I guess I'll bite and respond to the low-effort comment. This is actually an incredibly valuable video, for a few reasons. The single biggest problem with the culture of the internet in 2018 is...
What the fuck is this crap?
I guess I'll bite and respond to the low-effort comment.
This is actually an incredibly valuable video, for a few reasons. The single biggest problem with the culture of the internet in 2018 is that there's a huge constituency out there for the incredibly toxic, batshit insane content generated by the likes of InfoWars.
Not only do these folks exist in large numbers, they generally can't be reasoned with. They're not in it for reasons; they're in it for stimulating the release of brain chemicals that comes from delirious outrage and tribal expressions of group solidarity.
Maddox is the one who perfected that formula and had massive influence on the early culture and tone of the internet, a formula that eventually got co-opted by insane people like Alex Jones who sought out the same internet constituency.
Maddox understands the formula, and likely shares some of that same Alex Jones audience. And he's communicating to these folks as one of their own tribe, in a way that caters to base psychological needs that they understand, to get them to see the problems with InfoWars by taking it down on its own terms.
In short, a three minute video from Maddox on the flaws with alternate news sites is worth three million hours of explainers from Vox or Rachel Maddow or John Oliver. And if you can't see the value in that, you're never in a million years going to be able to crack the nut of online toxicity in a meaningful way.
I thought one of the ways tildes was going to distinguish itself from reddit was to emphasize high quality conversations based on good faith engagement and de-emphasize low-effort shitposting. I...
I thought one of the ways tildes was going to distinguish itself from reddit was to emphasize high quality conversations based on good faith engagement and de-emphasize low-effort shitposting.
I honestly don't think comments like the ones you've been making in this thread are helping us meet that standard, because it's not really being responsive to what I feel are legitimate points about the value offered by the article and video.
Because it's so thoughtful and chock-full of serious content to be refuted? Like this gem: Riiight. Give me something worth refuting, and I'll happily pull it to pieces. But this crap isn't worth...
Because it's so thoughtful and chock-full of serious content to be refuted?
Like this gem:
Now I know what you're thinking, "but Maddox, I have all my teeth!" You won't for long. People who read alternate news sites will eventually lose their teeth.
So any source of information that is in any way includes jokes or comes with a satirical tone is "not worth refuting"? So I guess John Oliver's show is complete bullshit right? I said it before...
So any source of information that is in any way includes jokes or comes with a satirical tone is "not worth refuting"? So I guess John Oliver's show is complete bullshit right? I said it before and I'll say it again, you're being willfully ignorant.
Here you go: a sentence-by-sentence analysis of this crap. It didn't take very long, because there's not really a lot there to work with. Do they? Who knows what anyone reads on the internet? As...
Here you go: a sentence-by-sentence analysis of this crap. It didn't take very long, because there's not really a lot there to work with.
Your alternate news site sucks, and everyone thinks you're an idiot for reading it.
Do they? Who knows what anyone reads on the internet? As for "everyone", I'm pretty sure there are lots of people who either don't know what "you" read, as well as some people who support "you" reading it
These sites are like catnip for dipshits.
umm… okay?
They always post "BREAKING NEWS" articles with Earth-shattering headlines and have urgent-sounding names that make it sound like some serious shit's about to go down:
They do? Okay.
Except what you get instead is some poorly-written, unresearched opinions, debunked conspiracy theories and a bunch of pseudo-scientific articles with "one weird trick" to cure something gross like mouth rot.
If you say so. Are there any actual conspiracies you'd care to debunk, or is everyone just supposed to take your word for it?
Want a scoop? Any time you read a website that advertises a product for people missing teeth, that means they're advertising to you.
Well, it's nice to know you care about people's dental health!
Now I know what you're thinking, "but Maddox, I have all my teeth!"
Well… I wasn't actually thinking that. I was thinking "What a stupid rant."
You won't for long.
Well, it is almost inevitable that everyone will lose at least one tooth during their lifetime, so I suppose you're right this time. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
People who read alternate news sites will eventually lose their teeth.
And… speaking of pseudo-science! Is there any scientific proof of this supposed connection? "Studies show that reading alternate news sites causes dental decay! News at eleven."
It's an Anankean inevitability; you're going to do something stupid like put a firecracker in your mouth because you are stupid.
Nice assumption.
Want to know how I know?
Yes! Please tell me. I'm dying to know how you know this stuff! You're so informed and so insightful that you must be getting your information from some very reputable and reliable sources.
Because you read bullshit instead of news, and you not only think you're informed, but that you're smarter than the general populace because you're doing your own independent research from an independent news source.
But this doesn't lead inevitably to someone putting a firecracker in their mouth. More pseudo-science.
Except you're not.
I know that. I'm not your target audience.
You're an idiot who's going to lose all his teeth.
Again, it's nice that you care about people's dental health.
These sites are using you for money:
Some proof of this assertion?
Any time I see one of these bullshit articles, I quickly scan the URL for words like, "truth, planet, evolution, natural" or anything that sounds like it might be a website that sells you pink Himalayan anything.
Okay. Nice to know that you skim for words in the URL rather than reading the actual articles.
If it's not from a trusted, or "main stream" news source, I become more skeptical, not less.
Well, good for you!
For example, here's that article I referenced in the video from WorldTruth.tv:
Okay.
It has TV in the URL...The "truth" that your Doctor doesn't want you to know because he wants his patients to die
Reading the URL again? That's not really a valid substitute for reading the article.
The article is scarce on sources, but one of the only legitimate studies they link to clearly states that, "there is no scientific literature establishing the benefit of an alkaline diet for the prevention of cancer at this time."
Finally! A sentence with some actual substance! How did this get in here?
As with most websites and people trying to con you, if you want to know "the truth," all you need to do is follow the money.
Really? We can't look at the reputation of the journalist? We can't look at the company that wrote it?
If a website is touting the benefits of a certain supplement that they also happen to be conveniently selling, guess what, idiot?
I don't know, dimwit. Why don't you tell us?
The article was written to sell you a product.
Most articles are written to sell us products. Newspapers have been writing articles to sell advertising for over a hundred years. The man's a fucking genius.
You're reading an ad.
If you say so.
Speaking of ads, InfoWars is one of the worst offenders.
Another unsupported assertion.
They pretend to be the arbiters of some supposed truth, while Alex Jones bloviates every week about some supposed government takeover that he keeps promising will happen year after year.
Such a clever man, to know the word "bloviates". But, if your target audience is allegedly so stupid they're going to put firecrackers in their mouth… how do you expect them to know the word "bloviates"?
They're coming for your: guns, property, liberty.
Isn't this the same scaremongering you're accusing those "fake news" sites of doing?
They're always coming, but never here.
Lewis Carroll said it better: "jam tomorrow and jam yesterday - but never jam today".
When it comes to food, any time I see the words "ancient, wisdom" or "legend" on the package, I spike that shit into a land fill.
Wasting food? Not good for the environment, or for helping feed the hungry.
Speaking of, here's an excerpt from the InfoWars "super male vitality" product:
Thanks for that.
Ancient wisdom is garbage.
Really? Let's tell that to Socrates and Plato and Pythagorus and Hippocrates and Confucius and all the other wise people in our history.
The "ancients" drank mercury and didn't know the function of our brains.
Well… only the Romans "drank mercury", and that wasn't deliberate. And, anyway, the idea that drinking mercury caused the fall of the Roman Empire has been debunked. But, thanks for trying.
These are a people who had a life-expectancy of 30 years
Bullshit. An average life expectancy doesn't mean that's how long people actually lived. High infant and child mortality rates dragged that average down. You had a very high likelihood of dying young in prehistorical and classical times. But, if you managed to live past 5 years old, you could expect a long happy life till about the age of 60 or 70.
