Explain yourself RIGHT NOW Veeky Forums

>Scientists Say

...I am now strongly tempted to read something I know will just make me face palm. What effective clickb8.

it would certainly make it harder to astroturf if anonymous posting wasn't so easily available

obviously people will always be able to achieve that but the main draw here is the traffic, millions of kids cruise this shithole and it makes for easy propaganda

We really need to raise awareness for internet propaganda. People actually believe this shit! It needs to be taught in school or something. Emphasize fact-checking and how to deconstruct dubious infographics. Meme pictures have really become effective propaganda, and it's ridiculously sad.

I guess it has always been that way actually, but the internet has made it too easy to create and distribute it.

buttmad libtard fascists are mad... kek

>propaganda

by and for whom?

>astroturf

This is about raids conducted OUT of Veeky Forums, not INTO Veeky Forums.

Closing a website where people congregate that have different opinions to you will not make those people stop having those opinions (or espousing them). They will simply move to another website.

For this to work they would need to close the internet and make access heavily restricted. So you were confined only to a very narrow set of sites and applications, which could then be monitored to bar anyone who uses wrong think. You would also need to find a way to make access to the internet tied to real world authentication to enforce bans and restrictions.

The proposal to ban outlets like Veeky Forums is to help reinforce stupidity/obedience by forcing you to rely on "trusted sources".

>taught in school or something

What, exactly? Gullibility and naivety resistance?

>The internet has made it too easy to create and distribute

It's made it easy to rebuke. Why do you think the mainstream media (like Vice) are so furious right now?

When they try to set an agenda or narrative, it quickly falls apart because Propaganda can be so easily fact checked now.

A free internet is the easiest way to combat this. If you restrict communication and speech it makes it harder to investigate and debunk lies.

>by and for whom?
why does that matter?

>This is about raids conducted OUT of Veeky Forums, not INTO Veeky Forums.

yes and this is effectively a training camp

>Why does that matter?

Because you're assuming it exists. When there is no indication it does. If it doesn't matter, why did you raise the issue?

>yes and this is effectively a training camp

It's a discussion board. Raids can and are launched from countless websites and communication platforms. Unless you're very new to the internet, there is nothing new about what essentially amounts to prank phone calls.

You misunderstand. I'm totally against a ban of Veeky Forums. Even if it is the source of propaganda, a more informed and aware populace would made it less of an issue. Internet propaganda is rampant, and it has proven to be very effective. The fact that it is effective is the problem. People actually believe what they read on the internet. That is scary and needs to change.

of course propaganda matters, are you being intentionally dumb?

why does it matter to you who is behind the propaganda?

We have the most informed and aware populaces in the history of humanity though.

>Internet propaganda is rampant

It's only as rampant as the internet is.

And unlike previous generations, the internet allows for rapid and quick debunking of propaganda.

>prove to be very effective

The effectiveness of marketing and propaganda has and always will be debatable.

I think finding any empirical evidence of the effectiveness of internet propaganda would be pretty hard if not impossible.

>People actually believe what they read on the internet

They also don't believe it.

>That is scary and needs to change

Why? Is it preferable the disbelieve all that they read on the internet?

I don't see why the medium makes a difference. If misinformation comes in print or television form how is it anymore real than if it comes via the internet? What's the difference there? text and video is still text and video.

>Propaganda cab be so easily fact checked
The problem is people don't fact check out and sit in their own circlejerks so they don't have to hear it being ripped apart

Does it matter though? Why?

How is it relevant to the thread?

I'm not being intentionally dumb. I just don't understand why the issue of propaganda is relevant to the OP, which is about shutting down Veeky Forums to restrict people using offensive language.

People aren't prone to fact check things they want to believe

>I think finding any empirical evidence of the effectiveness of internet propaganda would be pretty hard if not impossible.

didn't stop Cambridge Analytica getting 5 million dollars from Trump last year

nice attempt to control and restrict the conversation

So...?

If you remove the internet, then fact checking becomes even more difficult and unlikely to take place.

>control and restrict

It's an attempt at a conversation thread with a topic - Not a free association blog post.

so it's fine when you do it then, ok

>We really need to raise awareness for internet propaganda.

For? Or against?

>It's made it easy to rebuke.

Refute?

But recall, a lie can goo halfway across the world before the truth has its pants on.

Pepsi spent 40 million dollars on marketing Crystal Pepsi.

Take a look at their results.

If expenditure, targeting and dissemination were all it took to sell people on a product then Hillary Clinton would be president.

Once I understood about confirmation bias, I started to see it everywhere!

and that's because she didn't have thousands of sockpuppets on twitter and user brigaders swarming Veeky Forums

>If you remove the internet, then fact checking becomes even more difficult and unlikely to take place.

But you also lose the Internet's abillity to spread misinformatoon -- it's a knife that cuts both ways.

Looking at it strictly from a "does the Internet do more harm spreading falsehood than it does goo spreading truth?" point of view, I'd say it is too close to call.

If you say so?

Rebuke as in label information as clear propaganda (not merely false, but packaged to politically motivate people, not merely inform them).

Anyway, wouldn't you rather that a lie can go half way around the world and then be labeled as such, rather than simply accepted as fact because the populace doesn't have the means to investigate the claims?

>For? Or against?
Should have been "of". Or "against", but didn't want to imply censorship.

She had thousands of sock puppets, brigaders and volunteers across the entire internet.

