Hilarious. After your work at the Virality project and your cheerleading of censoring of physicians during Covid, subscribing to your substack would not be a top priority for me. When I started receiving your articles, I thought someone was taking the piss out of me. Now I'm convinced of it.
But since I'm here, Here is a refresher for you, since perhaps it slipped your mind what you did:
Yeah, liars wrote lies. Speaking of terrible people with no integrity, Matt Taibbi cut emails in half and lied about what they said - and those other rags ate it up. You seem to think you winding up a subscriber to my newsletter was some plot too though, so there’s no point in talking to you. :)
I found an excellent documentary that contains a concise dialog between blog writers Matt Taibbi and Michael Shallenberger that best sums up their understanding of and the GOP's concerns regarding the censorship industrial complex issue.
N.B.: "Cretin" is a derogatory term, but one that nonetheless refers to a human. With humans, it is correct to use "who" as opposed to "that" should you need to use a relative pronoun.
In short, I would alternatively suggest a comment that reads, "You are the cretin who pushed for censorship, &c."
No need to thank me for the grammar tips. Have a blessed day!
I subscribed you. I go around subscribing folks to Renee's Substack for fun. Because I have your email address, I went to a previous newsletter, hit subscribe, and entered your info. Because that's something people do. Not more likely that you signed up for this newsletter...
This problem has all too many faces today. There's informal, non-expert group "deep lore" presented vividly here; my early background for getting to know the dynamics came from scientific epistemology with the "paradigms" of Kuhn, the "hard cores" of Lakatos, and the "epistemes" of Foucault. Everywhere, it seems, these Duhem-Quine patterns nonlocality of belief pop up at the base of the most intransigent populist resentments and the most shocking institutional legitimacy crises.
I'd like better Gerald-Holton-sense "themata" for untangling this complex of epistemic problems, and I'd appreciate any recommendations. Fricker's "hermeneutic injustice" is one of my leading favorites and Shapin's Social History of Truth is another (and it plays well with Habermas's Theory of Communicative Action). I'm looking forward to Polanyi's Personal Knowledge and Massimi's Perspectival Realism and will read both soon. I'm still sure there's a lot more out there worth putting on my map.
"Election Disinformation: At SIO, DiResta led investigations into foreign interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, detailing how entities like the Russian Internet Research Agency manipulated social media platforms to influence public opinion..."
Yea, been there, done that.
The problem is internal, a crisis of legitimacy. Blaming foreigners won't cut it, be it China or Russia.
Lol, how did I get subscribed to this substack? You are the cretin that pushed for censorship of things you didn't like.
You hit the subscribe button. And no I didn’t - the other liars you subscribe to just said I did. :)
Hilarious. After your work at the Virality project and your cheerleading of censoring of physicians during Covid, subscribing to your substack would not be a top priority for me. When I started receiving your articles, I thought someone was taking the piss out of me. Now I'm convinced of it.
But since I'm here, Here is a refresher for you, since perhaps it slipped your mind what you did:
https://fee.org/articles/the-government-s-sprawling-effort-to-censor-true-information-during-the-pandemic/
https://brownstone.org/articles/the-virality-projects-censorship-agenda/
https://stanfordreview.org/stanfords-dark-hand-in-twitter-censorship/
Renee, you are a terrible person. You have no integrity.
Yeah, liars wrote lies. Speaking of terrible people with no integrity, Matt Taibbi cut emails in half and lied about what they said - and those other rags ate it up. You seem to think you winding up a subscriber to my newsletter was some plot too though, so there’s no point in talking to you. :)
Kind friend, it's me again. As "here" appears mid-sentence, there is of course no need to capitalize it.
I found an excellent documentary that contains a concise dialog between blog writers Matt Taibbi and Michael Shallenberger that best sums up their understanding of and the GOP's concerns regarding the censorship industrial complex issue.
Cued to Matt and Michael's "explainer" moment:
https://youtu.be/M68GeL8PafE?si=9JkmPfoZR_MArmR5&t=64
N.B.: "Cretin" is a derogatory term, but one that nonetheless refers to a human. With humans, it is correct to use "who" as opposed to "that" should you need to use a relative pronoun.
In short, I would alternatively suggest a comment that reads, "You are the cretin who pushed for censorship, &c."
No need to thank me for the grammar tips. Have a blessed day!
I subscribed you. I go around subscribing folks to Renee's Substack for fun. Because I have your email address, I went to a previous newsletter, hit subscribe, and entered your info. Because that's something people do. Not more likely that you signed up for this newsletter...
This problem has all too many faces today. There's informal, non-expert group "deep lore" presented vividly here; my early background for getting to know the dynamics came from scientific epistemology with the "paradigms" of Kuhn, the "hard cores" of Lakatos, and the "epistemes" of Foucault. Everywhere, it seems, these Duhem-Quine patterns nonlocality of belief pop up at the base of the most intransigent populist resentments and the most shocking institutional legitimacy crises.
I'd like better Gerald-Holton-sense "themata" for untangling this complex of epistemic problems, and I'd appreciate any recommendations. Fricker's "hermeneutic injustice" is one of my leading favorites and Shapin's Social History of Truth is another (and it plays well with Habermas's Theory of Communicative Action). I'm looking forward to Polanyi's Personal Knowledge and Massimi's Perspectival Realism and will read both soon. I'm still sure there's a lot more out there worth putting on my map.
"Election Disinformation: At SIO, DiResta led investigations into foreign interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, detailing how entities like the Russian Internet Research Agency manipulated social media platforms to influence public opinion..."
Yea, been there, done that.
The problem is internal, a crisis of legitimacy. Blaming foreigners won't cut it, be it China or Russia.
My report detailed how it happened. It’s a pretty standard data analysis. It didn’t say it swung the election. You should try reading it.