(untitled)

It acclerates. "Misinformation" is coded language for "against the official narrative". A really braindead trojan horse, but one that'll set all the right precedents and chilling effects in the long run. If overplayed too quickly though, it'll spur backlash. So it'll follow an intermittent reinforcement regime. Put on the pressure, hard, make sure they feel it and remember. Then ease up, but not completely. Wait a bit, let it relax to a new normal. Pressure again. Repeat. Among the deeper and more durable methods of behavior modification. Coming at the world from all angles now.

>>33969 "Misinformation" was always against the official narrative, but official narratives in western society were usually not so blatantly false. At one point media believed it's role was to tell the truth, now everyone has an agenda, even those who claim to tell the truth. We are living in a soykafty cyberpunk timeline, and it's all about to fall down. The west has outlived its prosperity and the global consumer machine can't be sustained forever. All information today exists to drive profit, media companies are no longer free press but advertising companies. That goes for both mainstream and obscure fringe news organizations.

>>33976 >At one point media believed it's role was to tell the truth I envy your innocence. The media is, and always has been, a means to distribute and broadcast propaganda, with the exact message depending on what the corporation or government bankrolling that specific media agency wants people to believe. It hasn't ever quite been THIS BAD before, though.

Yes they have been pulling off this scheme for decades now, atleast since the drug prohibition crap started. Weaponization of language and culture has been one of the oldest weapons of large government bodies. The slow errosion of values such as critical and independent thinking over time has put us at a breaking point where most of the population are sleeper cops basically and have no concepts of morals or freedom but just pursue petty pleasures like trained rats in a giant maze. The brave new world new humans are not even needed, people have sold out so easely they might well hang from the same ropes as their leaders. But as it seems its all eating itself up, all of their lies will be proof in the end of their guilt.

>>33990 in 60s press reported about cia smuggling drugs to fund overseas operations with anonymous money and the main reporter got rewarded with 2 headshots in back ruled suicide. The rest didn't have the balls to investigate but at least reported it along. Right now press would call you nutter and claim its salt while fb bans links to evidence getting shared killing the news. In fact we have a live example where some lab worker got interviewed on coof and gave a quite unfavorable account, people share how the big sites silence the spread of the story on typical fringe sites while gaagle wont even list it.

>>34000 It sounds to me like as usual the general population got what it deserved. This is why collective punishment works and is required, everyone needs to hurt, they need to hurt all at once, they need to hurt bad, and they need to hurt in a way that they will never forget. Burn the pain into their body and mind so they will never escape it, not a single second of a single day will it go away for the rest of their miserable empty vesel norm!e lives. There is not other way. Try to say anything about Satanic Ritual Abuse, MKULTRA Monarch, "pizzagate", Simmy Saville, international blackmail and human trafficking rings, Joe Blow norm!e soykaf for brains jumps in "heh, that's a hoax, it's been debunked". These creatures would rather side with and defend complete stranger "ALLEGED" PEDOPHILES than turn their fuarrrking brain on. https://bird-production.com/photographers/wai-lin-tse/commissioned/the-animals-observatory/ DOES THIS LOOK NORMAL TO YOU, COCKSUCKER?

Ah, yes. Yes. And who could forget about h3h3 and his fuarrrked up looking wife's creep store "teddyfresh". Ah yes, to be teddy fresh again, to have that innocent teddy fresh. Maybe you should pick up Grandpa's Crazy Drip (you know, like something dripping off the end of his craaaazzzzyyyyyyy dick, get it, get it? Crazy drip? Get it? Get it?) >: ( : ) : ( : ) : ( : ) : ( : ) : ( : ) : ( : ) : ( : ) : ( : ) : ( : ) : ( : ) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- TEEHEE YOU GET IT? GET IT? SEE MY TRAUMA REENACTMENT? HAPPY SAD HAPPY SAD HAPPY SAD MOMMY DADDY MOMMY DADDY AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH fuarrrk this soykafhole planet. I hate norm!es. I hate them so much I have no words. God I just hate them.

