The Dems are terribly sad about a nasty video about Pelosi1. Meh; this is politics. But in their flailing around trying to express how outraged they are about it, they are doing strange things. Which leads me to Facebook is a big obstacle to averting climate catastrophe, scientists say by unthinkprogress, as endorsed by and indeed quoting da Mann. The irony of complaining about fb on fb is entirely lost on Mann. The blindness of failing to see that Mann and many others used and still uses fb to spread information, ditto..
This is all rather reminiscent of our more parochial Brexit: Boris Johnson ordered to appear in court over £350m claim. To which the answer is Free Speech. And yes that does include the "right to lie", somewhat dependent on context; but in this case the context was political campaigning and so yes you are allowed to lie. Because the alternative is judges policing what pols are allowed to say, which is far worse. And no you do not get to say "but this lie was blatant; whereas the routine lies that my favourite pols trot out were nuanced / white / things I don't notice / things I'm happy for people to lie about"2.
"scientists say" is possibly technically correct, in that unthink have found two people who say it: the aforementioned Mann, and "environmental sociologist Robert Brulle". But two is a very small number.
I find unthink's What was particularly shocking is that in defending this move, Facebook told the Washington Post, “We don’t have a policy that stipulates that the information you post on Facebook must be true.” particularly fuckwitted. There should be no shock at all. Why should fb have to go around policing whether all the info on it is true or not? And do we really expect fb to go around removing all the drivel that AOC says?
Mann appears to have joined the ranks of the "all those who are not 100% for us are against us" idiots.
Notes
1. Disclaimer: I haven't bothered watch it. Why would I?
2. To take an example that has just arrived, consider the Graun's US energy department rebrands fossil fuels as 'molecules of freedom. Is this true? No, it isn't: it is only considering natural gas, not all fossil fuels. Moreover, it isn't rebranding: it's just one press release. So since it isn't true it must be false and therefore should be banned?
Refs
* FACEBOOK CATASTROPHE LINKED TO CLIMATE REBELLION, SENATOR WALKER DEMANDS IMPERIAL TROOPS INTERVENE
* Tom Padget by Spiers and Boden
* There are two sorts of people in the world...
* Climate Proposals Fail at Exxon, Chevron Shareholder Meetings (note to self: this refs my unpublished "At Exxon, a failure of governance on climate risk?" post
* Where are they now? Skeptics Are Being Recruited for an "Adversarial" Review of Climate Science
12 comments:
Joined the 'with us or against us brigade?' He was always part of it and may have helped start it.
Since hair splitting is your favorite sport, I would say that the Graun's (whatever that may be) headline is literally true. You have imagined an alternative modifier "all" in front of the "fossil fuels." "Some" is an equally plausible alternative, and perfectly true. Did the story (if there was one) make that point? If so, the liar is the guy in the mirror. If it said the opposite, then they are the guilty party - and you are just carelessly vague.
@-"Moreover, it isn't rebranding: it's just one press release. So since it isn't true it must be false and therefore should be banned?"
Actually the meme has been promulgated three times by three different people in the US administration.
Under Secretary Mark Menezes of the Energy Department.
Steven Winberg, an official at the Department of Energy.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry.
He originated this wonderful spin here;-
On May 7, Energy Secretary Rick Perry announced in Brussels that the U.S. intends to double liquefied natural gas exports to Europe by 2020. Comparing energy diversification to the American effort to liberate occupied Europe in World War II, Perry said that “the United States is again delivering a form of freedom to the European continent.” The Energy secretary added, “Rather than in the form of young American soldiers, it’s in the form of liquefied natural gas.”
Hoping to clarify the bizarre analogy, a European reporter asked if “freedom gas” would accurately describe American natural gas shipments to Europe. “I think you may be correct in your observation,” Perry replied. With this frighteningly dumb exchange, the term “freedom gas” was born, and less than a month later, it is appearing in official DOE press releases.
Perhaps with the amount of ridicule it has earned they will now abandon it as having sufficiently implanted the concept...
But to address the issue you raise...
The political smears and scientific untruths (about climate change or vaccination) that are accepted by fb and much of the media in general can be best understood with a comparison with professional wrestling. In that part of the entertainment industry there is a concept of 'Kayfabe'.
This is the construction of an emotionally engaging narrative of good versus evil, love and betrayal, success and failure that is used to disguise the staged and scripted moves that are performed in the ring as the 'fight'.
The audience (or qt least most) know the whole thing is theatre, but are willing to suspend their disbelief for the emotional payoff of involvement in the conflict.
