|
UCS Hellmaker posted:No you made an argument that is inherently something used to make others agree with you based on emotions and fear of being attacked. Its inherently the exact problem that the OP is saying, that pushing ideology and use of bad faith arguments is one of the biggest issues that we currently are seeing in social media and other parts of the web. You intentionally choose something that was done in a way that will result in people agreeing with the point your attempting to make not by you being correct, but because your argument is intentionally flawed in order to produce the result you want. Sincerely, it isn't. I am trying to make a point that something being true doesn't mean it can't be used for bad ends, and thought I'd use an over the top example. It's not a metaphor for the US healthcare system as some people in my PM's have asked, it's just a silly over the top example of how "If you just want something to be efficient that does not make it good". That and, as mentioned previously, I don't think intrinsic goods should be able to lead to bad things. Though this is interesting. Do you think I set out with the intention of creating this amount of furor over this? I am in no way smart enough to try and be deceptive. Herstory Begins Now posted:If you have to wrestle it into 'but what if I build a human thresher using Truth?' to come up with a counter argument then you're basically conceding everything up to that absurd point. And even then idk what a hypothetical people thresher would even have to do with truth as it pertains to media literacy. It was intended to be over the top . I thought that would mean people could see it as an example that doesn't need copious amounts of "well where is your source for this". By making it a purely theoretical, and purely daft, question we would hopefully avoid people going "oh but how would that work in the real world". Instead it appears as if I made a big mistake using this and I am very sorry for that. fool of sound posted:Generally if people have decided that they are opposed to truth that is deleterious to their ideology they should probably stay out of this thread and preferably subforum. I'm not opposed to truth in any way. I am just unsure if it exists because everything seems to be argued about all the time. You'd hope that there is one truth that can be grasped and understood, instead it is a multiplicity and that is just very very disheartening. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Apr 30, 2021 |
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 15:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
Interesting Atlantic piece about the role of outrage engagement driving social media algorithms and what effects that has had https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/social-media-democracy/600763/quote:If you constantly express anger in your private conversations, your friends will likely find you tiresome, but when there’s an audience, the payoffs are different—outrage can boost your status. A 2017 study by William J. Brady and other researchers at NYU measured the reach of half a million tweets and found that each moral or emotional word used in a tweet increased its virality by 20 percent, on average. Another 2017 study, by the Pew Research Center, showed that posts exhibiting “indignant disagreement” received nearly twice as much engagement—including likes and shares—as other types of content on Facebook.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 15:27
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Sincerely, it isn't. I am trying to make a point that something being true doesn't mean it can't be used for bad ends, and thought I'd use an over the top example. It's not a metaphor for the US healthcare system as some people in my PM's have asked, it's just a silly over the top example of how "If you just want something to be efficient that does not make it good". That and, as mentioned previously, I don't think intrinsic goods should be able to lead to bad things. I think your inherent assumption is that something being "inherently good" means that it cannot produce any kind of bad ends in any context whatsoever. I do not believe anyone shares that view of the meaning of inherently good. I do not believe there is anything that could qualify for the label of "inherently good" under that definition.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 15:27
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:That and, as mentioned previously, I don't think intrinsic goods should be able to lead to bad things. That just means that nothing can be intrinsically good ("Hitler was a vegetarian") and you have to come up with some other word for things that are usually good but sometimes bad people do them or they are bad in some contrived example ("wheels are bad because what if you use a wheelbarrow to throw kittens into a volcano"), putting you back where you started.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 15:31
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:That just means that nothing can be intrinsically good Yeah, pretty much? How can something be intrinsically good if it leads to bad things? Anyway, media stuff: The idea that media in the past was more trustworthy or less sensationalised or even more truthful does not seem to be accurate in my opinion. A prime example would be something like The Hillsborough Disaster. A case where following a tragedy large amounts of people in the media were unwilling to look for the truth and were more than happy to go along with things said by people in power. It took a push not by the media but by people on the ground in order to reject the lies seen there. This happened 32 years ago and this level of contempt for facts and truth seems to be just as prevalent then as now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 16:00
|
|
|
The point of the OP is not that media used to be better, it's that the business landscape surrounding it is different and how people relate to media has radically changed, and that changes the nature of how and why bad information reaches people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 16:06
|
|
|
