Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [media-squatters] kill the messenger

Expand Messages
  • DJ
    At first, I thought it was possible that the sign was a bit tongue in cheek. No one would be that stupid to try and rewrite history in that way on such a
    Message 1 of 13 , Jul 25, 2012
      At first, I thought it was possible that the sign was a bit tongue in cheek. No one would be that stupid to try and rewrite history in that way on such a widely disseminated issue, right? The internet being forever and all. Now, it's just in bonehead territory.

      Things like this always strike me as the work of a single panic ridden person who delegates to others. "Just do it." That kind of thing. Not thinking.

      The rules have changed. Immediate media exposure is a double-edged sword. Sometimes you'll get cut no matter what.


      On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Douglas Rushkoff <rushkoff@...> wrote:
       

      I have a teenage girl profile on Facebook. I started it years ago when i was going to write an article about what happens to teenage girls on Facebook. But then I never actually used it.  Gosh, I really should see if I can figure out the password and find out what sorts of invites she has gotten over the past five years....




      On Jul 25, 2012, at 4:50 PM, fasbinder 62 wrote:

       

      Chick Fil A's publicity department spectacularly blundering again..

      http://gizmodo.com/5928926/chick+fil+a-got-caught-pretending-to-be-a-fake-teenage-girl-on-facebook




    • fasbinder 62
      8 billion friend requests I ll wager
      Message 2 of 13 , Jul 26, 2012
        8 billion friend requests I'll wager

        --- In media-squatters@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Rushkoff <rushkoff@...> wrote:
        >
        > I have a teenage girl profile on Facebook. I started it years ago when i was going to write an article about what happens to teenage girls on Facebook. But then I never actually used it. Gosh, I really should see if I can figure out the password and find out what sorts of invites she has gotten over the past five years....
        >
        >
        >
        > On Jul 25, 2012, at 4:50 PM, fasbinder 62 wrote:
        >
        > > Chick Fil A's publicity department spectacularly blundering again..
        > >
        > > http://gizmodo.com/5928926/chick+fil+a-got-caught-pretending-to-be-a-fake-teenage-girl-on-facebook
        > >
        > >
        >
        > ---
        > http://rushkoff.com
        > http://twitter.com/rushkoff
        >
      • Peter Kennard
        Interesting question - In the explosion of available channels and personally tuned media I wonder. As there is so much deliberate con artistry, spin ,
        Message 3 of 13 , Aug 3 7:24 AM
          Interesting question - In the explosion of available "channels" and personally "tuned" media I wonder.  As there is so much deliberate con artistry, "spin", truth bending, spam and targeted perception management accepted in our culture, an inability to convince anyone to think that anything is "authoritative" when there is so much noise and crap out there may tend to balkanize meme spheres into emotion driven info-tribalism.  hard to know.
           
          At 07:11 PM 7/25/2012, you wrote:
           

          At first, I thought it was possible that the sign was a bit tongue in cheek. No one would be that stupid to try and rewrite history in that way on such a widely disseminated issue, right? The internet being forever and all. Now, it's just in bonehead territory.

          Things like this always strike me as the work of a single panic ridden person who delegates to others. "Just do it." That kind of thing. Not thinking.

          The rules have changed. Immediate media exposure is a double-edged sword. Sometimes you'll get cut no matter what.


          On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Douglas Rushkoff <rushkoff@...> wrote:
           

          I have a teenage girl profile on Facebook. I started it years ago when i was going to write an article about what happens to teenage girls on Facebook. But then I never actually used it.  Gosh, I really should see if I can figure out the password and find out what sorts of invites she has gotten over the past five years....



          On Jul 25, 2012, at 4:50 PM, fasbinder 62 wrote:

           

          Chick Fil A's publicity department spectacularly blundering again..

          http://gizmodo.com/5928926/chick+fil+a-got-caught-pretending-to-be-a-fake-teenage-girl-on-facebook

          ---
          http://rushkoff.com
          http://twitter.com/rushkoff





        • DJ
          The practice of deliberate disinformation as a cottage industry is fascinating. As you list Peter, it s bigger than it ever was. It s always been with us of
          Message 4 of 13 , Aug 3 2:10 PM
            The practice of "deliberate" disinformation as a cottage industry is fascinating. As you list Peter, it's bigger than it ever was. It's always been with us of course. But, the immediacy of the web puts it into a new area as far as cognizance and perception.

