#please note that engaging in the spread of propaganda does not mean being a bad person

[propaganda-potion]

To all of you who continue screaming "all Zionists are the same" and "Zionazis want Palestinians to die".

First of all...

...congratulations. You are officially engaging in the spread of populism and propaganda. Blatant misinformation. Do all of us a favor and at the very least include a source next time. Thank you.

Secondly...

...what does the term mean to you?

Zionism is not considered a uniform movement and, for many supporters of Zionism (by far not all!), Zionism and pro-Palestine sentiment are not mutually exclusive terms. For them, "Zionism" means "Israel has a right to exist" and it is a way to express that Hamas' expansionist fantasies or their ideas of turning Palestine into an Islamic state are not acceptable to them - not to be confused with "Israel is perfect and does not need to change" or "Israelis are entitled to their land but Palestinians are not".

It is time to acknowledge the intent behind the word, even if you do not personally agree with its definition. Point being, stop screeching "Zionazi" at every person so much as insinuating that they disagree with the fall of Israel in favor of a Hamas-led state.

Thirdly...

...it is astonishing just how quickly people will turn a war into a football game. "You are either with me or against me" seems to be the common mindset here (and that applies to both camps). One will condemn Hamas for its expansionist fantasies but then fail to even address that Israel is already illegally expanding its territory and vice versa.

[boonoonoonus]

This is no shade to OP, who I adore. Please note that now, its merely adding onto the very important points they made!

Increasingly, I'm seeing that the reason why people can't critique or specifically engage in critique with the Targaryen's and Valyria is because most people have been socialised into colonial white supremacist thinking and/or have delusions of grandeur inserting themselves into positions of power within the text.

What hooks calls the 'White Supremacist, Capitalist Patriarchy' - a system that underpins what we call the West. I think what hooks is speaking of can be seen in fandom when people write Pro-Targaryen and Targrayen restoration fanfic. The world is oriented to support and favour white supremacist capitalist patriarchy its the basis of all social ills at the moment. In fandom I would argue that the ability to slide by and ignore the atrocities of colonialism, slavery and rape that is a key part of Valyrian culture and history is evidence of commitment to that belief. Now, people always say its not that deep, however fantasy and sci fi has had a long tradition of exploring the here and now with an 'objective distnace to see whats up with the world at the moment. GRRM is critical in text of Valyrians, does he still favour Daemon, yes but he's an old white american man most of them are disappointing in one way or another. His bad taste in favourite characters does not prevent him not likening dragons to nukes and saying that these people ain't shit! The idea that fictional Aryans are supposedly the good people despite their adherance to gross violations of humanity is the most incorrect interpretation of the source material, its not up for debate. The issue is that alot of white Western people do not want to confront that they have been fed propaganda that has seeped into everything they consume and that they may be victims of a society that despises the underclass and that they aren't part of this blood sucking bourgeois but instead are the proletariat. Which is a better position for them than me whose a black person and historically the position of my people has been living means of labour, alongside the likes of horses.

When Said spoke of the optics of Orientalism and Fanon spoke of the psychosis of Whiteness they were speaking of a particular interaction non-othered people had with power and the ability to exert power. Audiences who can't critique the Targaryen's and Valyria are people unable to see the issue in their (Valyria's) actions fundamentally. They may say 'oh slavery is bad' but will later jokingly or mockingly say 'well maybe some people deserve it' and 'well I like to root for the bad guy'

Now, I'm all for rooting for the villain but slavery? Colonialism?

Partially, we're also experiencing what Bauldrillard coined as the Simulation/Simulacra because people genuinely see the acts of Targaryen's as liberatory and feminist and forget the original copy, they've obscured and corrupted the true images of the likes of Visenya and Rhaenys because of how they feel about Daenerys and Rhaenyra. There's also the element of obscuring the racial and gendered aspects of religion (in our world). The OP touched on this when they spoke of the Catholic Church being the Church for most of history. Most dont know that Peter was the first pope, or the methods employed by the apostles to spread Christianity, the knowledge most hold about religions tends to be very very modern and context dependent and alot of that is due to evangelicals in the US content and Anglicans in the UK context but I digress. Commitment to creating this idea around good feminist liberatory Targaryens is currently synonymous with a very virulent form of liberalism that sees equality and freedom in let's just all be friends and understand that we're all struggling together. Now hotd fandom is not the source of modern social ills but it marks a poignant spot in media literacy and trends and highlights the ability for propaganda to assume the language of liberation and sell that you as an audience. The use of the word feminist is an example, as is misogynist and they're used divorced of their context and academic understanding which is important. The matrices of power exist and they dominate all that we do.