Learn how averages work.
had no cars, no Internet and no floss.
Oh. My. God. You mean that people in the past didn't have technologies that were invented after they lived? Such insight!
Most of them were missing teeth...
Well, yes. Most humans who ever lived, including most humans alive now, were or are missing teeth.
and if they were around today, they'd probably listen to Infowars.
Probably not, because, as you pointed out already, they don't know anything about the internet.
Sounds like a civilization made entirely of morons.
Which particular civilisation is this? Ancient Babylon, which invented astronomy? Ancient Egypt, which built massive pyramids that we can't replicate today? Ancient Greece, which invented democracy and trigonometry and medicine? Ancient Rome, which built structures that are still standing and being used over 2,000 years later? Ancient China, which built a culture that lasted nearly 2,000 years, and invented things like paper and gunpowder? Which of these ancient civilisation was made entirely of morons?
Stop buying into this bullshit.
I will if you'll stop selling it!
You're getting played.
Yes, we are. By you.
If it's not a "main stream" news source, that means they don't have anyone to answer to and nobody will lose their job if they report inaccurate information.
Of course they have someone to answer to. You already told us that these people are trying to sell us a product. That means they have to answer to their sponsors if they don't get enough eyeballs on their articles to sell enough product.
You're not "woke" for reading alternate news, you're a dipshit.
I'm pretty sure that this wasn't quite what Dale Carnegie was aiming for when he wrote 'How to win friends and influence people'. Insulting people is not the best way to teach them.
Rather than poring over old news clips to prove that 9/11, Sandy Hook, or the Boston Marathon was an "inside job," you should go outside and get a job.
Nice assumption! How do you know your target audience are unemployed? This is another of those unsupported assertions you like making.
Happy now? I've provided a detailed line-by-line analysis of this pile of stinking crap.
Well I'm sorry that you're incapable of reading through satire and I think it's silly that you think every line in that post should be taken literally. I'll just step out of this thread now...
Well I'm sorry that you're incapable of reading through satire and I think it's silly that you think every line in that post should be taken literally. I'll just step out of this thread now because it's quite obvious that you have no interest in furthering a real discussion.
I understood the sarcasm of your comment, but it seemed like you were trying to dismiss the article's content, as agreeing with the "What the fuck is this crap" comment. edit: Also, as cfabbro...
I understood the sarcasm of your comment, but it seemed like you were trying to dismiss the article's content, as agreeing with the "What the fuck is this crap" comment.
edit: Also, as cfabbro pointed out, Maddox has been writing with this style for years, and it lead to his massive popularity on the internet
Oh yeah I know Maddox as well. It's just that I grew tired of the "yelled" form of communication. Also... I thought that my parent comment was being sarcastic as well... maybe it wasn't :V
Oh yeah I know Maddox as well. It's just that I grew tired of the "yelled" form of communication.
Also... I thought that my parent comment was being sarcastic as well... maybe it wasn't :V
Agreed, it's tiring. I think Maddox's style qualifies as "internetty writing" though his stuff pre-dates the examples in that article. It was shocking and original in its day, now it's just a...
Agreed, it's tiring. I think Maddox's style qualifies as "internetty writing" though his stuff pre-dates the examples in that article. It was shocking and original in its day, now it's just a grating, tired fad.
Anyway, I do think this article makes some good points, though it handwaves away a lot of the nuance that should be considered here.
Are you kidding... I would love to see him tear this place apart using his acerbic tone and razor sharp wit. If you can't laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at?
Are you kidding... I would love to see him tear this place apart using his acerbic tone and razor sharp wit. If you can't laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at?
What the fuck is this crap?
I guess I'll bite and respond to the low-effort comment.
This is actually an incredibly valuable video, for a few reasons. The single biggest problem with the culture of the internet in 2018 is that there's a huge constituency out there for the incredibly toxic, batshit insane content generated by the likes of InfoWars.
