Then which part of the population ever used the phrase in a non abusive way? (No I'm not getting SJW on you.. 
)
From my world view It always was used to demean the other side and put yourselves on a podest. The phrase never was followed up with 'here is what I mean specifically, and how you could tackle that problem'. It just was an implied "FIX IT" with none of the ones shouting ever acknowledging what broke.
Also elitism, schmitism... I'm - not saying that dumb people did something especially bad here by maybe permanently ruining journalism.
Its just that payed journalism now becomes more elite focused, because you all stopped paying for it - and advertisers now dont have to deal with any sort of people that tell them 'no you cant do that', they simply can address the public directly. Segment its intrests, target it, tack it... (I.e. not so much caring about 'truth' either.)
When I noted at somewhat of an elite focused event, of the left, that - this now also becomes the default in political advertising, and that this should be curbed by regulation - everybody basically laughed and went to the next event that taught them how to graft their UBER style 70cent a delivery, but very polite workforce, they would very much like to write their app based work contracts for.
And when I talked to journalists at the event, they told me - first there is no patent solution for the journalism problem (meaning - everyone scram differently), and then in personal talks "isnt facebook great, because we could target all the people at this elite event with one advertisement to sell subscriptions to".
So thats whats happening. There are fewer news outlets targeting a mass audience, that still do 'real journalism'. It becomes more of a niche product. That targets people who have money.
But in exchange for that you get everything that facebook gives you for free.
And your 70cents food delivery driver fleets on e-scooters.
And your Bullshit jobs from Microsoft or whatever other company agreed to fake stakeholder capitalism, for as long as this carries societies along.
25% of jobs in the future (after digitization and AI) are in the 'caring for others for money' field all low income. But apparently this is what the working class of the future will look like..
So when I'm dismissive of developments that I deem society entirely responsible for, it is not because I'm playing elitist - but because I have the utmost dislike of the elitist concepts that 'seem to work, and will be further implemented' you can imagine.
Think of me at the guy that loves to criticize and gets left at the wayside. While everyone else just talks less about news, eats their 70 cents delivery meal, buys what an algo advertises to him/her, and fake cares professionally in a corporate CSR job, while the per capita GDP halfs in the west in the next 80 years. And investors simply dont care - because they will be invested elsewhere.
If you already stumble at 'tha fake news media is making me not think correctly' - thats the future you can look forward to. Promised.
Hey 70 cents meal deliveries every day and new youtube influencer video signal bell on your phone. All while sporadically hating on journalism with your friends - why not. Then literally selling your social conscience away as your next job. Sounds like a great life also.
(Job concepts of the future basically derived from 'stakeholder capitalism' concept, and explained here:
)
In my parts of the world 'rebelling against society' now becomes doing 'activism' for the one thing both your insurance company, your church, your friendly multinational, and your climate (not solvable in any country individually) NGO care about, as a young adult.
That fixes you up perfectly for becoming an influencer later on, and leaves you at no risk of actually changing society - because the problem you are protesting against is either a mindset on part of the middle classes (development), or so huge, that your organization will never be able to even promote a solution that doesnt also require all other countries and corporations in the world to agree on some level.
No more fake news for the masses, is actually not a concept I think much about these days. You cant do that with algos, so you will never get it cheap, so the masses arent interested, when they got 'free' instead.
Most of them read the news for gossip stories anyhow. (Spoken in a non elitist fashion. Facebook/Insta replaced what they actually wanted perfectly.)
edit: On the implications of a science of persuasion meeting facebook, meeting AI:
h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNAFI3Lh97Y (Only a short part at the end of the talk, but the talk itself is interesting as well.)
)From my world view It always was used to demean the other side and put yourselves on a podest. The phrase never was followed up with 'here is what I mean specifically, and how you could tackle that problem'. It just was an implied "FIX IT" with none of the ones shouting ever acknowledging what broke.
Also elitism, schmitism... I'm - not saying that dumb people did something especially bad here by maybe permanently ruining journalism.
Its just that payed journalism now becomes more elite focused, because you all stopped paying for it - and advertisers now dont have to deal with any sort of people that tell them 'no you cant do that', they simply can address the public directly. Segment its intrests, target it, tack it... (I.e. not so much caring about 'truth' either.)
When I noted at somewhat of an elite focused event, of the left, that - this now also becomes the default in political advertising, and that this should be curbed by regulation - everybody basically laughed and went to the next event that taught them how to graft their UBER style 70cent a delivery, but very polite workforce, they would very much like to write their app based work contracts for.
And when I talked to journalists at the event, they told me - first there is no patent solution for the journalism problem (meaning - everyone scram differently), and then in personal talks "isnt facebook great, because we could target all the people at this elite event with one advertisement to sell subscriptions to".
So thats whats happening. There are fewer news outlets targeting a mass audience, that still do 'real journalism'. It becomes more of a niche product. That targets people who have money.
But in exchange for that you get everything that facebook gives you for free.
And your 70cents food delivery driver fleets on e-scooters.
And your Bullshit jobs from Microsoft or whatever other company agreed to fake stakeholder capitalism, for as long as this carries societies along.
25% of jobs in the future (after digitization and AI) are in the 'caring for others for money' field all low income. But apparently this is what the working class of the future will look like..
So when I'm dismissive of developments that I deem society entirely responsible for, it is not because I'm playing elitist - but because I have the utmost dislike of the elitist concepts that 'seem to work, and will be further implemented' you can imagine.
Think of me at the guy that loves to criticize and gets left at the wayside. While everyone else just talks less about news, eats their 70 cents delivery meal, buys what an algo advertises to him/her, and fake cares professionally in a corporate CSR job, while the per capita GDP halfs in the west in the next 80 years. And investors simply dont care - because they will be invested elsewhere.
If you already stumble at 'tha fake news media is making me not think correctly' - thats the future you can look forward to.
Promised.Hey 70 cents meal deliveries every day and new youtube influencer video signal bell on your phone. All while sporadically hating on journalism with your friends - why not.
Then literally selling your social conscience away as your next job. Sounds like a great life also.(Job concepts of the future basically derived from 'stakeholder capitalism' concept, and explained here:
)
In my parts of the world 'rebelling against society' now becomes doing 'activism' for the one thing both your insurance company, your church, your friendly multinational, and your climate (not solvable in any country individually) NGO care about, as a young adult.
That fixes you up perfectly for becoming an influencer later on, and leaves you at no risk of actually changing society - because the problem you are protesting against is either a mindset on part of the middle classes (development), or so huge, that your organization will never be able to even promote a solution that doesnt also require all other countries and corporations in the world to agree on some level.
No more fake news for the masses, is actually not a concept I think much about these days. You cant do that with algos, so you will never get it cheap, so the masses arent interested, when they got 'free' instead.
Most of them read the news for gossip stories anyhow. (Spoken in a non elitist fashion. Facebook/Insta replaced what they actually wanted perfectly.)
edit: On the implications of a science of persuasion meeting facebook, meeting AI:
h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNAFI3Lh97Y (Only a short part at the end of the talk, but the talk itself is interesting as well.)
Last edited by notimp,
