2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux

[Altair]

When I see the same phrases repeated, I suspect collusion or simple mimickry. And I doubt that just because the Journ-o-list was exposed, that writers stopped sharing ideas about messaging.

Trivially, easily verified facts are not generally at issue. Nor are beat reports about mundane things unfolding. The contentious issues arise exactly where people interested in shaping opinions are doing their work. These are the sources of the myths, the "priors", the "things everyone knows that just aren't so". Many people who think they are widely informed are just prisoners of someone else's mind.

Does this apply to true north, the postmillennial and Rebel News?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Sure. Why would they be excepted? But the agencies with strong biases are the easiest damage to route around, except for those who really want to believe the message. The agencies trading on past reputations as "trustworthy" are the ones misleading people who have convinced themselves they're not being led by the nose because they want to agree with what they read.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Thats kind of stuff that makes me look side ways at the modern legacy media.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Most stuff is "brought to you by" advertisers, although the attribution wasn't always so strong.

 

[Altair]

Sure. Why would they be excepted? But the agencies with strong biases are the easiest damage to route around, except for those who really want to believe the message. The agencies trading on past reputations as "trustworthy" are the ones misleading people who have convinced themselves they're not being led by the nose because they want to agree with what they read.

Simply due to those 3 (there are others) seem to have very similar messaging as well a lot of the time.

Doesn't stop people from posting those opinions.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Similar conclusions and messaging are one thing. Using exactly identical phrases is quite another.

 

[Altair]

Similar conclusions and messaging are one thing. Using exactly identical phrases is quite another.

I find a lot of that is due to the one breaking the story is usually the Canadian Press or Reuters.

Others almost lazily copy paste it.

They usually cite it though.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Thus we come to an important point: endless repeats of one source are not confirmation of anything.

"I read the same thing in the NYT, the Atlantic, and the New Yorker. It must be true!"

 

[Altair]

Thus we come to an important point: endless repeats of one source are not confirmation of anything.

"I read the same thing in the NYT, the Atlantic, and the New Yorker. It must be true!"

 

[brihard]

Mm hm. There are a few ‘simply news’ wire services that occupy a central point in the news industry. Reuters, Associated Press, and in Canada, the Canadian Press… They share stories that often don’t yet have much flavor or seasoning added, but will have a lot of the core facts of the story before individual outlets have sought quotes and reacts. So it’s not surprising that some elements of a CP, or AP, or Reuters report will appear verbatim in numerous outlets.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Heh. They have plenty of seasoning, of the "notorious mass-murderer Sirius Black" variety (tendentious language).

 

[Altair]

Mm hm. There are a few ‘simply news’ wire services that occupy a central point in the news industry. Reuters, Associated Press, and in Canada, the Canadian Press… They share stories that often don’t yet have much flavor or seasoning added, but will have a lot of the core facts of the story before individual outlets have sought quotes and reacts. So it’s not surprising that some elements of a CP, or AP, or Reuters report will appear verbatim in numerous outlets.

This is why people need to dig a little deeper in to new stories.

I tend to avoid posting multiple links to stories coming from the same source. But there are news agencies that do tend to use different sources or their own.

FR24 is one, BBC is another, CNN and Fox others still. If multiple agencies not using the same wire service for their rout source are coming to the same conclusion then I give it a lot more weight. The key is to see if there are verbatim phrases being used, that's a solid hint that you're getting a wire story and thus only needs to be shared the one time.

 

[QV]

FTFY.

I get information from news articles. Not sure your method.

When I read informa news stuff I most often find another source for it. When I can't I don't make a habit of citing it. Pretty simple.

Bravo big guy.

 

[Scott]

Bravo big guy.

Do better.

Some of the stuff you have posted is a shining exhibit of the problem with sharing "news" or "information" these days.

 

[Eaglelord17]

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6399986

Well this makes me not want Poilievre to win. I see cryptocurrency as a environmentally destructive scam (amount of energy needed to the nation state of Argentina is needed to power Bitcoin currently) and would rather go the China route of banning it then trying to support it.

 

[Good2Golf]

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6399986

Well this makes me not want Poilievre to win. I see cryptocurrency as a environmentally destructive scam (amount of energy needed to the nation state of Argentina is needed to power Bitcoin currently) and would rather go the China route of banning it then trying to support it.

I’m not a PP fam by any stretch, but blockchain technology, like it or not, will figure prominently in many aspects of future life, not just currency but logistics/supply-chain, etc.

As well, only ‘Proof of Work’ crypto has a high power demand due to the mining aspects. ‘Proof of Stake’ cryptocurrency is not ‘mined’, and has significantly lower power demands for management, similar to standard IT-based financial systems.

China is not investing in (Western-based) crypto, because it doesn’t like the non-centralized, distributed control of the blockchain. It wants complete centralized control of any cryptocurrency it uses, hence why it against Bitcoin, and for the digital Yuan.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I’m not a PP fam by any stretch, but blockchain technology, like it or not, will figure prominently in many aspects of future life, not just currency but logistics/supply-chain, etc.

As well, only ‘Proof of Work’ crypto has a high power demand due to the mining aspects. ‘Proof of Stake’ cryptocurrency is not ‘mined’, and has significantly lower power demands for management, similar to standard IT-based financial systems.

China is not investing in (Western-based) crypto, because it doesn’t like the non-centralized, distributed control of the blockchain. It wants complete centralized control of any cryptocurrency it uses, hence why it against Bitcoin, and for the digital Yuan.

So far blockchain technology is a solution looking for a problem, and outside of cryptocurrency (which is still a highly speculative asset that is mostly unusuable until converted back to fiat currencies), have yet to see any suggested implementation for blockchain that doesn't have multiple existing solutions. Slapping a blockchain on something only really makes it more complicated, so it's a bit of a technological Rube Goldberg machine.

We'll see quantum computing within our lifetimes, which will effectively destroy most of the existing encryption including blockchains, so really don't see this as sustainable.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I’m not a PP fam by any stretch, but blockchain technology, like it or not, will figure prominently in many aspects of future life, not just currency but logistics/supply-chain, etc.

As well, only ‘Proof of Work’ crypto has a high power demand due to the mining aspects. ‘Proof of Stake’ cryptocurrency is not ‘mined’, and has significantly lower power demands for management, similar to standard IT-based financial systems.

China is not investing in (Western-based) crypto, because it doesn’t like the non-centralized, distributed control of the blockchain. It wants complete centralized control of any cryptocurrency it uses, hence why it against Bitcoin, and for the digital Yuan.

100% but it always raises the question of what value does it have. If it a ‘proof of stake’ system that means someone is creating it out of thin air. I could create my own dollar and as long as I convince enough people to use it the value is the same as any other cryptocurrency.

If the value is in digital, we basically have digital dollars today. If the value is in decentralization we have precious metals.

We are better off as a society banning it as tons of people are getting hurt by it in the name of a get rich quick scheme.

 

[Good2Golf]

We are better off as a society banning it as tons of people are getting hurt by it in the name of a get rich quick scheme.

WEF agrees with you!

 

[IKnowNothing]

100% but it always raises the question of what value does it have. If it a ‘proof of stake’ system that means someone is creating it out of thin air. I could create my own dollar and as long as I convince enough people to use it the value is the same as any other currency or store of value without functional/intrinsic worth.

Fixed. You just described money.

Edit to actually contribute
I'm by no means an expert, nor a hardcore bitcoin bull, but I have a non-frivolous portfolio allocation towards it. Simple thesis of widespread adoption turns it into a better version of modern gold. Inflation and debasement resistant store of value, while being more liquid, easily divisible, and spendable (especially as 2nd and 3rd layers are added)