Because people don't know key parts of history they fill it in with what makes sense in their limited scope of the world and recreate a world that suits what they think is right instead of engaing in the messiness and complexities of reality. They see a world where the medieval church wasn't the only thing holding Europe together and the source of much innovation in science and medicine but instead this fake world in which the modern science driven atheism they think is stearing modernity and change currently, is whats best for Westeros and the medieval peeps. (Its not, Capitalist propaganda and brain drain has you guys thinking innovation is occurring in the west when it's morally bankrupt and people have been remaking the wheel and selling it to you unabashed. See Uber not being profitable and remaking the taxi model as proof)

I'm a scholar of colonialism, negrophilia and non-normative bodies saying that with my chest. The Seven has its issues that is an in text fact, but they are specifically against Slavery and Incest and this was the key reason it was so widely adopted and are farrrrrrr better than the Catholic Church was at the time and yet every damn day is filled with you worshipping aryans without critical thinking. Thinking the gods of the people who held slaves in pits to power nukes are good people? Allah please send the flood!

Christianity can be a disease (see here the churches role in politics in Jamaica and rampant homophobia and human rights violations) and in many ways is a parallel to The Fourteen Flames worship but atleast we can readily admit that Christianity is fucked up for its role in colonialism and understand that syncretism has helped somewhat but it will always carry that stain. As will Islam and Hinduism, no religion is perfect and yet we cannot critique the fourteen flames? Valyria must get a pass? (I studied the history of Christianity, Islam and Hinduism in the context of empire and colonialism so I'm only commenting on them. I can speak on other religions and won't).

No condemnation, no idea that they need to get the fuck out Westeros? That the volcanic eruption was actually a good thing? That sometimes slave owners need to be dragged through the streets? Jesus wept! Blood in my eye!

No wonder the fat man won't finish the books you man don't READ, no common sense just shipping and uwu face. Also, the importance of that is because an inability to think critically as alot of you show is ripe for exploitation in an increasingly hostile and right wing, conservative world we're entering. People like to think media is a neutral zone, that of course its not infiltrated by corporate and government powers but if that was the case the US military wouldn't be helping fund and supply marvel movies to increase army recruitment. We wouldn't be inundated with TV shows like succession that glorify and humanise a type of capitalistic hell hole, or Severance, which is so absurdist it hides the true horrors of corporate industry life. The way any medieval drama frames the monarchy is a cause for concern, especially for me who currently lives in a country in which the monarchy's ability to use the house of Lords as an extension of their power and as a weapon of empire in order to ignore democracy is a threat to everyone in the country. These people are no one's friends, they're not good people, colonisers in any framing are bad people they need to be stomped out and I do mean by any means. Targaryens should have been killed, taken out the equation, as any other people who would weild nukes, practise subjugation and slavery and rape should be. Lastly, the framing of religion as other is blatantly a problem in a world which has been committing religious persecution left and right for thousands of years. Your ideas that support the eradication of the faith sound alot more like US policy in Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine than it does the Liberal open minded politic you think it is. Religious persecution is the basis to many many genocides past and present as well as the dehumanisation associated with certain religions, regions, and people at this moment. We should all be critical of any media that implies that this is the case and doubly when that comes to a reprehensible place like Valyria. But what the fuck do I know I'm just a Black person on the Internet.

Is there anything support the populat interpretation that old valriya and valryians in general are more feminist, and progressive than the rest in Asoiaf?

Anon, thank you! I've been wanting to address this for awhile, so I'm going to actually answer this really fully, with as many receipts as I can provide (this ended up being more of an essay than I intended, but hopefully it helps)

I think there's in fact plenty of evidence to suggest that Valyria and the Valyrians in general were anything but progressive. Valyria was an expansive empire with a robust slave trade that practiced incest based on the idea of blood supremacy/blood purity. All of these things are absolutely antithetical to progressivism. There is no way any empire practicing slavery can ever be called progressive. Now, the Targaryens of Dragonstone have since given up the practice of slavery, but they certainly still believe in the supremacy of Valyrian blood.

