Not The Grub Street Journal

Exegesis Hermeneutics Flux Capacitor of Truthiness

0a44f43ca0523213d79ab517ced38b69

Selection_659

Selection_660

Selection_650

123

Selection_651

Selection_652

COLLECTION OF POSTS IN THE BBC NEWS BUSINESS BLOG OF ROBERT PESTON AND STEPHANIE FLANDERS

9 years is a long time in room one oh one, Now the book burning really starts.

Selection_661

BBC Further tighten the memory hole noose, Room 101 alive and well. #StepfordAunty

46ac669bb9a7fc4fd44125c0a534a49e

Jefferson Airplane -White Rabbit- – YouTube

Sångtexter
One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small
And the ones that mother gives you, don’t do anything at all
Go ask Alice, when she’s ten feet tall
And if you go chasing rabbits, and you know you’re going to fall
Tell ’em a hookah-smoking caterpillar has given you the call
And call Alice, when she was just small
When the men on the chessboard get up and tell you where to go
And you’ve just had some kind of mushroom, and your mind is moving low
Go ask Alice, I think she’ll know
When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead
And the white knight is talking backwards
And the red queen’s off with her head
Remember what the dormouse said
Feed your head, feed your head

How to prevent debate while claiming to be in favour of it.


When I look around at the state of public discourse in ‘the West’  what strikes me is that everyone says they want to have a reasoned and rational debate but say that the reason it doesn’t happen is because the ‘other side’ is irrational and so they can’t be debated with. The ‘other side’, their opponents say, always avoids the debate, is never willing to just answer a reasonable question and generally just refuse to have the debate they claim to want.  Does this resonate with you?

I see impasse everywhere I look. In the UK between Brexit and Remain supporters and in the USA between Trump and Non-Trump supporters. I see it between Alt-right advocates and Progressives, and between all the various groups within and around identity politics and those they see as their enemies. I see it in every discussion of immigration. I see it between globalists and those they call populists or nativists.

How is this possible?  How can all sides in every debate want to have a reasoned and rational discussion and yet all claim the ‘other side’ is irrational and unwilling to discuss?

@NOCONTEXTHEARN V @GRETATHUNBERG THE NOBLE LIE, THE NOBLE ART AND THE NOBEL PRIZE #THEEXERGIST #GRUBSTREETJOURNAL EMERGENCE IS THE THING! #HERMENEUTICSFLUXCAPACITOR @EDDIEHEARN #GFC1 V #GFCII THE REMATCH MISMATCH

Selection_371.jpg

#MOABS MOTHER OF ALL BUMPER STICKERS. PUTNAM ON THROWING THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER. WEB 3 ITS REALLY A P2P END TO END ENCRYPTION THANG!

At Stack Exchange, one of the tricky things we learned about Q&A is that if your goal is to have an excellent signal to noise ratio, you must suppress discussion. Stack Exchange only supports the absolute minimum amount of discussion necessary to produce great questions and great answers. That’s why answers get constantly re-ordered by votes, that’s why comments have limited formatting and length and only a few display, and so forth. Almost every design decision we made was informed by our desire to push discussion down, to inhibit it in every way we could. Spare us the long-winded diatribe, just answer the damn question already.

After spending four solid years thinking of discussion as the established corrupt empire, and Stack Exchange as the scrappy rebel alliance, I began to wonder – what would it feel like to change sides? What if I became a champion of random, arbitrary discussion, of the very kind that I’d spent four years designing against and constantly lecturing users on the evil of?

https://blog.codinghorror.com/civilized-discourse-construction-kit/

large-hermies-dancing

Social Networks have been all the rage years ago when they reached their peak and destroyed a couple democracies around the world (including mine) but this is not a text about that. The lens I want to use for us to observe social networks is the content creation and manipulation lens, so grab your lens and follow me through some underexplained reasoning.

  • Social Networks try to present a minimal UI, just enough so that the core features are usable. They are target at common, easy idioms that foster passive engagement in the form of content consumption and sharing. Content sharing is not the same as creation or manipulation, you’re supposed to bring content from outside.
  • Social Networks have been optimized for mobile-first UIs which provide a better experience in detriment of a more powerful and flexible experience.
  • Social Networks prioritize artificial rituals such as liking which gives the trappings of interactivity without generating new content (while also helping fine tune their profiling and tracking data for advertisement purposes). In essence they are metric factories where most features are present to provide measurable forms of engagement to feed ML powered advertising engines. The content sharing is just the fuel used to burn through these metric rituals.

So, my case is, Social Networks limit the amount of interaction

Presently working on. ToneFreqhz

#HypatiasEyeBrowser

#XanuDocs

#AQALBrowser

#IntegralBrowserQueries

#BROWSERS THE NEW BLACK #GRUBSTREETJOURNAL #HYPATIASEYEBROWSER

Workspace 1_263

WITH START PAGE AND ONE OF THE PRIVACY BROWSERS THE HYBRID WEB BROWSER EXPERIENCE IS WITHIN REACH. #GRUBSTREETJOURNAL AND #HYPATIASEYEBROWSER COMINGSOON.
HTTPS://GRUBSTREETJOURNAL.VISUALSTORIES.COM/

https://start.me/p/1kER7j/hypatias-eyebrowser

Selection_560.jpg

 

%d bloggers like this: