there's really feck all compared to a slew of other more important things going on so that's what really baffles me about all this
Joe Rogan
- Thread starter Ecstasio
- Start date
To everyone the support that they deserve.
Jon Stewart kinda made the same argument on his podcast/video that I was thinking of that it is odd that only misinformation on new media is being targeted. Why not try to deplatform Carlson or Fox news as a whole.
Last edited:
The fock...
To be fair I'd be suprised if anyone calling for Rogan to be deplatformed watches the platform Tucker Carlson is on (i'm too young to know what was cnutish about Carson).
Not that I think that that's the way to go. We just gotta accept that stupidity is part of humanity, can't ban people for that per se.
You don't have to listen to Rogan on Spotify just like you don't have to watch Fox News on your choice of cable operator. Also meant Tucker Carlson.
Tucker Carlson is the cnutish part of Tucker Carlson.
Yeah but people have been calling for Fox to be reigned in in some fashion or other for a long time. Obviously never successfully but it didn't start with Rogan.
Aside from that I do share your point though, just listen elsewhere if you don't like it (like I do).
Did not see that one coming
Really? Seems fitting to me. Of course the beneficiaries of misinformation defend the ability to share misinformation.Did not see that one coming
Glenn Greenwald's brain is going to break reading this.
Joe fecking Rogan is global news.
It’s gone past Rogan being deplatformed, its the fact Spotify is now publishing mis information as entertainment.
Agreed, but I didn't expect Bolsonaro to even be aware of who Rogan is.
There are a lot of major flaws in this guy's analysis and I find it a bit hyperbolic and based on a misunderstanding of both Google's algorithms, how people actually behave, and democracy itself. The idea that Google is "brainwashing" is overblown propaganda itself.
First, the goal should never be "balance." It should be accuracy and truth. It's like the conservatives whining about how Google results are "unbalanced" to support climate change. Well, that's because there is an overwhelming consensus on man-made climate change. This fake Fox News imperative to always show "balance" is actually much more problematic. Balance is not some virtue. Do people really need to read dozens of articles from climate change deniers to be well informed? Epstein seems to believe they do. Reality is, they do not.
Second, and this dovetails off the first, it's not that SERPs are "biased to one political party", it's that the sources in questions, say Time, The Hill, NY Times, The Atlantic are simply more trustworthy and reliable sources for information than soures like The Daily Calley, Sputnik News, or The Epoch Times. I've seen conservatives (former friends) whine on Facebook that Google serves them biased results but whenever I look at the example the reality is Google is serving up results that are the most reliable, best fact-checked, and from sites that have the most accountability and will print corrections if they are wrong rather than biased political sites from the right. So it's really not any preference towards bias but a preference towards EAT (expertise, authoritativeness, trustworthiness) and its just a fact that allegedly liberal biased sites like The NY Times are more trustworthy and less biased than The Daily Caller.
I could go on but people like Epstein are frustrating because they know just enough to be dangerous but not enough to really understand what they are talking about. He can't prove manipulation based on looking at results for the very reason I just mentioned. Analysis like Google posting "Go Vote" somehow manipulates the vote unless the end result is somehow 50-50 for each political party is just garbage analysis. And Trump's election itself shows his presumption that "big tech" can allegedly "shift" 15 million votes.
This guy himself is heavily biased and his "research" has been thoroughly debunked across many channels.
“When Dr. Epstein says the effects are ‘huge’ and ‘more powerful’ than anything he has ever seen, I respectfully suggest that he needs to read the political science literature before making that claim,” Katherine Haenschen, a communications professor at Virginia Tech University who studies internet targeting on voter turnout, told Mother Jones this week. “Large-scale digital mobilization has basically failed to deliver sizable effects in terms of persuasion or turnout.” Never mind the fact that in Epstein’s study, it’s not clear what search terms were used by his participants, or what the “biased” search results were. In his research, Epstein graded search engines for bias, determining that mainstream news outlets like the New York Times dominated over conservative sources like Breitbart in Google’s results. Epstein doesn’t explain the context in which the searches were conducted—which is important to know, since the whole point of Google Search is that it personalizes results based on prior searches and the user’s location. Someone with a recent search history about guns in Tennessee will likely see different search results than someone with a recent search history about women’s health care in New York City. And a good study would take care to somehow sanitize or disclose each participant’s search environment before reaching any conclusions."
https://slate.com/technology/2019/08/robert-epstein-google-bias-conservative-bogus-trump.html
"Another issue, other academics say, is that Epstein’s study did not establish a link between alleged bias in search results and voter behavior in 2016.
Epstein said he came to the conclusion of bias sufficient to affect 2.6 million to 10.4 million votes based on what he has found in studies of national elections outside the US, including the 2010 Australian prime minister election and a 2014 Indian legislative election.
In other words: Epstein did not test 2016 American voters to see if their Clinton-or-Trump choice had been changed by search results they got. He extrapolated from his previous studies."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/19/politics/trump-google-manipulated-votes-claim/index.html
How did you not see that one coming?Did not see that one coming
Look who thinks Joe Rogan is a knob. Look who supports him.
No surprise.
Like I said above, I’m just surprised he knows who Rogan is, and he has commented on it.
Dr. Robert Epstein failed to explain some simple topics - such as how Google blacklist actually work. There are some valid points on how Google prioritizes top results. Top result are obviously ads, and then results are personalized - sort of. My search results in Google are different if I am logged in, or not logged into my google account. They also different if I am on VPN or not on VPN. Basically Google is trying to best match results to the one searching.
I tried DuckDuckGo and it mostly sucks. I guess if you are looking for "ideas", "news" etc, it has some benefits, but when I search for where to eat and displays restaurants for me from across the country, I sorta like google spying at where I am located.
I tried DuckDuckGo and it mostly sucks. I guess if you are looking for "ideas", "news" etc, it has some benefits, but when I search for where to eat and displays restaurants for me from across the country, I sorta like google spying at where I am located.
Put-in the JRE the week after that to discuss what's the need for NATO over a blunt
Erdogan and Duarte drafting as we speak....
My apologies, I was just reacting to the other post you quoted. Just shows the danger of being misinformed by people who speak with false authority.
it also goes to show what snippets of information instead of actually getting the entire context of something can do.
Hey Jair.
You my friend seem to be apolitical or politically oriented close to the middle. Both sides will hate you and refuse to accept your point. Once you step out and can recognize bullshit from both sides, the World becomes a very lonely place because most apolitical people or people close to the center simply are quiet and mind their own business.
The same Bolsonaro who pressured authorities to remove from the shelves a freaking comic book featuring a gay super hero on the cover. The people who follow these guys are as dumb as rocks.
He's Brazilian, so surely he knows Rogan from watching UFC, which I'm ignorantly assuming all Brazilians will have seen because of Anderson Silva.
There was a guy who died of covid and was anti vax, maybe even did one of those unproven treatments (can't recall exactly). He followed/ reposted one of the Weinstein's crap and I think even his family came out and said he was massively into it.
Cba to dig it up right now, unless someone requests it.
It was kinda sad, he even posted vids of himself while he was suffering and regurgitated some Weinstein crap.
Also, Brazilians love meat, and Rogan is a giant meathead.
well met.who are you referring to here? the libs/progressives or Spotify
I can't imagine many people think this is the answer to the problem
Dear Joe
I wrote but you still ain't calling
I left my cell, my pager, and my home phone at the bottom
I sent two letters back in autumn, you must not-a got 'em
There probably was a problem at the post office or somethin'
Sometimes I scribble addresses too sloppy when I jot 'em
But anyways, feck it, what's been up? Man how's your daughter?
Stewart with thte daily show was pretty much the liberal Rogan during the Bush era.
I'm guessing the people most outrage over this are very online and are not really interested in television. But even on Fox News point, while it's the highest rated news tv show it still only brings in around 4 million viewers. Which is a lot but also America has a population of around 330 million people.
Pretty sure it what a decent section of the who people were outrage wanted, which I think has happened now.
For now I'll take him at face value, I found myself agreeing with pretty much everything he discussed on the podcast. Who am I to question an expert in his own field? He's studied his field of expertise for nearly half a century and to attach terms like "hyperbolic" is disingenuous I think.
He's unequivocally correct in his assertions that Google is a S&M device (surveillance and manipulation), that is absolutely evident for even the most IT challenged members of our society.
If society is essentially relying upon a single source for its online knowledge, that is very much a form of "brain washing". Again, Google have a ridiculous stranglehold over the internet, approx 96-98% control.
Google have and do literally cherry pick what links they deem to be relevant / truthful and best to return (Again, that is logically a form of brain washing). As Dr Epstein explained, the algorithm is input by a human, who of course have their own biases, so right from the inception of the algorithm is going to be flawed anyway.
His stories about the staff within Google as well are pretty damning, its another argument to have but still goes to show what their primary goal is... profit and power, little else matters.
Apologies balance was probably the wrong word to use.
I guess when I was thinking of the term balance, both sides of the debate need to be heard. Humans are not always correct in their assertions and as we become more knowledgeable, the facts change.
Again this goes back to his point about the algorithm, does it really give the best "fact checked" results? Again were relying upon a single source (Google) and their flagging checks.
NY Times are generally trustworthy yes but are left leaning and have an edge of bias in that regard, same way other media outlets would be to the right.
It's kind of ironic you state not biased but then list a bunch of media outlets that clearly have their only political leanings be it left or right and that is essentially the point he made with regards the election being rigged with the "Go vote" cover page on set days.
Gladly take it on board if you could share some.
I'm not gonna go on much more about this but my own personal opinion of him is that he is very knowledgeable in his field and definitely has a valid point, his
In a thread about the flaws and dangers in wholly trusting something we hear in a podcast, we're now arguing about a different podcast.
Seems significant.
Seems significant.
Are you referring to what Keefy18 and oneniltothearsenal are discussing? They are discussing following episode on Joe Rogan's podcast:
I think the episode was bad and the guest could have done much, much better job elaborating on some of the claims. Even some claims that were correct - for example Google's blacklist debacle from 2009 - was explained poorly. Joe was repatingly asking the guest to explain how Google did that - and all that guest had to say is that Google blacklisted and labelled every website as malware. Browsers that rely on Google's website reputation database displayed a warning prior to accessing the website. To be fair all major browsers use Google's website reputation database, but saying that Google shut down entire internet is false.
Oh, I didn't realize it was on Rogan's podcast too.
Spotify just removed 70 episodes
doesn't appear to be related to antivax stuff though
doesn't appear to be related to antivax stuff though
A video has surfaced of Rogan using the N word over 20 times and comparing black neighbourhoods to the planet of the apes and other such shit.
This cancel culture war seems to be as me v you as the vaccines have become. He really does need some kind of criticism over that and an apology video was warranted but feck me the people saying don’t do it, don’t give in to the mob are not living in the real world.
This cancel culture war seems to be as me v you as the vaccines have become. He really does need some kind of criticism over that and an apology video was warranted but feck me the people saying don’t do it, don’t give in to the mob are not living in the real world.
That very much sounds like something he should be sacked for. That’s not a lapse of judgement, that’s being downright abhorrent.