            Authoritative information is possible, I think. But, how? Thee are always those who will simply dismiss facts. Are they part of the equation or simply to be dismissed as a fractional issue? I see it as a statistical thing now. Some simply won't see facts for what they are... call it denial, call it emotionalism, call it ideology... whatever it is... is likely not going to change for now.

            Where I really feel it is important now is that facts are required to find solutions. But, without an authoritative source, it all gets jumbled. And, we have to regain that center. And, of course, it being as polarized as it is, we all fall into info-tribalism in some ways... ugh. 

            Perhaps simple clarity of truth is being forgotten. A post-partisan approach. More truth, less attitude. I am struck by all the partisan groups that are now out there to correct the record, which is great, but do so with an real partisan slant. And, they alienate a lot of people that way. Preaching to the converted as it were... 

            Just rambling a bit... you made me think about this in a different way....

            On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Peter Kennard <media-squat.peterk@...> wrote:
             

            Interesting question - In the explosion of available "channels" and personally "tuned" media I wonder.  As there is so much deliberate con artistry, "spin", truth bending, spam and targeted perception management accepted in our culture, an inability to convince anyone to think that anything is "authoritative" when there is so much noise and crap out there may tend to balkanize meme spheres into emotion driven info-tribalism.  hard to know.


             
            At 07:11 PM 7/25/2012, you wrote:
             

            At first, I thought it was possible that the sign was a bit tongue in cheek. No one would be that stupid to try and rewrite history in that way on such a widely disseminated issue, right? The internet being forever and all. Now, it's just in bonehead territory.

            Things like this always strike me as the work of a single panic ridden person who delegates to others. "Just do it." That kind of thing. Not thinking.

            The rules have changed. Immediate media exposure is a double-edged sword. Sometimes you'll get cut no matter what.


            On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Douglas Rushkoff <rushkoff@...> wrote:
             

            I have a teenage girl profile on Facebook. I started it years ago when i was going to write an article about what happens to teenage girls on Facebook. But then I never actually used it.  Gosh, I really should see if I can figure out the password and find out what sorts of invites she has gotten over the past five years....



            On Jul 25, 2012, at 4:50 PM, fasbinder 62 wrote:

             

            Chick Fil A's publicity department spectacularly blundering again..

            http://gizmodo.com/5928926/chick+fil+a-got-caught-pretending-to-be-a-fake-teenage-girl-on-facebook

            ---
            http://rushkoff.com
            http://twitter.com/rushkoff






          • Peter Kennard
            I find Bitcoin very interesting in how they have attempted to create a form of networked crowd sourced trust for digital currency. We might need some form
            Message 5 of 13 , Aug 3 4:28 PM
              I find "Bitcoin" very interesting in how they have attempted to create a form of networked "crowd sourced" trust for digital currency.  We might need some form of this for other forms of "tribal" and "global" information validation.

              http://bitcoin.org


              At 05:10 PM 8/3/2012, you wrote:
               

              The practice of "deliberate" disinformation as a cottage industry is fascinating. As you list Peter, it's bigger than it ever was. It's always been with us of course. But, the immediacy of the web puts it into a new area as far as cognizance and perception.

              Authoritative information is possible, I think. But, how? Thee are always those who will simply dismiss facts. Are they part of the equation or simply to be dismissed as a fractional issue? I see it as a statistical thing now. Some simply won't see facts for what they are... call it denial, call it emotionalism, call it ideology... whatever it is... is likely not going to change for now.

              Where I really feel it is important now is that facts are required to find solutions. But, without an authoritative source, it all gets jumbled. And, we have to regain that center. And, of course, it being as polarized as it is, we all fall into info-tribalism in some ways... ugh.

