Message from @scaryred24
Discord ID: 493466971048902687
Q: Do you think the government should do something about social media companies?
Yes, says Rayner. She says the government should stop people using anonymous accounts to criticise people.
She says the worst abuse she gets comes from anonymous accounts.
<:GWfroggyMonkaChrist:398950551422894080>
...
its not the users
that article is titled in such a way it reads two ways depending on your world view
its the platforms
@Radcliffe yep i believe its on purpose
considering its the guardian
ye
They want to enrage while looking neutral
@Timcast I'm putting together a bit of an ad-hoc social graph [currently centered] around Data & Society in a spreadsheet, if that's of interest to you. Let me know if you'd like edit privileges. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IF6K_T1UidpxI-yjtGVFQicufoFASshDk1Pfr0qPvS0/edit?usp=sharing
(I have a more sophisticated tool for this, but unfortunately it is a piece of contract work I would likely have to license back from a client before letting third parties use it, so spreadsheet it is)
Found that at least one of their advisors has a long term interest in the topic of the AIN paper; but otherwise there is little cohesion the various factoids in this pile.
Heh, a social graph where all the edges connect to George Soros?
LoL, haven't added a George Soros Object to the table yet
Though there is an unsurprising proximity of these folks to the New York Times
given that the AIN makes no mention of the MIN (Mainstream Influencer Network)
and D&S are thoroughly integrated with NYC and Boston
ooooo
omg
so that explains why quite literally everyone i know are sucked into these platforms and only sees things one way and only one way
Well, more than _a couple_ Massachusetts morons.
allahu Fishbar?
@devpav But yeah, ultimately all roads lead to Soros, though that's not necessarily indicative of any particular foul play
e.g. Catherine Bracy was on the board of the Citizen Engagement Lab, which worked with the Open Society Foundations (which is George's)
but that says mostly nothing about anything
```Well, more than a couple Massachusetts morons.```
so all of them
implying that even i contributed to the problem
Well, while I may not agree with this sentiment, some say "If you're not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem."
So certainly some people can see you as having contributed to the problem.
Instead of trying to identify the most batshit lefty loons connected to Data & Society, another strategy might be to identify the most moderate or centrist people connected to them and try to interview them, pressing them hard on why they support this censorious deplatforming crap.
A graph displaying the SPLC donor network would be useful.
If you can flip one of them and get them to admit that this isn't what they signed up for, then maybe you might have a change at discrediting the report. But trying to paint the D&S people as hard left isn't helpful, as the people this report is aimed at (the people making the rules at tech giants) at also hard left.
I dunno about that. The hard left already hate that list. I think this is trying to pull more people into the net
You'll basically just be cataloging their bona fides for the SJWs in control of ToS and platform moderation.
Or at least prevent them from finding wrongthink
Actually if you could just do the equivalent of a RICO investigation of ADL/SPLC/OSF that'd be great.
Beemann I think you misunderstand. Tim posted this page earlier <https://datasociety.net/people/directors-advisors/> and asked us to look into them.
A cursory look shows that they're 95% far left academics who have parasitically inserted themselves into silicon valley. There might be 5% of them that have actually written a line of code in their lives.