Not only do these folks exist in large numbers, they generally can't be reasoned with. They're not in it for reasons; they're in it for stimulating the release of brain chemicals that comes from delirious outrage and tribal expressions of group solidarity.
Maddox is the one who perfected that formula and had massive influence on the early culture and tone of the internet, a formula that eventually got co-opted by insane people like Alex Jones who sought out the same internet constituency.
Maddox understands the formula, and likely shares some of that same Alex Jones audience. And he's communicating to these folks as one of their own tribe, in a way that caters to base psychological needs that they understand, to get them to see the problems with InfoWars by taking it down on its own terms.
In short, a three minute video from Maddox on the flaws with alternate news sites is worth three million hours of explainers from Vox or Rachel Maddow or John Oliver. And if you can't see the value in that, you're never in a million years going to be able to crack the nut of online toxicity in a meaningful way.
There's a video in this mess? Wow. I didn't pick that. I just got cluttered graphics and shouty text.
I thought one of the ways tildes was going to distinguish itself from reddit was to emphasize high quality conversations based on good faith engagement and de-emphasize low-effort shitposting.
I honestly don't think comments like the ones you've been making in this thread are helping us meet that standard, because it's not really being responsive to what I feel are legitimate points about the value offered by the article and video.
You can take this crap (the linked page, not Tildes itself) seriously if you want to. I refuse.
Well let us know when you have an argument refuting the content of the article. Otherwise, you're just being willfully ignorant.
Because it's so thoughtful and chock-full of serious content to be refuted?
Like this gem:
Riiight.
Give me something worth refuting, and I'll happily pull it to pieces. But this crap isn't worth refuting.
So any source of information that is in any way includes jokes or comes with a satirical tone is "not worth refuting"? So I guess John Oliver's show is complete bullshit right? I said it before and I'll say it again, you're being willfully ignorant.
Here you go: a sentence-by-sentence analysis of this crap. It didn't take very long, because there's not really a lot there to work with.
Do they? Who knows what anyone reads on the internet? As for "everyone", I'm pretty sure there are lots of people who either don't know what "you" read, as well as some people who support "you" reading it
umm… okay?
They do? Okay.
If you say so. Are there any actual conspiracies you'd care to debunk, or is everyone just supposed to take your word for it?
Well, it's nice to know you care about people's dental health!
Well… I wasn't actually thinking that. I was thinking "What a stupid rant."
Well, it is almost inevitable that everyone will lose at least one tooth during their lifetime, so I suppose you're right this time. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
And… speaking of pseudo-science! Is there any scientific proof of this supposed connection? "Studies show that reading alternate news sites causes dental decay! News at eleven."
Nice assumption.
Yes! Please tell me. I'm dying to know how you know this stuff! You're so informed and so insightful that you must be getting your information from some very reputable and reliable sources.
But this doesn't lead inevitably to someone putting a firecracker in their mouth. More pseudo-science.
I know that. I'm not your target audience.
Again, it's nice that you care about people's dental health.
Some proof of this assertion?
Okay. Nice to know that you skim for words in the URL rather than reading the actual articles.
Well, good for you!
Okay.
Reading the URL again? That's not really a valid substitute for reading the article.
Finally! A sentence with some actual substance! How did this get in here?
Really? We can't look at the reputation of the journalist? We can't look at the company that wrote it?
I don't know, dimwit. Why don't you tell us?
Most articles are written to sell us products. Newspapers have been writing articles to sell advertising for over a hundred years. The man's a fucking genius.
If you say so.
Another unsupported assertion.
Such a clever man, to know the word "bloviates". But, if your target audience is allegedly so stupid they're going to put firecrackers in their mouth… how do you expect them to know the word "bloviates"?
Isn't this the same scaremongering you're accusing those "fake news" sites of doing?
Lewis Carroll said it better: "jam tomorrow and jam yesterday - but never jam today".