And I'll see the argument, well what's wrong with believing your blood is special if your blood really is special and magic? Which is just-- if anyone catches themselves thinking this, and you sincerely believe that GRRM intended to create a magically superior master race of hot blondes who deserve to rule over all other backwards races by virtue of their superior breeding which is reinforced through brother-sister incest, and you've convinced yourself this represents progressive values, then you might want to step away from the computer for a bit and do a bit of self reflection.

And remember-- what is special about this special blood? It gives the bearers the ability to wield sentient weapons of mass destruction. It's also likely, according to the most popular theories, the result of blood magic involving human sacrifice. So there is a terrible price to pay for this so-called supremacy. Would any of us line up to be sacrificed to the Fourteen Flames so that the Valyrians can have nukes?

And if you are tempted by the idea that a woman who rides a dragon must inherently have some sort of power-- that is true. A woman who rides a dragon is more powerful than a woman who does not ride a dragon, and in some cases, more powerful than a man who does not ride a dragon, but that does not make her more powerful than a man who also rides a dragon. Dragonriding remained a carefully guarded privilege, and Targaryen women who might otherwise become dragonriders were routinely denied the privilege (despite the oft repeated "you cannot steal a dragon," when Saera Targaryen attempted to claim a dragon from the dragonpit, she was thrown into a cell for the attempted "theft,"words used by Jaehaerys). The dragonkeepers were established explicitly to keep anyone, even those of Targaryen blood, from taking them without permission. Any "liberation" that she has achieved is an illusion. What she has gained is the ability to enact violence upon others who are less privileged, and this ability does not save her from being the victim of gender based violence herself.

Politically speaking, it is also true that Valyria was a "freehold," in that they did not have a hereditary monarchy, but instead had a political structure akin to Ancient Athens (which was itself democratic, but not at all progressive or feminist). Landholding citizens could vote on laws and on temporary leaders, Archons. Were any of the lords freeholder women? We don't know. If we take Volantis as an example, the free city that seems to consider itself the successor to Valyria, the party of merchants, the elephants, had several female leaders three hundred years ago, but the party of the aristocracy, the tigers, the party made up of Valyrian Old Blood nobility, has never had a female leader. Lys, the other free city, is known for it's pleasure houses, which mainly employ women kidnapped into sexual slavery (as well as some young men). It is ruled by a group of magisters, who are chosen from among the wealthiest and noblest men in the city, not women. There does not seem to be a tradition of female leadership among Valyrians, and that's reflected by Aegon I himself, who becomes king, rather than his older sister-wife, Visenya. And although there have been girls named heir, temporarily, among the pre-Dance Targaryens, none were named heir above a trueborn brother aside from Rhaenyra, a choice that sparked a civil war. In this sense, the Targaryens are no different from the rest of Westeros.

As for feminism or sexual liberation, there's just no evidence to support it. We know that polygamy was not common, but it was also not entirely unheard of, but incest, to keep the bloodlines "pure," was common. Incest and polygamy are certainly sexual taboos, both in the real world and in Westeros, that the Valyrians violated, but the violation of sexual taboos is not automatically sexually liberated or feminist. Polygamy, when it is exclusively practiced by men and polyandry is forbidden (and we have no examples of Valyrian women taking multiple husbands, outside of fanfic), is often abusive to young women. Incest leads to an erosion of family relationships and abusive grooming situations are inevitable. King Jaehaerys' daughters are an excellent case study, and the stories of Saera and Viserra are particularly heartbreaking. Both women were punished severely for "sexual liberation," Viserra for getting drunk and slipping into her brother Baelon's bed at age fifteen, in an attempt to avoid an unwanted marriage to an old man. She was not punished because she was sister attempting to sleep with a brother, but because she was the wrong sister. Her mother, the queen had already chosen another sister for Baelon, and believed her own teenage daughter was seducing her brother for nefarious reasons. As a sister, Viserra should have been able to look to her brother for protection, but as the product of an incestuous family, Viserra could only conceive of that protection in terms of giving herself over to him sexually.

Beyond that, sexual slavery was also common in ancient Valyria, a practice that persisted in Lys and Volantis, with women (and young men) trafficked from other conquered and raided nations. Any culture that is built on a foundation of slavery and which considers sexual slavery to be normal and permissible, is a culture of normalized rape. Not feminist, not progressive.