              Perhaps simple clarity of truth is being forgotten. A post-partisan approach. More truth, less attitude. I am struck by all the partisan groups that are now out there to correct the record, which is great, but do so with an real partisan slant. And, they alienate a lot of people that way. Preaching to the converted as it were...

              Just rambling a bit... you made me think about this in a different way....

              On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Peter Kennard < media-squat.peterk@...> wrote:
               

              Interesting question - In the explosion of available "channels" and personally "tuned" media I wonder.  As there is so much deliberate con artistry, "spin", truth bending, spam and targeted perception management accepted in our culture, an inability to convince anyone to think that anything is "authoritative" when there is so much noise and crap out there may tend to balkanize meme spheres into emotion driven info-tribalism.  hard to know.

               
              At 07:11 PM 7/25/2012, you wrote:
               

              At first, I thought it was possible that the sign was a bit tongue in cheek. No one would be that stupid to try and rewrite history in that way on such a widely disseminated issue, right? The internet being forever and all. Now, it's just in bonehead territory.

              Things like this always strike me as the work of a single panic ridden person who delegates to others. "Just do it." That kind of thing. Not thinking.

              The rules have changed. Immediate media exposure is a double-edged sword. Sometimes you'll get cut no matter what.


              On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Douglas Rushkoff <rushkoff@...> wrote:
               
              I have a teenage girl profile on Facebook. I started it years ago when i was going to write an article about what happens to teenage girls on Facebook. But then I never actually used it.  Gosh, I really should see if I can figure out the password and find out what sorts of invites she has gotten over the past five years....


              On Jul 25, 2012, at 4:50 PM, fasbinder 62 wrote:

               
              Chick Fil A's publicity department spectacularly blundering again..

              http://gizmodo.com/5928926/chick+fil+a-got-caught-pretending-to-be-a-fake-teenage-girl-on-facebook

              ---
              http://rushkoff.com
              http://twitter.com/rushkoff







            • Peter Kennard
              One wonders how much of this human propensity is the root of Religious politics and revival tent preachers. :)
              Message 6 of 13 , Aug 3 4:37 PM
                One wonders how much of this human propensity is the root of Religious politics  and revival tent preachers. :)

                At 05:10 PM 8/3/2012, you wrote:
                 

                The practice of "deliberate" disinformation as a cottage industry is fascinating. As you list Peter, it's bigger than it ever was. It's always been with us of course. But, the immediacy of the web puts it into a new area as far as cognizance and perception.

                Authoritative information is possible, I think. But, how? Thee are always those who will simply dismiss facts. Are they part of the equation or simply to be dismissed as a fractional issue? I see it as a statistical thing now. Some simply won't see facts for what they are... call it denial, call it emotionalism, call it ideology... whatever it is... is likely not going to change for now.

                Where I really feel it is important now is that facts are required to find solutions. But, without an authoritative source, it all gets jumbled. And, we have to regain that center. And, of course, it being as polarized as it is, we all fall into info-tribalism in some ways... ugh.

                Perhaps simple clarity of truth is being forgotten. A post-partisan approach. More truth, less attitude. I am struck by all the partisan groups that are now out there to correct the record, which is great, but do so with an real partisan slant. And, they alienate a lot of people that way. Preaching to the converted as it were...

                Just rambling a bit... you made me think about this in a different way....

                On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Peter Kennard < media-squat.peterk@...> wrote:
                 

                Interesting question - In the explosion of available "channels" and personally "tuned" media I wonder.  As there is so much deliberate con artistry, "spin", truth bending, spam and targeted perception management accepted in our culture, an inability to convince anyone to think that anything is "authoritative" when there is so much noise and crap out there may tend to balkanize meme spheres into emotion driven info-tribalism.  hard to know.

                 
                At 07:11 PM 7/25/2012, you wrote:
                 

                At first, I thought it was possible that the sign was a bit tongue in cheek. No one would be that stupid to try and rewrite history in that way on such a widely disseminated issue, right? The internet being forever and all. Now, it's just in bonehead territory.

                Things like this always strike me as the work of a single panic ridden person who delegates to others. "Just do it." That kind of thing. Not thinking.