With all this talk about correctness and truth, I think it's important to refer back to the model presented for the thread. Correct information may be tautologically useful, but seems kind of orthogonal to the use of the model. In that sense, correctness would be about fidelity to an intended understanding, not about conveying an accurate understanding as determined by some factor outside the scope of the model. If we were to include that factor, then we still have to remember that factual accuracy of a component of a message is not the same thing as conveying an accurate understanding of information, because that's a result of the process as a whole. It's possible to convey incorrect information through entirely accurate statements, and it's possible to convey correct information through factually inaccurate statements, due to the impact those statements may have on the receiving party. It seems like the conversation might be starting to conflate the latter with the role of noise in the model, when they aren't the same thing. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Apr 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 16:09
|
|
|
I feel that when a news seeker actively looks at a news aggregator or Twitter or news website that there is an implied initial communication to the effect of "i would like to learn true information"or "please tell me things that affirm my worldview" or some combination thereof.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 16:18
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Yeah, pretty much? How can something be intrinsically good if it leads to bad things? If your definition of a term means that it cannot possibly exist basically by definition, then you are probably using a bad definition of the term except in scientific or other unique circumstances that are not going to be relevant here. Josef bugman posted:Anyway, media stuff: The idea that media in the past was more trustworthy or less sensationalised or even more truthful does not seem to be accurate in my opinion. A prime example would be something like The Hillsborough Disaster. A case where following a tragedy large amounts of people in the media were unwilling to look for the truth and were more than happy to go along with things said by people in power. It took a push not by the media but by people on the ground in order to reject the lies seen there. This happened 32 years ago and this level of contempt for facts and truth seems to be just as prevalent then as now. You have a tendency towards black-or-white worldviews and it is showing here. "Here is a case where the old media was bad" is near-useless for a comparison of "better then or now". Assuming you're not claiming that the media is perfect in either circumstance, "here is a case of them doing badly" is useless because there should be such cases on the 'better' side.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 16:25
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:With all this talk about correctness and truth, I think it's important to refer back to the model presented for the thread. I am in internet outage land so I can’t post in detail but you’re absolutely correct. That model doesn’t help with truth correspondence, only correspondence between intended message and received message. It’s a very basic model and specifically not supposed to reflect all systems or phenomena, or be a way to understand the whole world; it’s just good at breaking down one aspect of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 16:42
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:But that isn't inherently good. I don't mean this as an attack, but you really need to take an "intro to philosophy" class, get  , or both.I know I've brought up this Manichean good-or-evil dichotomy you seem to bring to every conversation you take part in before in USPol, but seriously dude, you need to reevaluate the way you look at the world. Edit: to expand on this, something that is inherently good doesn't lose that status because it enables something evil to happen. To turn your argument around, mass shootings are evil, even if one of the victims would've grown up to design the perfect people-thresher. Agents are GO! fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Apr 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 17:02
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I am in internet outage land so I can’t post in detail but you’re absolutely correct. That model doesn’t help with truth correspondence, only correspondence between intended message and received message. It’s a very basic model and specifically not supposed to reflect all systems or phenomena, or be a way to understand the whole world; it’s just good at breaking down one aspect of it. A better model would probably show that the encoding of the information by the transmitter is a source of noise as is the decoding performed by the receiver rather than the noise being purely introduced in the transmission medium.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 17:22
|
|
|
The full framework articulates error in encoding and decoding as a separate concept tied to entropic capacity, a function of the medium or language or concept space. I’m phoneposting do I can’t link it, but the source text, the mathematical theory of communication by Shannon and Weaver, is available free online. It’s a short, fantastic read, but it’s too abstract for me to keep it entertaining or useful for the thread. Remember, the value of a model (or my simplified mod brony example) is in part from what it chooses to exclude.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 17:40
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:The point of the OP is not that media used to be better, it's that the business landscape surrounding it is different and how people relate to media has radically changed, and that changes the nature of how and why bad information reaches people. Is it okay to agree and disagree? The business relationship has not altered hugely due to the new technology, but I'd say that the way people relate to media has. The reason I say the business relationship hasn't changed that much is because the fundamental reason for most media in terms of things like Newspapers, TV, radio etc has been to generate profit. The excuses as to why you can pay Opinion writers so much and actual journalists so little has changed, but you could argue that the essential condition hasn't fundamentally altered. As regards how people relate to the media though, you are absolutely right on that. I don't want to ignore what you've both written, but also don't want to make this a "seek therapy" thread. Thank you though!