>>34001 woah there, I wasn't going all in schizo. Gary Webb was a well known case of CIA conspiracy, not just some crackhead's theory.

>>34005 Sigh. Remove yourself from the Wired, Lain.

>>34007 Not sure which side this Lain is taking, actually. Maybe I'm just illiterate, so whatever. Somehow this thread caught my attention, so I spent a few hours poring over, specifically, the Pizzagate conspiracy theory Wikipedia article and its related talk pages. Specifically Pizzagate because I've heard of it before and it has a funny name, but you don't care. It's a good read, and taking a look at the talk articles was my first dive into the process behind every article. >>34001 There are pages of debate on using the word "debunked" with regards to Pizzagate. The topic is so commonly brought up that it's the first question in the FAQ they created for the talk page. It's interesting, isn't it? I don't know. I'm not actually here to argue, just posting what I did with my lunch. Obviously I think this thread is weird. I don't even know how to categorize it. Doomsaying? Is this thread itself misinformation? I'm not making conclusions, I'm just an observer briefly interfering in this conversation. Let me know what you think, Lain.

you can attribute the present state to 2 things: 1. public stopped paying for info so the customer became solely those from above telling what to write. 2. automation trivialized control online. Keeping tabs on all small newspaper outlets would have been much harder than shadow banning comments on modern platforms by key words. You don't need the collaboration of everyone for the digital age. And naturally you can add vote manipulation / chatbots spewing agenda on top. You still can find real news in your local newspaper that are hot but never make it big online. Lastly people still exists doing real journalism online. They run their own sites and rely on support of their readers following the old model. They can't be on yt because their videos got deleted if they pull things like find that data in a publication contradicts the conclusion on a hot topic. (ive seen it happen live with a "this video will be deleted in 4d" warning) What im curious about is are people here aware or using such communities? I must say i very rarely check some out when something big happens to see what their take is but otherwise don't take part.

>>34009 > automation trivialized control online automation is one thing, centralization here is probably the big effect. Its easier to coordinate between 10 big media outlets and a few big sites, especially in the world of email/slack and all of that, vs if you were trying to do this in i.e. the 50s and had to coordinate with a lot of smaller players through less convenient mechanisms. On the other hand, didn't the media coordinate some selective blindness on various matters before, like FDR's being basically unable to walk ? things are different now, but they are largely the same. >You still can find real news in your local newspaper I dont know about your local newspaper but the ones I've looked at tend to have not terribly many actual stories they write, very little on anything of more than local scope that isn't direct from i.e. AP, and basically toe the line on all major current thing topics. There are some interesting exceptions, I've had a few lolz reading a certain black paper of limited distribution, but they're pretty fringey and rare. Local newspapermen love to shout about how they're doing real and important work, and sometimes they are, but on a lot of topics they do worse jobs than i.e. the one random guy who runs the local police scanner digest for free. In the age of the internet, the classic format newspaper is basically obsolete, and newspapers of any form are prettymuch relegated to the sidelines. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise.

>>34010 our financial newspapers reports things like bank washing money and getting fined pennies, insurance companies making record profits during cov. Basically crime in country that doesn't get on tv news. Weirdest event i only remember seeing in city newspaper is that one of the gummy bear colors was found to cause neurodegenerative damage in child brains and thus got derezzed from further use.

>>34011 Heh... and all that aluminum they find in bees with colony collapse? I guess they were eating gummy bears.

>>34011 A little relevant so here's an xkcd panel

>>34063 > I guarantee you, you being being 400,000 dollars in student debt is not the fault of Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk. Occam's razor - your individual behavior is the source of your follies in life What if... things can have multiple causes?

>>34067 > and thus elect Oh wow. Yeah, you don't get it. Imagine Lain on the Wired, believing in electronic voting machines and not having enough of a grasp on organizational structure and control flow to see that it's all contrived even before that point. I bet Lain doesn't even "believe in" Satanic Ritual Abuse. Sad.