                The rules have changed. Immediate media exposure is a double-edged sword. Sometimes you'll get cut no matter what.


                On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Douglas Rushkoff <rushkoff@...> wrote:
                 
                I have a teenage girl profile on Facebook. I started it years ago when i was going to write an article about what happens to teenage girls on Facebook. But then I never actually used it.  Gosh, I really should see if I can figure out the password and find out what sorts of invites she has gotten over the past five years....


                On Jul 25, 2012, at 4:50 PM, fasbinder 62 wrote:

                 
                Chick Fil A's publicity department spectacularly blundering again..

                http://gizmodo.com/5928926/chick+fil+a-got-caught-pretending-to-be-a-fake-teenage-girl-on-facebook

                ---
                http://rushkoff.com
                http://twitter.com/rushkoff







              • Douglas Rushkoff
                Yeah, but the trust isn t really crowd sourced so much as processor limited. And of course when there s real trust, you don t need currency at all.... On Aug
                Message 7 of 13 , Aug 3 5:37 PM

                  Yeah, but the trust isn't really crowd sourced so much as processor limited.

                  And of course when there's real trust, you don't need currency at all....

                  On Aug 3, 2012 7:28 PM, "Peter Kennard" <media-squat.peterk@...> wrote:
                   

                  I find "Bitcoin" very interesting in how they have attempted to create a form of networked "crowd sourced" trust for digital currency.  We might need some form of this for other forms of "tribal" and "global" information validation.

                  http://bitcoin.org


                  At 05:10 PM 8/3/2012, you wrote:

                   

                  The practice of "deliberate" disinformation as a cottage industry is fascinating. As you list Peter, it's bigger than it ever was. It's always been with us of course. But, the immediacy of the web puts it into a new area as far as cognizance and perception.

                  Authoritative information is possible, I think. But, how? Thee are always those who will simply dismiss facts. Are they part of the equation or simply to be dismissed as a fractional issue? I see it as a statistical thing now. Some simply won't see facts for what they are... call it denial, call it emotionalism, call it ideology... whatever it is... is likely not going to change for now.

                  Where I really feel it is important now is that facts are required to find solutions. But, without an authoritative source, it all gets jumbled. And, we have to regain that center. And, of course, it being as polarized as it is, we all fall into info-tribalism in some ways... ugh.

                  Perhaps simple clarity of truth is being forgotten. A post-partisan approach. More truth, less attitude. I am struck by all the partisan groups that are now out there to correct the record, which is great, but do so with an real partisan slant. And, they alienate a lot of people that way. Preaching to the converted as it were...

                  Just rambling a bit... you made me think about this in a different way....

                  On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Peter Kennard < media-squat.peterk@...> wrote:
                   

                  Interesting question - In the explosion of available "channels" and personally "tuned" media I wonder.  As there is so much deliberate con artistry, "spin", truth bending, spam and targeted perception management accepted in our culture, an inability to convince anyone to think that anything is "authoritative" when there is so much noise and crap out there may tend to balkanize meme spheres into emotion driven info-tribalism.  hard to know.

                   
                  At 07:11 PM 7/25/2012, you wrote:
                   

                  At first, I thought it was possible that the sign was a bit tongue in cheek. No one would be that stupid to try and rewrite history in that way on such a widely disseminated issue, right? The internet being forever and all. Now, it's just in bonehead territory.

                  Things like this always strike me as the work of a single panic ridden person who delegates to others. "Just do it." That kind of thing. Not thinking.

                  The rules have changed. Immediate media exposure is a double-edged sword. Sometimes you'll get cut no matter what.


                  On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Douglas Rushkoff <rushkoff@...> wrote:
                   
                  I have a teenage girl profile on Facebook. I started it years ago when i was going to write an article about what happens to teenage girls on Facebook. But then I never actually used it.  Gosh, I really should see if I can figure out the password and find out what sorts of invites she has gotten over the past five years....