I think we get the picture! so where did this idea that Valyrians are more progressive come from? I think there are two reasons. One, the fandom has a bit of a tendency to imagine Valyrians and their traditions in opposition to Westerosi Sevenism, and if Sevenism is fantasy Catholicism, and the fantasy Catholics also hate the Valyrian ways, they must hate them because those annoying uptight religious freaks just hate everything fun and cool, right? They hate revealing clothing, hate pornographic tapestries, hate sex outside of marriage, hate bastards. So being on Sevenism's shit-list must be a mark of honor, a sign of progressive values? But it's such a surface level reading, and a real misunderstanding of the medieval Catholic church, and a conflating of that church with the later Puritan values that many of us in the Anglosphere associate with being "devout." For most of European history, the Catholic church was simply The Church, and the church was, ironically, where you would find the material actions which most closely align with modern progressive values. The church cared for lepers, provided educations for women, took care of orphans, and fed the poor. In GRRM's world, which is admittedly more secular than the actual medieval world, Sevenism nevertheless has basically the same function, feeding the poor instead of, you know, enslaving them.

Finally, I blame the shows. While Valyrians weren't a progressive culture, Daenerys Targaryen herself held relatively progressive individual values by a medieval metric. She is a slavery abolitionist, she elevates women within her ranks, and she takes control of her own sexuality (after breaking free from her Targaryen brother). But Daenerys wasn't raised as a Targaryen. She grew up an orphan in exile, hearing stories of her illustrious ancestors from her brother, who of the two did absorb a bit of that culture, and is not coincidentally, fucked up, abusive, and misogynistic. He feels a sexual ownership over his sister, arranges a marriage for her, and even after her marriage, feels entitled to make decisions on her behalf. It is only after breaking away from Viserys that Dany comes into her own values. Having once been a mere object without agency of her own, she determines to save others from that fate and becomes an abolitionist. But because Game of Thrones gave viewers very little exposure to Targaryens aside from Daenerys, House Targaryen, in the eyes of most show watchers, is most closely associated with Dany and her freedom-fighter values. And as for Rhaenyra in House of the Dragon, being a female heir does not make her feminist or progressive, although it is tempting to view her that way when she is juxtaposed against Aegon II. Her "sexual liberation" was a lesson given to her by her uncle Daemon, a man who had an express interest in "liberating" her so that she would sleep with him, it was not a value she was raised with. In fact, she was very nearly disinherited for it, and was forced into a marriage with a gay man as a result of said "liberation." She had no interest in changing succession laws to allow absolute primogeniture, no interest in changing laws or norms around bastardy despite having bastards; she simply viewed herself as an exception. Rhaenyra's entire justification for her claim is not the desire to uplift women, bring peace and stability to Westeros, or even to keep her brother off the throne, it is simply that she believes she deserves it because her father is the king and he told her she could have it, despite all tradition and norms, and in spite of the near certain succession crisis it will cause. Whether she is right or wrong, absolutism is not progressive.

And let me just say, none of this means that you can't enjoy the Valyrians or think that they're fun or be a fan of house Targaryen. This insistence that Targaryens are the progressive, feminist (read: morally good) house seems by connected to the need of some fans to make their favorite characters unproblematic. If the Valyrians are "bad," does that make you a bad person for enjoying them? Of course not. But let's stop the moral grandstanding about the "feminist" and "progressive" Valyrians in a series that is an analogue for medieval feudalism. Neither of those things can exist under the systems in place in Westeros, nor could they have existed in the slavery based empire of conquest that was old Valyria.

[emeraldvsociety]

Intro Post!(?)

I caved and made a tumblr 😏 Hey y’all 😏 Welcome to my braindump.

Quick intro:

Pronouns: she/her

Name: Em(?)

90% of what I post on here is probably going to resemble shit-posting because I’m going to be honest—I take myself way too seriously on social media and it’s nice to just let my inner thoughts go crazy. I’m going to post on here like it’s my finsta (minus the thirst traps) (Maybe). I will also probably rarely post on here because idk I don’t know how Tumblr works quite yet, and I don’t want to make a fool out of myself.