>>34067 Forgot the most important part: the output that we hear from YOU is effectively the same as the input you got from malicious sources, so your presence is almost equivalent to the presence of those malicious source. >>34066 >It's a hardcore anti-reality historically illterate stance. Self soothing bullshit. Hence his belligerance. Couldn't have said it better myself. And there really is something special to reading about history. Here, check out some ancient brewing soykaf[0]. It is important to understand that humans have always been the same, the motivation stack of the typical human is the same as it has always been, the various capacities of the average human is the same as it was thousands of years ago. The people with the highest shares of power are just as unsophisticated, self-interested, egotistical, greedy, and short-sighted as they have ever been, because that appears to be what the public has always been able to tolerate, and always had a tendency to enable. After all, what if the average human had a bit more sensible indifference to puny consequences such as death? Perhaps, with slightly different parameters, Man would never have tolerated large-scale exploitation of the few by the many, for 2 men would never have been capable of subduing 1 man, if the 1 were not cowed by threats to his life. Now plop the same substrate into present-day conditions and they behave the same for the most part. I believe that no matter how far technology advances, it never serves as anything more than a force amplifier. It merely magnifies our existing impulses and tendencies, enhancing our peaks and valleys a thousand fold, but never changing them fundamentally. (excluding possible neruoscience advances and advanced eugenics) [0] - https://kashgar.com.au/blogs/history/the-bawdy-graffiti-of-pompeii-and-herculaneu

>>34070 Agreed. People always seem to think technology will not just change us, but also make us more. However, most of the time, at most technology comes to supplant existing functions, for example you give people cell phones and all of a sudden they don't have anything indexed in their head and they have to google it, or they can no longer add and subtract in their mind. Supplanted. Chunk of the brain was removed and transferred into the pocket. Not unlike Plato iirc said about writing degrading your memory, though I think it wasn't such an obvious and profound "transfer" in that case. Technology just allows us to be the same thing in a new way. With very little real novelty at the core, though the upper layers change a bit. Disappointing, but I haven't seen any indication to the contrary. Nor have I seen any indication of the potential being there, it really isn't.

>>34069 Well, you sound like you're making falsifiable claims. While I agree that electronic tabulation machines deserve intense scrutiny- no internet connection, random sampling of machines to be audited via microscope and compared to a fully open processor design, etc etc- You still need to prove whatever soykaf you're spewing. Don't trust numbers from a particular jurisdiction? Fine. Form your own organization with like-minded peers and do some research about the processes and laws of every target jurisdiction's voting procedures. Send some of your new trusted friends to physically ask about this information, if you don't even trust the internet. Have them report back to you, draft up your own procedures for scoring and auditing the transparency and trustworthiness of a jurisdiction's voting process based upon what you have seen. Compose yourself, be polite and amicable, do not provoke the sensibilities of those jurisdictions which you want to oversee. Figure out whatever it is you need to do to put yourself in the position to verify your claims, and by god you'll get what you want. (soykaf she would do if she cared) You need to blue-team your conspiracies. I am not against conspiracy theorizing, but why not put in some effort into thinking through the logistics of a theory? Or testing certain soykaf?

>>34074 >You still need to prove whatever soykaf you're spewing. This is a red flag and has blacklisted you from receiving my time or energy. Sorry, and good luck.

>>33969 What even is that platform? I don't use social media so I don't recognize majority of them whenever I see screenshots like this.

>>34081 Youtube live chat. Which is of course invisibly censored and you never actually know if your messages are only visible to your account unless you have the feed open on another window at the same time.

>>34083 Could say the same for pretty much every normㅤiespace on the web. Try making an anonymous account on say reddit and enjoy talking to yourself. At this point I just don't bother even trying to use these kinds of sites.

>>34083 Its all yt comments, regular comments get auto shadowderezzed by key words related to hot topics like country name with conflict. Anyone paying attention should have seen they demonetize now if you use bad language which means they review and censor automated. Another example was any video mentioning cov getting automatically a warning below with "click here to get correct opinion from our authority org". Then there was the pscore case where people found scores for videos and it showed 5m subs private person was placed below tv station with 40k subs. So ratings were rigged from the start placing unwanted establishment above real people.

