Read on Twitter
It continues to kill me that people think my (assuredly irritating) support of rationality is politically motivated.
When I see irrational arguments I call them out, whether I agree with what the argument is meant to accomplish or not.
I'm never, ever "defending" someone.
When I see irrational arguments I call them out, whether I agree with what the argument is meant to accomplish or not.
I'm never, ever "defending" someone.
(Also, I realize I bring it on myself. Doesn't stop me from being bummed about it, though.)
This latest instance is particularly bad.
Trump's attack on the media is based on the idea that everything they publish is meant to hurt his support, due to them being "the liberal media."
I'm also attacking the media, but with an entirely different thesis:
Trump's attack on the media is based on the idea that everything they publish is meant to hurt his support, due to them being "the liberal media."
I'm also attacking the media, but with an entirely different thesis:
My claim: modern, targeted ad systems essentially optimize for outrage.
The more inflammatory a headline, the larger the number of views.
Both from people who agree with the headline AND people who disagree with the headline.
This seems like an obvious conflict of interest.
The more inflammatory a headline, the larger the number of views.
Both from people who agree with the headline AND people who disagree with the headline.
This seems like an obvious conflict of interest.
Are they "picking on Trump" in order to undermine his administration? Maybe.
Do they make more money if they distort the truth? Unquestionably.
Maybe this is a case of having your cake and eating it too; the intent could be undermining while the extra profit is a side effect.
Do they make more money if they distort the truth? Unquestionably.
Maybe this is a case of having your cake and eating it too; the intent could be undermining while the extra profit is a side effect.
But we have no way of knowing that.
What we DO know is they absolutely know what kind of story / headline is likely to make them the most money in ad views.
That is a problem. And I don't see how anyone can argue that it's not.
What we DO know is they absolutely know what kind of story / headline is likely to make them the most money in ad views.
That is a problem. And I don't see how anyone can argue that it's not.
So I'm saying that publishing something that implies the president said something he didn't absolutely makes them more money, whether the intent was to undermine him or to just collect more ad dollars.
Calling them out on it doesn't require one to think they're undermining.
Calling them out on it doesn't require one to think they're undermining.
Trump is saying it's to undermine him. Maybe he really thinks that. Maybe he's just trying to rile up his base. Maybe it really is to undermine him.
I don't give a shit either way.
But I do give a shit about making money publishing misleading information, period.
I don't give a shit either way.
But I do give a shit about making money publishing misleading information, period.
(Trump DID absolutely say people should take hydroxychloroquine, which was very, very wrong.)
Twitter ate the last couple tweets in this thread, but I'm not going to subject you to me summarizing my argument by retyping them.
You're welcome :)
You're welcome :)