Wasting food? Not good for the environment, or for helping feed the hungry.
Thanks for that.
Really? Let's tell that to Socrates and Plato and Pythagorus and Hippocrates and Confucius and all the other wise people in our history.
Well… only the Romans "drank mercury", and that wasn't deliberate. And, anyway, the idea that drinking mercury caused the fall of the Roman Empire has been debunked. But, thanks for trying.
Bullshit. An average life expectancy doesn't mean that's how long people actually lived. High infant and child mortality rates dragged that average down. You had a very high likelihood of dying young in prehistorical and classical times. But, if you managed to live past 5 years old, you could expect a long happy life till about the age of 60 or 70.
Learn how averages work.
Oh. My. God. You mean that people in the past didn't have technologies that were invented after they lived? Such insight!
Well, yes. Most humans who ever lived, including most humans alive now, were or are missing teeth.
Probably not, because, as you pointed out already, they don't know anything about the internet.
Which particular civilisation is this? Ancient Babylon, which invented astronomy? Ancient Egypt, which built massive pyramids that we can't replicate today? Ancient Greece, which invented democracy and trigonometry and medicine? Ancient Rome, which built structures that are still standing and being used over 2,000 years later? Ancient China, which built a culture that lasted nearly 2,000 years, and invented things like paper and gunpowder? Which of these ancient civilisation was made entirely of morons?
I will if you'll stop selling it!
Yes, we are. By you.
Of course they have someone to answer to. You already told us that these people are trying to sell us a product. That means they have to answer to their sponsors if they don't get enough eyeballs on their articles to sell enough product.
I'm pretty sure that this wasn't quite what Dale Carnegie was aiming for when he wrote 'How to win friends and influence people'. Insulting people is not the best way to teach them.
Nice assumption! How do you know your target audience are unemployed? This is another of those unsupported assertions you like making.
Happy now? I've provided a detailed line-by-line analysis of this pile of stinking crap.
Well I'm sorry that you're incapable of reading through satire and I think it's silly that you think every line in that post should be taken literally. I'll just step out of this thread now because it's quite obvious that you have no interest in furthering a real discussion.
it's edgy, shut up :D
Edit: /s
Also, to elaborate: It's presented in a very "wake up sheeple"-way that I personally find ridiculous.
Calling out the bullshit of these alternate news sites is "edgy"? Are you really defending Infowars right now?
Holy shit I should have used /sarcasm
Still, is presented in a very teenager-y way.
I mean, it's maddox. That is kind of his thing. :P
Yeah I know... I suppose I'm just getting old and grumpy, that's all :P
I understood the sarcasm of your comment, but it seemed like you were trying to dismiss the article's content, as agreeing with the "What the fuck is this crap" comment.
edit: Also, as cfabbro pointed out, Maddox has been writing with this style for years, and it lead to his massive popularity on the internet
Oh yeah I know Maddox as well. It's just that I grew tired of the "yelled" form of communication.
Also... I thought that my parent comment was being sarcastic as well... maybe it wasn't :V
Agreed, it's tiring. I think Maddox's style qualifies as "internetty writing" though his stuff pre-dates the examples in that article. It was shocking and original in its day, now it's just a grating, tired fad.
Anyway, I do think this article makes some good points, though it handwaves away a lot of the nuance that should be considered here.
Nope. No sarcasm here. This article/blog/whatever is stupid shallow shouty crap that shouldn't be polluting my internet connection.
What do they say on Reddit? "3edgy5me"
This has to be the stupidest thing I've seen on the internet this week.
Now that's a name I have not heard in a long time. Speaking of which, how great would it be to get maddox on the site? :P
He's a mod on of my subreddits. I could give him one of my invites, I guess.
ha, it would be great, but i dont think this site has the self-esteem to handle maddox
Are you kidding... I would love to see him tear this place apart using his acerbic tone and razor sharp wit. If you can't laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at?