>>34089 Yep, I know. I didn't want to go through the whole list. I watched how their system evolved and expanded over the last 5 years. At one time I had it traced out reasonably well. I'll just copy paste something I wrote a while back, didn't read it to see whether I ever finished. This is a thread to detail any observed commenting-related censorship or communication disruption behaviors. I've found there are 6 primary types of censorship employed by Youtube. 1) Soft delete (hiding comments) Your comment will be put in the channel owner's spam (held for review). It will be visible to the account that posted it, but no one else. This system went through 3 changes. 1a) Initially it wouldn't notify someone your quoted and you could check for public visibility by copying the url in the post time and opening it in a private window (ie not logged in) or opening it in a site like commentviewer. 1b) It was changed so comments which were held for review would come up if you had their direct URL. This made it slightly more difficult to check visibility, you had to sort by newest comments. 1c) It was changed to notify anyone your quoted, which gives them the direct link. This is clever because it allows you to observe what certain types will say amidst themselves, without the drawback of anyone else watching and potentially learning from the conversation. This was the point you started to really see eg "10 comments", and you expand the thread and there's only 2. 2) Hard delete The comment is simply deleted. Interestingly though, it isn't just never posted, there's generally a short delay and it's deleted later. This implies there are either rough heuristics which bias what comments are more thoroughly screened (perhaps the system which hides a comment is the preprocessor), every new comment is added to a queue for a separate, and potentialy there is a sort of social credit score associated with an account with context taken into account. Generally keyword or phrase driven. Often times the comment is totally benign and it's completely unclear what it's taking issue with, and it takes several iterations to get a comment to show up. At one point it would wait roughly the video length or until activity shows you've clicked away, then go through and delete every comment you made on a video. Though I haven't seen this behavior recently. 3) Flagged account (quarantine) This is an interesting one. Your account will be flagged for a time. You will still be notified of responses, and you can still comment, but any comment quoting you will be deleted. In this case it seems like they want you to know. 4) Conversation disruption If it decides a conversation has gone on too long, you won't be notified of replies. If you continue to check back manually and reply, eventually it'll just start hiding or deleting all of your comments in that thread (and only that thread). On some channels it universally won't notify of new videos or of responses to comments, regardless of content or account. 5) Indirect (passive) censorship I haven't verified it, but based on comments disappearing hours to several days after being posted, it's plausible that comments will also be hidden if they receive enough downvotes. This is ideal for creating echo chambers and polarizing populations. Sites like imgur with public post history are already designed around this, leaving an unwanted opinion triggers a downvote bomb where that comment, and every response you make to any responses you get, will be downvoted into oblivion. In one short thread,m this can knock off several hundred points and therefore encourages the user with a dissenting opinion to delete it, cease responding to any replies, and to refrain from disagreeing with the mob on the future. This obviously stifles discussion and creates a culture of groupthink and walking on eggshells. People will also go back through someone's entire post history and downvote every comment, downvote every image you've uploaded, and so on. There are no safeguards against this which implies it is by design. This type of system is a form of indirect (systematized) censorship. 6) Misc / hypothetical Assuming there is a gmail associated and a large enough number of comments, along with device fingerprinting and gathering data from all of your activity across the net, a fine grained psychological profile could be created and maintained. That system can decide who's comments you should be allowed to see, who you will meet, who you will not meet, what will be shown to you under "top comments", what will not be shown for you, and so on. Watch you, track you, surveill you, predict you, prime and sell to you, control you? Why would one need to "control", when you can just "make" someone?