                  On Jul 25, 2012, at 4:50 PM, fasbinder 62 wrote:

                   
                  Chick Fil A's publicity department spectacularly blundering again..

                  http://gizmodo.com/5928926/chick+fil+a-got-caught-pretending-to-be-a-fake-teenage-girl-on-facebook

                  ---
                  http://rushkoff.com
                  http://twitter.com/rushkoff







              • Peter Kennard
                Actually was referring to another aspect that was hinted at by someone inside -I don t know the details :) Of course even with trust one needs record keeping
                Message 8 of 13 , Aug 3 7:47 PM
                  Actually was referring to another aspect that was hinted at by someone inside -I don't know the details :)

                  Of course even with trust one needs record keeping which is supposedly where currency originated.

                  At 08:37 PM 8/3/2012, you wrote:
                   

                  Yeah, but the trust isn't really crowd sourced so much as processor limited.

                  And of course when there's real trust, you don't need currency at all....
                  On Aug 3, 2012 7:28 PM, "Peter Kennard" < media-squat.peterk@...> wrote:
                   

                  I find "Bitcoin" very interesting in how they have attempted to create a form of networked "crowd sourced" trust for digital currency.  We might need some form of this for other forms of "tribal" and "global" information validation.

                  http://bitcoin.org


                  At 05:10 PM 8/3/2012, you wrote:
                   

                  The practice of "deliberate" disinformation as a cottage industry is fascinating. As you list Peter, it's bigger than it ever was. It's always been with us of course. But, the immediacy of the web puts it into a new area as far as cognizance and perception.

                  Authoritative information is possible, I think. But, how? Thee are always those who will simply dismiss facts. Are they part of the equation or simply to be dismissed as a fractional issue? I see it as a statistical thing now. Some simply won't see facts for what they are... call it denial, call it emotionalism, call it ideology... whatever it is... is likely not going to change for now.

                  Where I really feel it is important now is that facts are required to find solutions. But, without an authoritative source, it all gets jumbled. And, we have to regain that center. And, of course, it being as polarized as it is, we all fall into info-tribalism in some ways... ugh.

                  Perhaps simple clarity of truth is being forgotten. A post-partisan approach. More truth, less attitude. I am struck by all the partisan groups that are now out there to correct the record, which is great, but do so with an real partisan slant. And, they alienate a lot of people that way. Preaching to the converted as it were...

                  Just rambling a bit... you made me think about this in a different way....

                  On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Peter Kennard < media-squat.peterk@...> wrote:
                   
                  Interesting question - In the explosion of available "channels" and personally "tuned" media I wonder.  As there is so much deliberate con artistry, "spin", truth bending, spam and targeted perception management accepted in our culture, an inability to convince anyone to think that anything is "authoritative" when there is so much noise and crap out there may tend to balkanize meme spheres into emotion driven info-tribalism.  hard to know.
                   
                  At 07:11 PM 7/25/2012, you wrote:
                   
                  At first, I thought it was possible that the sign was a bit tongue in cheek. No one would be that stupid to try and rewrite history in that way on such a widely disseminated issue, right? The internet being forever and all. Now, it's just in bonehead territory.
                  Things like this always strike me as the work of a single panic ridden person who delegates to others. "Just do it." That kind of thing. Not thinking.
                  The rules have changed. Immediate media exposure is a double-edged sword. Sometimes you'll get cut no matter what.

                  On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Douglas Rushkoff <rushkoff@...> wrote:
                   
                  I have a teenage girl profile on Facebook. I started it years ago when i was going to write an article about what happens to teenage girls on Facebook. But then I never actually used it.  Gosh, I really should see if I can figure out the password and find out what sorts of invites she has gotten over the past five years....