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 17:47
|
|
|
The driving factor being profit motive is obviously true but also uselessly reductionist. The way media companies generate revenue and the sorts of completion they have to deal with have changed quite rapidly and traditional outlets have struggled to adapt to the new marketplace.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 17:52
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Is it okay to agree and disagree? The business relationship has not altered hugely due to the new technology, but I'd say that the way people relate to media has. The reason I say the business relationship hasn't changed that much is because the fundamental reason for most media in terms of things like Newspapers, TV, radio etc has been to generate profit. The excuses as to why you can pay Opinion writers so much and actual journalists so little has changed, but you could argue that the essential condition hasn't fundamentally altered. As regards how people relate to the media though, you are absolutely right on that. Huh? Yes, profit motive is still what drives media outlets, of course. How people relate to media is the business relationship, though. Media consumers get their media "product" from outlets. The structure of that producer-to-consumer landscape has altered radically over the last, I dunno, two decades. A good example might be clickbait/ragebait. Twitter, Facebook ads, etc want to maximize the number of people who click on their short headline which creates a perverse incentive to make them as outrage-inducing (and/or microtargeted to individual users' interests) as possible. Often this results in ragebait headlines distorting or misrepresenting facts to get you to click. The only pre-internet analogy I can think of would be tabloids in the grocery store checkout isle. You happen to see some catchy headlines/images on a tabloid cover while you're buying your groceries. The difference is how ubiquitous and micro-targeted this form of media is now. Even more importantly, how we can self-curate the Twitter and other ragebait we consume which can reinforce wrong/bad beliefs and even help radicalize people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 18:06
|
|
|
Murgos posted:A better model would probably show that the encoding of the information by the transmitter is a source of noise as is the decoding performed by the receiver rather than the noise being purely introduced in the transmission medium. That's not what noise is. Noise is extraneous signals picked up by a receiver. It's not distortion from the transmission medium, it's random nonsense that exists within the transmission medium. It exists distinct from the signal, otherwise it is not noise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
But isn't this, whats the opposite of reductive, adductive? Ragebait and clickbait have always existed as part of the media ecosystem, however their relationship towards readers or listeners has altered. Take for instance, the Daily Mail. Often you will find no end of articles inside of it talking about how the poor, the dispossessed and the downtrodden are feckless wastrels spending your hard earned money. Now it's different from ragebait as you are using it because it is instead aimed at reinforcing the biases of someone who has already bought the paper but how different is it in practical terms? To go back to Hillsborough, The Sun newspaper printed a massive headline saying "THE TRUTH" where it essentially called everyone in Liverpool who attended the match a grave robber who pisses on police. Is that not rage bait? Is "THE TRUTH" not purchase bait? Maximising the amount of people who buy your newspaper or listen/watch your show has always been the end point of every single media enterprise and, therefore, clickbait and its ancestors have always been with us. It's important to note that this is not a good thing. It's awful and lovely and anything that prioritizes it should be condemned. However I think that it is not a new phenomenon and should be consider as part of an evolutionary practice as opposed to revolutionary one. fool of sound posted:The driving factor being profit motive is obviously true but also uselessly reductionist. The way media companies generate revenue and the sorts of completion they have to deal with have changed quite rapidly and traditional outlets have struggled to adapt to the new marketplace. Could you argue that the "new" marketplace is simply the same one with new opponents, using the same things that media traditionally used? Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Apr 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 18:27
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This is shockingly authoritarian. Human beings have agency, by denying them true information and feeding them lies you are taking away their basic agency. Controlling information in this manner goes beyond controlling people, it takes away their right to even know they're being controlled. i'm pretty sure it was foucault who said "beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master"
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 18:31
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:i'm pretty sure it was foucault who said "beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master" I think that's Pravin Lal from Sid Meir's Alpha Centauri.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 18:33