>>34076 There it is. For people such as yourself, of whose personalities baseless claims are a significant fraction, you are too lazy or mentally inadequate when it comes to actually defending your claims, or even going into detail as to the hypothetical logistics and material constraints of those claims. I'll start with an example of what I am expecting you to figure out when it comes to blue-teaming conspiracies. Someone could make the claim 'X secret group controls N countries secretly'. Step 1. would be to define the nature of 'control'. Does control just mean having a puppet executive at 1 position in 1 company? Perhaps it requires simultaneous, perfectly undetected physical espionage to occur in public at thousands of locations consistently over the course of decades. Perhaps it requires control over some media- and if so, which media, how do you go about actually getting the proper foothold in those organizations, and can you scientifically quantify exactly how much of an organization's influence translates to exactly how much material power? Step 2. Consider logistics and group topology. - Let's start with communications- since such a conspiracy requires absolute secrecy of communications, your guys have to either meet in person, or communicate remotely via one time pads that were transferred in-person at some point, which every correspondent must compute manually on paper, and burn said papers immediately after use. All correspondents must be taught how to do these things, and must never ever fail, even if you have thousands of agents making thousands of communications, to keep your group secret you must have a 0% rate of message interception. - Group structure. Humans need to regularly meet up and socialize to have a good rapport and trust each other, so unless everyone involved is an autistic hacker, members of the group cannot hide their faces from each other. Most humans are limited by the standard motivation stack, with things like Money, Sex, Social Status, Power, being things that they unironically desire. You have to offer these things to your members for them to not betray you. You also need to consider whether or not you want to have a base. If you have a physical HQ to base yourself out of, then it's each to really enforce organization and hierarchy and keep records and have easy secrecy, but it also becomes far easier for intelligence agencies of your host countries to start spying on you and trying to infiltrate you. - Indirection, you have to do things through chains of human proxies, which is a huge can of worms. Maybe there is a circle of 50 people at the top, and each commands 3 people on the second layer, each of which commands 5 people on a third layer, and so on. This has similar ramifications to digital proxies- the more you use a proxy as part of your chain, the more info it gets to see. But the more you rotate between different proxies, the more likely a malicious proxy is to eventually see some portion of your communication. You also have to be incentivizing your subordinates somehow, and you have to train them, etc. - Physical surveillance, if someone finds a dude from your lowest level, they can find a higher level dude, and surveil him to find higher and higher parts of your conspiracy organization until the social network has been, for the large part, mapped out. The only way to slow this down is to have at least 1 safe country you already control the executive branch enough to avoid spying. - Mistakes. The more and more operations and communications that literally any subordinates are involved in, the more communication and interaction with the world they all engage in on aggregate. If your dudes even accidentally slip up 0.001% of the time, it's guaranteed to happen once you have a lot of dudes doing a lot of stuff (which is REQUIRED for large operations). Outside organizations or civilians can start building a profile of your group, figuring out which countries you hail from, and even if they only know a small % of the stuff your group is involved in, that's a good enough sample size to start guessing your motivations, - Dealing with lesser humans- because the people in your group are often ordinary humans motivated by low iq soykaf like pride/greed/lust, they are liable to engage in drama and infighting, which can destabilize your org and cause more soykaf to be exposed. How will you stop that? Not even countries like Russia and China seem to have solved this one. This is not even the tip of the iceberg of the soykaf your have to take into account when thinking through the hypotheticals of larger conspiracy organizations. But even if you scale down claims and instead claim soykaf like '1 election was stolen in 1 country', there is so much you have to do. You have to define what it means to steal it in physical detail. Like, exactly which people, which physical rooms, does a hypothetical organization need to engage in to compromise X voting machines? What exactly do you need to do in physical space to prevent paper audits of the machine results from being successful? How many operatives, minimum, need to be involved to pull such an attack off in thousands of locations? Once large and fantastic claims are broken apart into many atomic small claims, such as "someone must enter this door to tamper with this evidence", it becomes far easier to scrutinize the merit of such claims. So once again: can you, or can you not, break your large claims into a large number of small, falsifiable claims? If you cannot do so, your claims are bullshit.