                  On Jul 25, 2012, at 4:50 PM, fasbinder 62 wrote:

                   
                  Chick Fil A's publicity department spectacularly blundering again..

                  http://gizmodo.com/5928926/chick+fil+a-got-caught-pretending-to-be-a-fake-teenage-girl-on-facebook

                  ---
                  http://rushkoff.com
                  http://twitter.com/rushkoff







                • mason
                  give me back that wig i bought you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1zh9SWSiQw
                  Message 9 of 13 , Aug 6 12:18 PM
                    give me back that wig i bought you
                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1zh9SWSiQw

                    --- In media-squatters@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Rushkoff <rushkoff@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Yeah, but the trust isn't really crowd sourced so much as processor
                    > limited.
                    >
                    > And of course when there's real trust, you don't need currency at all....
                    > On Aug 3, 2012 7:28 PM, "Peter Kennard" <media-squat.peterk@...>
                    > wrote:
                    >
                    > > **
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > I find "Bitcoin" very interesting in how they have attempted to create a
                    > > form of networked "crowd sourced" trust for digital currency. We might
                    > > need some form of this for other forms of "tribal" and "global" information
                    > > validation.
                    > >
                    > > http://bitcoin.org
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > At 05:10 PM 8/3/2012, you wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > The practice of "deliberate" disinformation as a cottage industry is
                    > > fascinating. As you list Peter, it's bigger than it ever was. It's always
                    > > been with us of course. But, the immediacy of the web puts it into a new
                    > > area as far as cognizance and perception.
                    > >
                    > > Authoritative information is possible, I think. But, how? Thee are always
                    > > those who will simply dismiss facts. Are they part of the equation or
                    > > simply to be dismissed as a fractional issue? I see it as a statistical
                    > > thing now. Some simply won't see facts for what they are... call it denial,
                    > > call it emotionalism, call it ideology... whatever it is... is likely not
                    > > going to change for now.
                    > >
                    > > Where I really feel it is important now is that facts are required to find
                    > > solutions. But, without an authoritative source, it all gets jumbled. And,
                    > > we have to regain that center. And, of course, it being as polarized as it
                    > > is, we all fall into info-tribalism in some ways... ugh.
                    > >
                    > > Perhaps simple clarity of truth is being forgotten. A post-partisan
                    > > approach. More truth, less attitude. I am struck by all the partisan groups
                    > > that are now out there to correct the record, which is great, but do so
                    > > with an real partisan slant. And, they alienate a lot of people that way.
                    > > Preaching to the converted as it were...
                    > >
                    > > Just rambling a bit... you made me think about this in a different way....
                    > >
                    > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Peter Kennard <media-squat.peterk@...>
                    > > wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Interesting question - In the explosion of available "channels" and
                    > > personally "tuned" media I wonder. As there is so much deliberate con
                    > > artistry, "spin", truth bending, spam and targeted perception management
                    > > accepted in our culture, an inability to convince anyone to think that
                    > > anything is "authoritative" when there is so much noise and crap out there
                    > > may tend to balkanize meme spheres into emotion driven info-tribalism.
                    > > hard to know.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > At 07:11 PM 7/25/2012, you wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > At first, I thought it was possible that the sign was a bit tongue in
                    > > cheek. No one would be that stupid to try and rewrite history in that way
                    > > on such a widely disseminated issue, right? The internet being forever and
                    > > all. Now, it's just in bonehead territory.
                    > >
                    > > Things like this always strike me as the work of a single panic ridden
                    > > person who delegates to others. "Just do it." That kind of thing. Not
                    > > thinking.
                    > >
                    > > The rules have changed. Immediate media exposure is a double-edged sword.
                    > > Sometimes you'll get cut no matter what.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Douglas Rushkoff <rushkoff@...>
                    > > wrote:
                    > > I have a teenage girl profile on Facebook. I started it years ago when i
                    > > was going to write an article about what happens to teenage girls on
                    > > Facebook. But then I never actually used it. Gosh, I really should see if
                    > > I can figure out the password and find out what sorts of invites she has
                    > > gotten over the past five years....
                    > >
                    > > On Jul 25, 2012, at 4:50 PM, fasbinder 62 wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Chick Fil A's publicity department spectacularly blundering again..
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > http://gizmodo.com/5928926/chick+fil+a-got-caught-pretending-to-be-a-fake-teenage-girl-on-facebook
                    > >
                    > > ---
                    > > http://rushkoff.com
                    > > http://twitter.com/rushkoff
                  • Douglas Rushkoff
                    Ha.
                    Message 10 of 13 , Aug 6 6:38 PM

                      Ha.