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:But isn't this, whats the opposite of reductive, adductive? Ragebait and clickbait have always existed as part of the media ecosystem, however their relationship towards readers or listeners has altered. Their relationship to readers/listeners has altered... so then wouldn't the media landscape and business relationship be different? You seem to be making a very narrow argument which misses the forest for the trees. If we accept your argument that this change in media landscape is evolutionary rather than revolutionary, does it meaningfully change this conversation? Or is this navel gazing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I think that's Pravin Lal from Sid Meir's Alpha Centauri. yeah, but i'm pretty sure foucault was on the writing team at firaxsis
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 18:37
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:Their relationship to readers/listeners has altered... so then wouldn't the media landscape and business relationship be different? You seem to be making a very narrow argument which misses the forest for the trees. Not especially. It's arguing that the relationship of "get the most eyes on product" has simply shifted emphasis from an internal audience (keep the readers reading) to an external one as well (keep the readers reading and try and entice new readers). I'd say it's important because it shows how little has truly changed. The information presented in the initial set of posts is still very correct, but we should be mindful that these are problems have existed longer than most people in this thread have been alive. It implies that the problem is not simply about changing modes of media consumption (though that might bleed into it) but about how "media" exists in the first place. It also, hopefully, puts paid to the idea of any grand difference between older media ecosystems and new ones. It has simply been brought into starker contrast because older media concerns attempt to define themselves as fundamentally different to newer ones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Not especially. It's arguing that the relationship of "get the most eyes on product" has simply shifted emphasis from an internal audience (keep the readers reading) to an external one as well (keep the readers reading and try and entice new readers). You're contradicting yourself. You admit the relationship has changed, then immediately say very little has truly changed and we shouldn't focus on that change. I don't really want to drag this (very good) thread into a tedious back-and-forth but I'm having a hard time understanding the point you're trying to make and how it bears on the larger topic of media literacy. If we were to accept your premise that nothing has really fundamentally changed about media ecosystems, how would you suggest that shape our conversation? Like, specifically? edit: rather than arguing over whether the media environment has changed meaningfully or not, what is your proposed solution to better approach media literacy in this not-really-any-different modern media landscape? How does this impact our discussion, what is its relevance? Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Apr 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 18:57
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Not especially. It's arguing that the relationship of "get the most eyes on product" has simply shifted emphasis from an internal audience (keep the readers reading) to an external one as well (keep the readers reading and try and entice new readers). this is essentially gibberish. if you reduce everything to 'information is just information, context doesn't matter' then sure, there are no differences between now, and, say, the 1800s, but for the rest of us living in the real world there have been significant changes in the media environment over the last twenty years with the advent of things like 'the internet' and 'social media'. i don't know why you're incapable of recognizing that many things have changed, and just because problems existed in previous iterations of the media ecosystem and problems currently exist doesn't mean that those problems are the same thing. if you aren't capable of recognizing that then i genuinely don't know what to say. your extremely rigid worldview in which you apparently create your own definitions for terms and then rigidly cling to them while arguing with everyone else is super old. like, the entire OP is essentially saying 'be careful of the sources you're reading, do some deeper research, and be aware people approach things through their own framing and its generally good to check what you're reading against common sense advice about media' - and yes this has always been true, of literally the entirety of human history, but in now, with this iteration of the media world - where things like the internet and social media exist - there are different challenges. it's like if i said to you 'hey cars are getting faster these days, make sure you're extra careful when you cross the street' and you replied 'well people have ALWAYS been at risk from being struck by a [car, buggy, tireme, chariot] so your warning makes no sense!' Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Apr 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 18:59