>swarming Veeky Forums

Veeky Forums attracts 22 million users a month. At very best half of them would be eligible to vote in U.S. elections, and then on top of that many wouldn't vote or wouldn't vote for Trump.

That's not enough to win an election, especially compared the amount of users on platforms like reddit, facebook or twitter.

I'm helping make the block happen

Who's talking about removing the internet? The internet has made it easier and faster to spread propaganda (and all information), that's just a fact dude. People don't fact check, but now with the internet, it's more important to do so. The internet does make it easier to fact check, but it's only effective if people know how to and are encouraged to do so. We should be facilitating that stuff into the mindset of the population.

How fucking old is this screenshot? Been scrolling Motherboard's Twitter feed for 5 minutes and still haven't found this article.

How long have you had this screenshot on your drive?

But we still have television and print media to spread disinformation, and with limited ability to question or inform others of this misinformation.

>does the internet do more harm spreading falsehood than it does good spreading truth

I don't even think it's a debate. You can point to countless good things the internet does in disseminating factual information, from healthy eating to first aid to driving directions. It's a struggle to think of any effects of misinformation beyond perhaps personal gossip.

you must have missed the part where i mentioned twitter

when using the correct software you can run about 300 twitter accounts from one computer but with fb you can only manage about 50 per computer, so fb isn't as effective (this is where CA and other companies come in)

but still, 50 to 1 is a good enough ratio to be able to get results

Why is it more important to do so?

It's made it easier to do so. Why was it not important to fact check or you critical reasoning prior to the internet?

>We should be facilitating that stuff into the mindset of the population.

Basic reasoning and decision making should come as a function of a basic fundamental education. I mean, most first world nations already provide these skills in a primary school education.

What are you actually suggesting should be taught? That when consuming news sources to seek multiple sources? Because you can have multiple incorrect sources?

To rely on demonstration of empirical evidence?

That's probably the most sound - But it's also the most worrisome, because you don't want to people to become autistic and shut in to not making decisions because they refuse to act without having a full chain of evidence.

How?

>50 to 1 is a good enough ratio to get results

What results? Views? You can buy views. Clinton would have accessed more views by a large margin given her budget and support.

Being seen a lot doesn't guarantee a sale.

you seem to be arguing that advertising is entirely ineffective
really?

I'd say it's largely hit and miss, or, more accurately that simply having a lot of exposure and targeting the correct audience won't work unless you have a product worth buying or that looks appealing.

We see it every year in cinemas - That's a product you can't "demonstrate", similar to a politician.

A large corporation will buy as many views of their target demographic as possible - and because the material is unappealing it still fails to connect. Meanwhile, something with less of a spend and often less access to viewers eyeballs, will spread via word of mouth and recommendations (obviously made faster and wider by the internet).

Basically all the marketing in the world won't get your average robot laid, while Chad doesn't have to run through 1001 pick up lines on heavily intoxicated women to get a 6/10 to go home with him.

assuming you know what you're talking about you already know that a conversion rate of 1% is considered good, normal is about 0.2%

but when a single post can be seen by millions, the numbers don't have to be that huge
combine this with the public's tendency to take information from other users more seriously than they do advertising and you have quite an opportunity

it's actually not very easy to fact check /pol/ because they have a billion pol-tier websites that come up when you google their stuff

for example a few days ago i investigated projcetions of muslim populations in europe

i looked at uk, france, sweden, denmark, germany

but as soon as you google sweden muslim population, hundreds of bullshit sites come up, so i had to dig deeper

in 2014 27% of the children were of immigrant moms and as you can clearly see the majority of those aren't low lifes
it's prjected that it will increase to 34% in 2029 and then drop to 23% in 2060

the groups are EU, rest of europe, countries with high, medium and low HDI

i don't even want to comment on the other countries, as they have it better

people act as if whites are just about to become a minority and muslims are taking over any time now

it's from october last year apparently

you should be adept enough to find that out yourself in this day and age

They are you cuck, white genocide is real

>it's from october last year apparently
Well that's fucking hilarious

A propaganda thread where literal propagandists argue that propaganda is not happening

When a group is genocided, they generally don't leave behind offspring.

>america
white % is dropping but the white population has actually increased - by 10 million since 2000
some GENOCIDE, whites getting killed, castrated, removed from their homes by force and shot dead
you are free to look at the data in europe
you don't need to think you are being genocided to have a proper immigration stance
you can lie about it to achieve your agenda, but at least be honest with yourself

the only place where whites are in danger(of an actual genocide) is south africa - which imo is why we need international laws about war and refugees, BUT WHO THINKS AHEAD really

Oh dear!

From a strategic perspective stopping Veeky Forums is actually the worse thing you could do.

If you're aware of where the "alt-right" are located then the best thing you can do is monitor the sight and follow the movements and act on those instead.

Keep the nest alive and take out the pest when necessary. Don't destroy the nest unless it reaches critical mass.

It's the same reason why you don't "nuke" sites like Facebook when you see activity involving school incidents/bullies or terrorist propaganda/action. All getting rid of the site will do is cause the pest to scatter and you'll have to waste resources just to find them again.

Social science is not a science. Liberals are too retarded to understand this.

Prove it

Must really frustrate liberals to have some places where there is actual free speech and anonymity

>inb4 le IP address

superficially speaking

A woman's bawwing about white men being "evil" is not a fact, it's a personal expression, though a retarded one still an expression.