top of page

Change focus? Why?

- Haven't I seen the graph in here before? It still doesn't measure what part of that engagement was in support of rather than opposing.

This recent article came in handy as a yardstick for the rerun. A study that measures the engagement between two competing ideologies fits Point 1 by nature; it fits Point 4 in that it doesn't measure whether engagement is positive or negative (isn't there already existing technology that picks out frequently recurring words or tracks affiliations of those who choose to engage?); and Point 5 - that "cherry-picking tactic" that doesn't contain all the evidence, which makes it more likely the study in the social media article has been "deliberately curated to mislead."

This incident is the first time such an incident stuck in my memory; however, the most recent time this sort of hijacking was around, it came at the same time as articles like this.

Careful with those matches - the gaslighting's back on.

- Thanks to this reminder, numbers and all.

- Adding this for the press secretary's benefit.

- This is a regime that's proven willing to play the long game (koalas to you, tool, for the deletion; and thanks, uploader, for the replacement link), a regime that took their 十年不晚 seriously. Those who interact with such a regime are right to take its deeds just as seriously in this case, keeping that adage in mind. (I wonder if the term "monomania" fits here, all resources of a country on the singular focus of 毒蛇 not 天鹅's ambition.)

- By the way, Penelope is neither helpless nor in need of pity. If cancel culture overstepping its bounds hasn't entered the collective awareness before, I'd like to think it has now.

- Ending with this because for all the platform's dubiousness, the music makes the tool worthwhile.

Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Search By Tags
Follow Us
  • Facebook Classic
  • Twitter Classic
  • Google Classic
bottom of page