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Inaccurate or deliberately false information leading to good outcomes is, at best, a product of prudent guesswork. Correct information is an inherent good regardless of which filters it has been run through by the time it gets to the recipient. Your example doesn't bear out your thesis, the actual outcome as it affects peoples' lives is unchanged regardless of the recipient's presumption of what the factual statement indicates about future action or lack thereof. You then go on to undermine your own point with discussion of serious people making claims about Iraqi WMDs; those were deliberate falsehoods that directly contributed to a bad outcome! The Iraqi WMD reporting would have been considered true (or at least not false, which effectively = "assumed to be true until proved otherwise") at the time it was being reported by the standards mentioned in this thread. This sub-forum (assuming it existed with its current rules/standards in 2002) would not have considered such reporting to be false. It would only be in hindsight that its falsehood would be revealed to a standard where people would feel free to assert it's false. When reporters wrote of government claims about WMDs, "the government/CIA is saying ______" would be considered a true fact, and it would be impossible to verify the actual claims at the time they were being reported. It isn't hard to find many analogues to this here. If a person or organization viewed as credible says something, people at the very least think it makes sense to assume that it's true absent proof otherwise (proof that generally won't be available until far later, if ever). The reason a person's assumptions are important is that it is very frequently impossible to prove or disprove contemporary reporting (in the sense of "reporting happening at the time you're forming opinions about it," not "modern reporting"). At some point you're having to decide "I trust this person/institution." evilweasel posted:This is basically the core of your post and so I'm going to respond to this. It boils down, in essence, to "if my ideology and the facts disagree, then the facts are wrong." ...no, the point is that facts on their own are meaningless, because the meaning derived from them is dependent upon a person's ideology/worldview (and its accompanying assumptions). People with bad assumptions can (and frequently do) end up coming to bad/wrong conclusions using technically-true information. One of the most frequent examples of this is reporting that relies on the claims of people or institutions (honestly this is most reporting - you're pretty much always relying on the honesty and accuracy of various people or institutions). Such reporting can be 100% free of direct lies while supporting a false conclusion (though frequently there are also lies that are simply impossible to prove - most people obviously don't have the ability to prove whether a public figure or organization is telling the truth about something). At least when it comes to political topics, individual facts are rarely the cause of disagreements. Trump supporters generally don't supporting Trump, Q-Anon, etc because they believe falsehoods - they believe falsehoods because they support Trump/Q-Anon. In this sub-forum, a very common situation (probably the most common source of disagreements) is one where a politician makes a statement or takes an action and people are coming to conclusions about their future actions based off of this. This is obviously and unavoidably a situation where assumptions/ideology come into play. It is impossible to truly prove that something will happen in the future, after all. In most cases, this manifests as some people assuming good of a politician by default and requiring hard proof otherwise. fool of sound posted:The driving factor being profit motive is obviously true but also uselessly reductionist. The way media companies generate revenue and the sorts of completion they have to deal with have changed quite rapidly and traditional outlets have struggled to adapt to the new marketplace. Less important than the profit motive is the simple fact that media organizations ultimately answer to those with power over them (namely their owners and the government). This does not mean that shareholders and the government are directly commanding them to say things, but it means that there's a clear and obvious incentive to not do things that would anger or be harmful towards the interests of those people/institutions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 18:59
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:snip i don't think its the job of the op (or anyone on the internet) to try to convince people to abandon their ideological frameworks, but there's still value in basic media criticism, even if you're only applying to sort between sources which fervently argue how wonderfully the ugyhur concentration camps are and everybody can't wait to go. the existence of further challenges doesn't preclude the original effort - or the benefit of that effort. also, ideological frameworks change and evolve, particularly in a place like this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:You're contradicting yourself. You admit the relationship has changed, then immediately say very little has truly changed and we shouldn't focus on that change. Shifted emphasis is the bit that I am attempting to communicate. One was still