Okay if you’re going to read any of these dumb notes read THIS ONE: I am VERY passionate about Domestic Violence Awareness because (spoiler alert) I nearly lost my life to domestic violence (the spoiler is that I lived). As such, I am heavily involved in the DVA community. I meet a lot of people with similar and slightly different stories to my own, and I’ve been exposed to and know plenty about abusive dynamics. My point is, I am not comfortable writing/reading certain relationship dynamics because it makes me uncomfy. I’m more sensitive than most to this type of stuff so please respect that I will not write and actively avoid anything involving ANYTHING that might be seen as a slippery slope toward abuse.

Now, I know fiction is fiction and all that jazz so that being said: I don’t hate it if anyone ships something in the grey area. That’s totally fine! Literally, I do not care. Just please do not ask me to WRITE anything involving boss/employee, teacher/student, officer/subordinate, abuser/victim, huge age gaps, etc. I will actively avoid content like this, and I CAN NOT write it (unless there’s clear commentary that it’s BAD). This doesn’t mean that I can’t interact with people do create it either. If you want to know the specifics of my boundaries feel free to ask. If I could do anything in this world, it would be to purge it of the violence I faced. I can’t do that, but I can put out a creative form that emphasizes that love should never hurt. Minors please DNI. A minor does not need to be interacting with a junior in college working on grad school apps fr.

Requests are welcome! Especially for Dad Harwin and Strong Babies ficlets! However, I will say that I only write one longfic per year and that honor goes to Man on the Moon (and its brewing sequel) so just keep that in mind.

I actively avoided getting into fandoms because… listen y’all… I have been a Star Wars super fan since I was three. I wrote my first SW fanfic when I was like seven (I still have it—I honestly might post it because it’s adorable). My point is though, I KNOW how toxic the SW fandom is, so please do not bring that around me. It just sucks the joy out of me. So if I seem hesitant to engage in the community that is why.

HOWEVER, if you are Team Green, you are more than welcome to spew fictional politics on my posts. It’s part of the reason I love the HOTD fandom. It’s so immersive lmfao. But! I am allowed to attack your fictional politics back. I am literally here to spread Team Black Propaganda!

Something I will not tolerate is ANY FORM OF MISOGYNY. As a lover of women, it is my sworn duty, m’kay? Please respect women. This means ANY type of misogyny. This also applies to biphobia or anything I deem as anti-lesbian.

I am bipolar (2) and my hypomanic episodes really drive my writing up. So if you’re ever like “wow how tf did EmeraldTeller86 manage to write 10k worth of nsfw material” it’s likely because of my hypomania. Anyway! I am medicated and managed so please do not worry. The only side effect of my (hypo)mania is overly wordy pieces. It’s my outlet ig.

I haven’t been writing NSFW pieces for that long so if you’re like “wow this is cringe” y’know I probably somewhat agree. But I’m allowed to be cringe as long as it’s not on the main. Just let me have fun, dammit! I have to be the standard of beauty on the main and live up to impossible expectations so let me be cringe here!

I am a trust fund baby. And while I say that in a “haha you can make fun of me for being a spoiled brat” way, I also want to acknowledge my privilege and just let y’all know that if I do ever say something insensitive let me know! I am a person (despite layers of internet screens and manic tendencies) with empathy. I never want my existence or anything I put into existence to cause harm.

The Slayyter Remix of “Gimme More” describes my life pretty well tbh.

I am mostly in CST, but I'm occasionally in CEST / GMT + 1, and rarely in HKT / UTC + 8.

I’m in my prescribed flop era rn. In active recovery tho. Kind of.

I AM STILL NOT OVER MY CRISTON COLE CRACK FIC BLOWING UP ON TIKTOK LMFAO. Top Ten Funniest Moments of my life.

I love to read! So if you want to send me anything please feel free!

If you know my real name please don’t reveal it 🥴 I don’t want Society to win!

I’m thinking about posting weekly updates (just of life ig? Song of the week, book I’m currently reading, how my writing is going, etc).

Once again, I do not know how Tumblr works so please be patient as I learn the etiquette around these parts.

I'll pin this later if need be. Ig

[fortunatelystickycollectio-blog4]

Fake news. Where do I start? Maybe here? Does outside beauty inevitably lead to inside ugliness? I think not!