                      On Aug 6, 2012 3:18 PM, "mason" <wittgenludw@...> wrote:
                       

                      give me back that wig i bought you
                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1zh9SWSiQw

                      --- In media-squatters@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Rushkoff <rushkoff@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Yeah, but the trust isn't really crowd sourced so much as processor
                      > limited.
                      >
                      > And of course when there's real trust, you don't need currency at all....
                      > On Aug 3, 2012 7:28 PM, "Peter Kennard" <media-squat.peterk@...>
                      > wrote:
                      >
                      > > **
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > I find "Bitcoin" very interesting in how they have attempted to create a
                      > > form of networked "crowd sourced" trust for digital currency. We might
                      > > need some form of this for other forms of "tribal" and "global" information
                      > > validation.
                      > >
                      > > http://bitcoin.org
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > At 05:10 PM 8/3/2012, you wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > The practice of "deliberate" disinformation as a cottage industry is
                      > > fascinating. As you list Peter, it's bigger than it ever was. It's always
                      > > been with us of course. But, the immediacy of the web puts it into a new
                      > > area as far as cognizance and perception.
                      > >
                      > > Authoritative information is possible, I think. But, how? Thee are always
                      > > those who will simply dismiss facts. Are they part of the equation or
                      > > simply to be dismissed as a fractional issue? I see it as a statistical
                      > > thing now. Some simply won't see facts for what they are... call it denial,
                      > > call it emotionalism, call it ideology... whatever it is... is likely not
                      > > going to change for now.
                      > >
                      > > Where I really feel it is important now is that facts are required to find
                      > > solutions. But, without an authoritative source, it all gets jumbled. And,
                      > > we have to regain that center. And, of course, it being as polarized as it
                      > > is, we all fall into info-tribalism in some ways... ugh.
                      > >
                      > > Perhaps simple clarity of truth is being forgotten. A post-partisan
                      > > approach. More truth, less attitude. I am struck by all the partisan groups
                      > > that are now out there to correct the record, which is great, but do so
                      > > with an real partisan slant. And, they alienate a lot of people that way.
                      > > Preaching to the converted as it were...
                      > >
                      > > Just rambling a bit... you made me think about this in a different way....
                      > >
                      > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Peter Kennard <media-squat.peterk@...>
                      > > wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Interesting question - In the explosion of available "channels" and
                      > > personally "tuned" media I wonder. As there is so much deliberate con
                      > > artistry, "spin", truth bending, spam and targeted perception management
                      > > accepted in our culture, an inability to convince anyone to think that
                      > > anything is "authoritative" when there is so much noise and crap out there
                      > > may tend to balkanize meme spheres into emotion driven info-tribalism.
                      > > hard to know.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > At 07:11 PM 7/25/2012, you wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > At first, I thought it was possible that the sign was a bit tongue in
                      > > cheek. No one would be that stupid to try and rewrite history in that way
                      > > on such a widely disseminated issue, right? The internet being forever and
                      > > all. Now, it's just in bonehead territory.
                      > >
                      > > Things like this always strike me as the work of a single panic ridden
                      > > person who delegates to others. "Just do it." That kind of thing. Not
                      > > thinking.
                      > >
                      > > The rules have changed. Immediate media exposure is a double-edged sword.
                      > > Sometimes you'll get cut no matter what.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Douglas Rushkoff <rushkoff@...>
                      > > wrote:
                      > > I have a teenage girl profile on Facebook. I started it years ago when i
                      > > was going to write an article about what happens to teenage girls on
                      > > Facebook. But then I never actually used it. Gosh, I really should see if
                      > > I can figure out the password and find out what sorts of invites she has
                      > > gotten over the past five years....
                      > >
                      > > On Jul 25, 2012, at 4:50 PM, fasbinder 62 wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Chick Fil A's publicity department spectacularly blundering again..
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > http://gizmodo.com/5928926/chick+fil+a-got-caught-pretending-to-be-a-fake-teenage-girl-on-facebook
                      > >
                      > > ---
                      > > http://rushkoff.com
                      > > http://twitter.com/rushkoff

                    • Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.