Trump is a genius at this form. The story-line he weaves around himself and his opponents is as patently fake as the 'epic' battles between the stars of the wrestling circuit. But pointing this out is as futile as pointing out the staged nature of the wrestling bouts for those who have willing invested in the excitement of the conflict narrative.
Mann has as much hope of persuading fb and its devotes of the falsity of the content as an Olympic athlete has of dissuading the followers of wrestling that it is a staged entertainment.
You say that it's ironic that Mann complains about Facebook on Facebook. I say that I don't think that word means what you think it means.
PS - most followers of TV wrestling are quite aware that it's a staged entertainment. One could say the same about fans of Shakespeare's plays.
@-Cap
"PS - most followers of TV wrestling are quite aware that it's a staged entertainment. One could say the same about fans of Shakespeare's plays."
There is a distinction that may be more than a matter of degree.
Shakespeare's plays make very little attempt to pretend or convince the audience they are an authentic portrayal of real events. The contract with the audience is that both sides acknowledge that it is a heightened 'artistic' narrative, with the audience willing to suspend its disbelief and rejecting it as false and artificial for the duration of the play.
TV wrestling with kayfabe goes one step further. It pretends it is an authentic sport, and there is a concerted effort to maintain the characters of heroes and villains beyond the confines of the ring. Fake wives and girlfriends, feuds and friendships are built into the narrative to add verisimilitude and interest to the whole performance.
And while the audience may be quite aware at one level it is all staged, they react to it, with tweets and discussions AS IF it was authentic. The degree to which they are willing to confer that suspension of disbelief seems much greater as is obvious if you watch the crowd at a match or see the responses to 'news' articles about the participant chrACTORS.
Perhaps the ultimate example of kayfabe is religion. there is a complete lack of evidence that there is anything authentic in the story-line of most religions, and often ample evidence that it is wrong at a basic level. (Adam and Eve? Resurrection?!) But the participants are committed to accepting the narrative for the internal emotional and epistemological benefits it confers.
Much of politics lies somewhere between TV wrestling and religion I suspect.
> most followers of TV wrestling are quite aware that it's a staged entertainment. One could say the same about...
This I take it to be an argument *against* judging fb harshly, and not bothering about the video being taken down, on the grounds that "everyone" is aware that it is fake. Probably, that's correct. In which case you're essentially agreeing with me against Mann.
@-WC
"This I take it to be an argument *against* judging fb harshly, and not bothering about the video being taken down, on the grounds that "everyone" is aware that it is fake."
That may be an over-simplistic, either/or analysis.
Consider the role fb has had in spreading fake information supporting the anti-vaxxer or climate denial POVs. Often these posts were pushed by Russian sources trying to foster divisive issues for political ends. Although there are, as with the Pelosi manipulated video, plenty of home-grown attempts to do the same.
Many of those who link and spread these memes may know they are dubious, but prefer the spin to the facts. Otters may strongly believe them to be authentic, or at least, if not consistent with the accepted body of evidence, they are accurate in the portrayal of the issue in a manner that partisan groups WANT to believe is 'True'. Remember the enthusiasm for finding cases of 'Satanic abuse'?
It is likely that many of those who create or repost such material are motivated by ideological, political, and theological beliefs that cause them to reject the best and most authentic knowledge available.
Face Book however does not share that strong motivation for allowing the dissemination of known inaccuracy.
It is simply that the strength of belief ensures strong engagement and more clicks/$.
> over-simplistic, either/or analysis
Certainly. And I won't defend the conclusion; I'm doubtful that CIP does agree with me; I'm just pointing out where his words lead.
But speaking of simplistic and binary, what of Mann's absurd "When it comes to efforts to avert catastrophic climate change, Facebook is no ally. They are an enemy"? These are also stupid words, spread (ironically) by fb, that I would argue harm genuine action on GW. Shall we ban Mann from fb?
@-WC
"They are an enemy"? These are also stupid words, spread (ironically) by fb, that I would argue harm genuine action on GW. Shall we ban Mann from fb?"
Enemy/ally makes it all too binary.
The problem resides in the economic system that encourages fb (and most of the world economy) to be motivated by what gets profit, not by what is authentic or beneficial for individuals, society, globe.
I am aware that replacing the current method of managing resource scarcity is an Impossiblist Utopian fantasy.
(grin)
> profit, not by what is authentic
I somewhat disagree with that; motivated in part by mt / ATTP's most recent, I'll write something that touches on that soon.
Thanks for your latest contribution to the Circular Bosch Economy.
Post a Comment