present in the other, just as the other one is present now. The emphasis as to which is the more vital may have shifted, but the overall idea has not. That's why I emphasized "as well" and "shifted". The continuity is important. Media literacy is, I would contend, far harder if you treat media as not having a certain amount of continuity across it's historic time periods. Otherwise we start declaring that something is wholly new and unconnected from anything, instead of something that we have seen something similar before. Even if we cannot use the past to come up with methods to resolve it I still think that treating new media as outgrowths and not as hard breaks is useful. We can hopefully look at how other people approached media in their own time periods instead of declaring that "that was then, this is now". Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Apr 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 19:05
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That's not what noise is. Noise is extraneous signals picked up by a receiver. It's not distortion from the transmission medium, it's random nonsense that exists within the transmission medium. It exists distinct from the signal, otherwise it is not noise. You don't think that encoding or decoding a signal can introduce noise? edit: My frame of reference here is A/D and D/A conversion, if you are considering some ideal system then okay, but I don't think that's a useful paradigm for a conversation on errors in communication. edit: VVVV No need, I've pulled it. I am aware that most of modern digital communications are based on work done by Shannon and others. I don't think I have ever read that specific paper but I am sure it is internally consistent for the way it's stated the problem. Note that that the authors are defining the 'transmitter' block in terms of technologies like telegraphy, telephony and early TV transmitters which all introduce noise from various sources. quote:A transmitter which operates on the message in some way to produce a signal suitable for transmission over the channel. In telephony this operation consists merely of changing sound pressure into a proportional electrical current. In telegraphy we have an encoding operation which produces a sequence of dots, dashes and spaces on the channel corresponding to the message. In a multiplex PCM system the different speech functions must be sampled, compressed, quantized and encoded, and finally interleaved properly to construct the signal. Vocoder systems, television and frequency modulation are other examples of complex operations applied to the message to obtain the signal. Murgos fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Apr 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 19:05
|
|
|
I apologize if I’m characterizing the root model incorrectly; Murgos I can almost guarantee any lit you’re working from is actually based on Shannon and Weaver! I really wish I could just link it to ya.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 19:21
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Media literacy is, I would contend, far harder if you treat media as not having a certain amount of continuity across it's historic time periods. Otherwise we start declaring that something is wholly new and unconnected from anything, instead of something that we have seen something similar before. Even if we cannot use the past to come up with methods to resolve it I still think that treating new media as outgrowths and not as hard breaks is useful. We can hopefully look at how other people approached media in their own time periods instead of declaring that "that was then, this is now". literally nobody is doing that, what are you talking about. all anyone is saying is that as the media landscape has changed because of things like social media and the internet, current iterations of consistent problems have also changed. it's not a binary from 'everything is the same' and 'nothing is the same' - you can have both change and continuity. i'm sorry but is this some sort of bit? is this going to be the next fischmech?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 19:21
|
|
|
Owlspiracy posted:literally nobody is doing that, what are you talking about. all anyone is saying is that as the media landscape has changed because of things like social media and the internet, current iterations of consistent problems have also changed. it's not a binary from 'everything is the same' and 'nothing is the same' - you can have both change and continuity. i'm sorry but is this some sort of bit? is this going to be the next fischmech? Allow me to quote the first paragraph of the first post of this thread: fool of sound posted:Over the last decade the internet has increasingly morphed, twisting itself around the weighty presence of rapidly expanding content aggregators and social media and, with the ease of access provided by these services, the societies of the developed world are increasingly online. Traditional media sources have been forced to adapt to this new environment and worse, have been forced to compete with new breeds of competitors suddenly made viable thanks to websites driven by user generated content. Together, these changes have transformed the already hectic news cycle into a constant deluge and, coupled with ever falling standards, deliberate misinformation, and an appalling lack of media literacy, it is increasingly difficult to assemble an accurate picture of any major news story. Can you not see how this could be read, especially the bolded bits, as delineating the current situation of media literacy and disinformation from historic ones? I am not the next fishmech, but I am trying to talk about stuff and it's very sad that I am apparently so bad at it that I can seem to say anything properly. I think it's probably best that I stop posting. Thank you all for your time and I am sorry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 19:34
