• 0 Posts
  • 34 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: November 30th, 2020

help-circle






  • thoro@lemmy.mltoFediverse@lemmy.worldLemmy votes ARE public, should they be anonymous?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I typically operate under the assumption that basically anything I decide to post on a public forum is not private.

    Call me crazy, but I care less about the instance admins being able to see my vote history than regular users. For me the latter will produce a chilling effect on how I operate with the site moreso than the former, even if admins have more power that can be abused. I was already aware of the votes not actually being public and the idea admins could see that info seemed to be a given, but I still think there’s a difference between having a motivated malicious user go out of their way to look (making an instance, looking on a different platform, etc) vs making it simple for lay users to see that info within the platform itself (which I what I think is under discussion, currently).

    And honestly, if a solution could be determined to help make votes anonymous but still allow admins/mods to deal with bots/trolls, then I’d be all for it.




  • Yeah, some people work. Have you read Manufacturing Consent?

    Either way, the summary is pretty accurate after watching. He devoted 30 seconds to recognizing that anti communism was a major pillar of the news media back then, at least. But that is a major reflection of exactly how they weren’t “unbiased” and basically shows how the regulations and fairness doctrine did very little to expose Americans to ideas outside those accepted by the elites who owned and ran NBC, CBS, ABC, and NYT/WaPo. So to claim that it’s mostly true that they were “unbiased” back then is still a bit ridiculous after such an acknowledgement. “They were mostly unbiased unless you count mainstream, elite American opinion of the 50s/60s as a type of bias”…

    Again, no look at the structure of the news media and how they treated the US government’s and major corporations’ words as a major form of sourcing, the importance and influence of advertising, etc.

    He has a handful of chosen examples. Manufacturing Consent has case studies documenting coverage of specific events from these media sources.

    The populace wasn’t more educated when everyone got their news from the same 5 sources (and a more educated populace is what we should want from our news media.)

    They just all mostly agreed and said the same things. There was still bias, it just wasn’t as partisan and people were less likely to disagree because there wasn’t anyone saying otherwise. The faux neutrality was a facade.


  • If that’s the summary, then the video is overly simplistic and doesn’t understand the actual concept of media bias. The news was biased then too, especially foreign coverage, and it was biased before then. I mean, this goes all the way back to the USS Maine at the very least.

    Anyone who wants to talk about media bias and hasn’t read Manufacturing Consent or other similar work needs to be banned from the topic. Learn about the propaganda model. Maybe also read about the Committee on Public Information and Edward Bernays while you’re at it.

    I can’t take anyone seriously who really thinks the overall news landscape was less biased when there were only a handful of networks determining news on TV and less alternatives in the print media as well.

    Edit: Longer, but better



  • No, you see:

    1. I was drunk when I replied because I do have a social life
    2. Mocking you wasn’t part of my argument. I made that in the first paragraph (about context and similarly). I just mocked you because I didn’t like you. As you know, Professor Logician, an insult being included in an argument doesn’t necessarily make the argument an ad hominem.

    The original user didn’t reply to my disagreement like a maladjusted prick, unlike you. So they got a civil disagreement back.

    Unlike them, I do hope you get “attacked” by a 5 year old with a water gun this summer. 🤓


  • Because your analogy is ignoring both the volume of water involved and the context that surrounds both actions, one being actual bullying.

    There is a world of difference in the psychological impact of a bullied child being soaked with a bucket of water by their peers and strangers being squirt with water guns by locals as a form of protest.

    In the former, I would be dealing with peers and the feelings of social exclusion that come from bullying and unacceptance. People in my peer group would likely have been there pointing and laughing. There would be fear of having to run into my bullies on a daily basis who would be specifically targeting me as a single individual for no other reason but aggression or to assert dominance or whatever reasons a bully would have. The bullying period would likely have no definite end in sight.

    In the later, I would at worst feel a bit of embarrassment and maybe some annoyance. Maybe I’d worry about running into the protestors again. But then my trip would end and I would be home. The protesters also are unlikely to be following me and my family around as specific people to harass and will instead be protesting generally.

    And yeah this just comes off as Internet debate stuff to me. I said “it’s water” instead of specifically “it was a water gun squirt”. “hmm, having you ever considered tidal waves though. Water can be violent”. Wow. Thanks.

    And again, my response was to demean the overdramatic use of the word “attacked”.

    If someone jumped out of a bush and squirt you with a water gun a few times then ran away, would you call emergency services and tell them you were “attacked” by someone? If so, you really think that would be a good use of your local police force’s time and wouldn’t be exaggerating the situation?

    It’s incredibly soft to describe being shot at with a water gun as “attacked”. Sorry. I hope a 5 year old doesn’t “attack” any of y’all this summer.






  • Miyazaki hasn’t really innovated since Demon Souls. The other games are slight variations on the same gameplay and design. Sekiro is the biggest change, but the overall design is still very similar. The rest are just “more aggressive / faster” or “open world/metroidvania” in comparison. There are other differences, but the core experience is basically the same.

    Fumito Ueda, while similarly iterating on similar ideas, was far more ambitious in his game design between Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, and The Last Guardian. Ico was very different to mainstream gaming at the time. SOTC pushed animation and scale to the limits of the hardware while doubling down on “design by subtraction”. Guardian, while similar in concept to Ico, was a bold move in relying on a “true to life” creature and developing your relationship with that creature as gameplay design. Each were far less mainstream than Miyazaki’s design which is why, as acclaimed as they are, you will find more division about them from so called “core” gamers.

    He’s the more important auteur in the medium. You don’t get Dark Souls without Ico.