem self-evident to me
Great post by @Sherman1890 got me thinking about the future of targeted ads.
— Dirk Auer (@AuerDirk) February 12, 2021
More and more tools (privacy labels, ad blockers, GDPR) enable consumers to opt-out from targeted ads - can limit the data platforms receive or block ads altogether.
The end of targeted ads? \U0001f9f5\U0001f447 https://t.co/MA6A3BrUWq
Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇
If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted
2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.
But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.
Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.
3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:
"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."
To
"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."
IMO the latter statement is incorrect.
You May Also Like
Trump is gonna let the Mueller investigation end all on it's own. It's obvious. All the hysteria of the past 2 weeks about his supposed impending firing of Mueller was a distraction. He was never going to fire Mueller and he's not going to
Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.
Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.
Mueller's team was 100% partisan.
That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election
They looked high.
They looked low.
They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.
And they found...NOTHING.
Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.
What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?
THERE WEREN'T ANY.
Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.
BREAKING: President Donald Trump has submitted his answers to questions from special counsel Robert Mueller
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) November 20, 2018
Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.
Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.
Mueller's team was 100% partisan.
That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election
They looked high.
They looked low.
They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.
And they found...NOTHING.
Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.
What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?
THERE WEREN'T ANY.
Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.