|
|
|
Murgos posted:You don't think that encoding or decoding a signal can introduce noise? There can be noise within an encoder but that is in context of the encoder. When you analyze a signal noise is additive interference, whether you define something as noise or not is a function of the frame of reference you're doing the analysis under. If I am doing a transmission line analysis of the internal circuitry of the encoder then yes, poo poo like induced currents creates noise in the circuit. Analyzing a transmission you're more likely to consider that part of the transform function of the encoder and classify noise as the additive interference between the transmitter and receiver. We're working with a metaphor here though so I was assuming we're working with an ideal model. In which case it would make more sense to consider the effects of the encoder distortion/artifacts, because in the metaphor they're intended to represent distorting effects of the transformation, not interference.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:There can be noise within an encoder but that is in context of the encoder. When you analyze a signal noise is additive interference, whether you define something as noise or not is a function of the frame of reference you're doing the analysis under. If I am doing a transmission line analysis of the internal circuitry of the encoder then yes, poo poo like induced currents creates noise in the circuit. Analyzing a transmission you're more likely to consider that part of the transform function of the encoder and classify noise as the additive interference between the transmitter and receiver. To your point some of the original example in the op is blurring noise and error and so I was following that context to avoid introducing more terms. My point (without writing a paper) restated is as follows: The original paper uses a TV Camera as an example of a transmitter. I think it's trivial to note that a TV Camera in 1948 pointed at a stage full of actors is dropping a HUGE amount of data present in the information source that no matter how low noise the transmission medium and how high the quality of the components of the receiver will just never be observable at the destination. A full color, 3D image was flattened and scanned at some discrete rate and then presented to the destination as a series of electrons blasted onto a phosphorescent tube. I think this concept, that both the transmission and reception are altering the information, is important to understand when discussing how information changes between the source and the destination.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 20:14
|
|
|
Transmission and reception effect outcomes but I think they’re not classified as noise. The noise in the example is radium’s coding. Issues of encoding and decoding reflect different error or information types.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 20:29
|
|
|
Murgos posted:To your point some of the original example in the op is blurring noise and error and so I was following that context to avoid introducing more terms. Yeah, I got that from the original post because of the nature of encoding, but maybe I need to turn the nerd down a little.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 20:32
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Transmission and reception effect outcomes but I think they’re not classified as noise. The noise in the example is radium’s coding. Issues of encoding and decoding reflect different error or information types. Radium's coding isn't really an example of noise, as what your referencing is distortion from the medium itself, which is more akin to attenuation. A better example of noise would be a food derail in the middle of your thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 20:35
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Transmission and reception effect outcomes but I think they’re not classified as noise. The noise in the example is radium’s coding. Issues of encoding and decoding reflect different error or information types. If you just look at the model it implies that the receiver is the inverse of the transmitter and that the data at the observer is, as Jarmak notes, is the original data + noise. Last time because I think we all understand each others PoV: The data at the observer is not just data + noise, it's Frecv(Ftrans(data) + noise))
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 20:36
|
|
|
Murgos posted:The data at the observer is not just data + noise, it's Frecv(Ftrans(data) + noise)) Yes, exactly this
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
Hitting “jump to last post” instead of reading hundreds of replies from your last unread post is a form of noise, isn’t it? You miss out on all the derails but also possibly good posts as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 20:49
|
|
t