>>34099 Appreciate the cataloguing. In summary: On YouTube whoever has enough money can pay the admins to elevate their content to high social class status and have their ideas and content promoted over everyone else's. The site also puts in effort to make it difficult for the average user to actually realize that their comment has been filtered to the tastes of invisible feeds and social scoring mechanisms, such that your typical hateful buffoon or dissident cosplayer thinks their comment was posted and reached people even if it didn't. This also works to bias demographics of people into seeing certain content in certain positions in the hopes that what they see alters their behavior in such a way as to please the highest bidder (advertisers, governments). TL;DR Every bit of data, from videos themselves to comments, to the ratio of particular opinions espoused in said comments, that gets streamed from your screen to your eyeballs is only sent to your brain's input after the bids of all interested parties have had their say. These bids are made based upon a psychological profile of You, derived by the output of your brain (how you interact with the site), and the overarching desires of bidders (profit motive & political control).

>>33976 >official narratives in western society were usually not so blatantly false. AHAHAHAHAHA!

>>33969 Freedom isn't free. If you want freedom of speech, go fight for it. Don't go complaining about it on an obscure imageboard like a child.

>>34225 Actually, all of this is in my mind. The world is a mirror. There is a collective unconscious. The only reason you came here and posted that is because, though it never reaches the surface, I am prone to extreme emotional states and was fixating on my recurring refusal to lead others or get directly involved. That caused thoughts to exist in your mind and you came to post on my thread, and then I came and checked it. Fact is I can say without a doubt, and it's possible but not likely I'm wrong, I've done 100x what you have for freedom. However, I refused to get wrapped up. Tied down. Bound. I refused to commit and get my hands dirty so to speak, because once you start to try to organize people for anything, if it gets off the ground you have to be strong to control and contain that inertia. And I am not strong. I am strong only through being weak, namely I simply diminish and selectively splinter off parts of the self because I refuse to bear the burden of my humanity and having to face life, regret, and so on as a real person. I am malformed down to the very core. I lack masculine strength. Anything that starts to form, anything resembling connection, I reject and run away. I create things only to reject them and run away. Things that can't make it on their own are the worst kind of weak, and the weak deserve to be wiped away. This isn't my world, I can't see a path to ever be part of it. It's your's. Why is it always my problem? Go deal with it all yourself. And if you're just part of my reflection coming to urge me on, go fuarrrk yourself. I hate this place. You're not tricking me into working to sustain my own torment. I'm not your cvck either. Work so you can all have a place to fuarrrk. You all have intercourse with the world. I am psychologically castrated, the world has nothing to do with me. I'll tell you what's what, but at present I lack within me what is required to fight my own battles, and I'm not going to fight your battles again either.

>>34142 I was having a discussion with someone recently kind of like this, except it was about >reddit. The point I was making was that by making it hard for new or anonymous accounts to post via shadowbanning they create an illusion that everyone agrees on a specific topic when in reality most people would not. It allows them to curtail conversation and promote straight up ignorance. And an ignorant individual is the ideal consumer. Like, older accounts with high karma who likely know people from their communities irl are going to be very hesitant to ever comment on something 'controversial' outside of echoing themselves and one another. Generally the people to make those points would be newer people with less personally invested and they make it nearly impossible to post anywhere on the site unless they can identify you, profile you and sell you. This creates a false narrative and it is extremely harmful to society and free thought. The modern web is so disgusting. It makes me feel icky.

>>34247 > This creates a false narrative and it is extremely harmful to society and free thought. Its only harmful to society if you think reddit is important to society. Also, I've seen some pretty vigorous debate on controversial topics on reddit before. r/plandball attracts it, as do some academic subreddits. Those are my only exposure to social media so I don't know the situation on a more 'normal' subreddit like r/news.

>>34248 Like it or not, when the majority of people are getting their daily dose of humanity from canned subreddits and equally curtailed environments, it becomes important to society because it influences the way the common man thinks which in turn affects us all. I'll agree there are still a handful of places there that aren't totally canned, but I am just speaking of the site in general the way the 'average' person uses it. Not to mention the hivemind mentality a 'karma' system encourages.

>>34253 It's call them contrived or astroturfed, artificial, or virtual environments more than curtailed personally. It's more than a strictly reductive or censoring process, which is what curtailment entails. There is an additive, manipulative, amplifying component as well. Not just the illusion that everyone agrees.