Post by account_disabled on Mar 6, 2024 22:36:59 GMT -5
Every day more hoaxes, every day more fakesnews , every day more errors, the left, in slipstream. That we have a serious problem with television, and with the press in general , in this country, is nothing new, and it is not about whitewashing because certain characters appear, the problem is when absolutely none of the aberrations that they show are refuted. they let go If freedom of expression is being demanded, no matter how much it annoys us, granting it should not be questioned, but freedom of expression has to be accompanied by journalistic work, which is not done in the majority of cases, or that directly, and before the astonished gaze of those who compare data or are moderately informed, it is applauded. To this problem we must add the anger that we feel at such miserable spectacles as attacking the migrant population without any evidence, in a case of aggression, I will not go into whether Malasaña's aggression was consensual, if the complaint is false, or if there is coercion to change the declaration, it is not my responsibility to do so, nor do I have enough data to get into that garden. That on public television paid for by all, such an aberration was said to have no other purpose than to confront two vulnerable groups, neither of them gives a damn, but they know divide and conquer perfectly.
And here are two enormous problems: in said public television program, whoever directs the gathering has the obligation, both morally and professionally, to deny this racist intervention. A journalist does not have to say that it is raining because someone else says so, or allow someone else to say it. To the bullfighter, her obligation is to open the window, and check it, and deny it if necessary. What is the second problem and main error? If we go to the tweet in question of “La Hora de la 1”, we will see the number of protests from the Australia Phone Number Twitter left about the program whitewashing statements that are 1) racist, and 2) not real, as they are not accompanied by any data that sustains them. Why the mistake of the tweeting left? Social networks work through an algorithm that, as a result of these protests, made the racist and homophobic statements not refuted by the journalist visible to anyone for an entire day, but the complaints and protests, were left in the shadows. With this I do not mean that it is not within the rights, or that it is not done, but I do affirm that the message of hate was spread more by those who we are against than by their own parishioners. We are fighting a battle on social networks on two sides, on the one hand, giving visibility to those who we should not, and on the other, not demanding it from those who we have to, the worst of all, the streets, empty, silent The left, as Juan Carlos Monedero explained, needed to conquer the algorithm, needed to delve into.
BigData , it was going to slipstream, and sadly we continue like this. We have not managed to conquer social networks in anything other than celebrations of merits achieved by “our own”, the discrepancies we have with the (ultra) right are only seen by us, and among us, to make matters worse, it is duplicated its visibility. This algorithm makes us navigate, either by our own decision by continuously blocking or silencing right-wing trolls and bots or because, basically, and to realize this it only takes a couple of hours of using social networks, the algorithm offers us that information that It is our rope, those profiles with which we interact the most, so, both our applause and our protests, we could say that they stay at home. Part of that algorithm may have been conquered, the parties have known how to make a profit from it, they have an army of sympathizers carrying out a continuous political campaign for free, even the (ultra) right do not hesitate to buy thousands of automated bots to spread their hoaxes, and there It's where we're going to slipstream. With this I do not mean that it has to be done, at all, but in some way their work is made easier when we use, in a higher percentage, social networks to position ourselves against racist, homophobic messages, or simply political issues that are not in accordance. to our ideologies, which we must continue to do.
And here are two enormous problems: in said public television program, whoever directs the gathering has the obligation, both morally and professionally, to deny this racist intervention. A journalist does not have to say that it is raining because someone else says so, or allow someone else to say it. To the bullfighter, her obligation is to open the window, and check it, and deny it if necessary. What is the second problem and main error? If we go to the tweet in question of “La Hora de la 1”, we will see the number of protests from the Australia Phone Number Twitter left about the program whitewashing statements that are 1) racist, and 2) not real, as they are not accompanied by any data that sustains them. Why the mistake of the tweeting left? Social networks work through an algorithm that, as a result of these protests, made the racist and homophobic statements not refuted by the journalist visible to anyone for an entire day, but the complaints and protests, were left in the shadows. With this I do not mean that it is not within the rights, or that it is not done, but I do affirm that the message of hate was spread more by those who we are against than by their own parishioners. We are fighting a battle on social networks on two sides, on the one hand, giving visibility to those who we should not, and on the other, not demanding it from those who we have to, the worst of all, the streets, empty, silent The left, as Juan Carlos Monedero explained, needed to conquer the algorithm, needed to delve into.
BigData , it was going to slipstream, and sadly we continue like this. We have not managed to conquer social networks in anything other than celebrations of merits achieved by “our own”, the discrepancies we have with the (ultra) right are only seen by us, and among us, to make matters worse, it is duplicated its visibility. This algorithm makes us navigate, either by our own decision by continuously blocking or silencing right-wing trolls and bots or because, basically, and to realize this it only takes a couple of hours of using social networks, the algorithm offers us that information that It is our rope, those profiles with which we interact the most, so, both our applause and our protests, we could say that they stay at home. Part of that algorithm may have been conquered, the parties have known how to make a profit from it, they have an army of sympathizers carrying out a continuous political campaign for free, even the (ultra) right do not hesitate to buy thousands of automated bots to spread their hoaxes, and there It's where we're going to slipstream. With this I do not mean that it has to be done, at all, but in some way their work is made easier when we use, in a higher percentage, social networks to position ourselves against racist, homophobic messages, or simply political issues that are not in accordance. to our ideologies, which we must continue to do.