Let’s jump off to President Donald Trump of the US. Personally, I think he has pretty much gone back on every good promise he’s made, and doubled down on every bad one (such as border wall, immigration ban, a terrible Paul Ryancare in place of Obamacare, negotiation of drug prices with the Pharma industry etc.) ..so I personally do not think “no one’s ever had a more unfair life than me”.. All I know is he is not such a good president as he claims to be and all these are lies!

His own suppoters have come realise how stressful he is to work with and are calling him all sort of names.

On a recent online poll at Monmouth University in the US, students and staff were asked to vote for their best media house generally and in relation to Trump’s coverage and these were the results. Plot twist: Fox News has been seen as the most untrustworthy media channel and the votes show complete disapproval of Trump’s coverage on Fox News. Why is this? Could it be because it is used as a plarform to glorify Trump? Could be!

Well point is you are really just being called to order President Trump!

I would like to believe that this is not the case but I found this really funny!

PLEASE President Trump!

At all times let us please protect ourselves against fake news!

POLITICAL LIFE: FAKE NEWS

Fake news has been defined as fictionalised news-like content that carries incorrect information aimed at pursing certain goals, either misinformation or conflicts with the mentioned parties or people directly affected (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017). According to Shao, Ciampaglia, Varol, Flammini & Menczer (2017), fake news have more political motives than entertainment and political motives have proven to be more powerful. This is because its spread is a risk to the global economy, in terms of who is elected and whether they would advocate for freedom and democratic rights (Shao et.al, 2017). If they do not, this would interfere with the public’s belief and cause disruptions in society.

There are three different types of false information, namely misinformation, disinformation and mal-information. All these are shared with the knowledge that they are ‘false news’, disinformation and mal-information are shared to cause harm while misinformation is shared for entertainment (Shu, Sliva, Wang, Tang & Liu, 2017).  There are always motives and agendas associated with the distribution of fake/false news. Usually content is intentionally manipulated to mislead the readers or viewers and to ensure that the agenda prevails. The beauty of fake news shared on social media is that it allows for constructive criticism, readers are able to detect whether it is relevant and believable or not. According to Shao et.al, (2017), social media platforms are not meant for trustworthy information but rather posts that prioritize robust engagement and conversations. The issue of fake news has expanded over the past years, this is because of low cost websites that can be used for software controlled files called social bots (Shao et.al, 2017). People can easily edit factual information to put fake news and it would still look like the original information. This is problematic because passive readers take information as it is and do not question it, popular news attract finite attention from such readers and they easily believe what they read. Furthermore, this kind of behaviour has implications on how far the fake news travels and this cycle continuously repeats itself.

New media may be an impactful and good platform in which people can engage and entertain themselves without relying on old media, but it has sparked the spread of fake news than ever before. This is because everyone can be their own ‘journalist/producer’ and post anything they want without intense gatekeeping, or none at all. The impacts of fake news on society is the influence it has, it can break the authenticity of the news ecosystem to an extent that people’s perception of original and real news changes and becomes flawed beyond measure (Shu et.al, 2017). The intention of the media or the producers of the fake news is to ensure that consumers accept their news and leave no room for rectification or real news (Shu et.al, 2017). According to Shu et.al, (2017) the main cause of social media fake news is the low cost of creating social media accounts and maintaining it, that people who do not have evidence of their claims can easily resort to social media to disseminate their own news, which might be fake.

Trolls have been found to be the most effective human beings who disrupt online communities by responding or posting posts that trigger emotions (Shu, et.al, 2017). Trolling behaviours highly influence people’s moods and how they are led to respond. It is important to note that fake news has no investment in accurate reporting at all and do not build long-term reputation on quality news (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017). Based on this, this means their fake news are targeted at consumers that already have false ideologies and are more likely to believe fake news irrespective of whether they have researched or not. Another enforcer of fake news to consider is how information sources can be blurred (Tandoc, Lim & Ling, 2018). Real news information can be posted on a legitimate website but that article can be shared through Facebook for example and that may allow for the navigation where people would edit or put misleading captions that are fake (Tandoc et.al, 2018). This is another standard way in which fake news can be disseminated even though the article in itself might be real content.

There are several typologies of fake news, all are aimed at operationalising wrong information. Satire, parody, fabrication, manipulation and propaganda are all ways in which fake news can be operationalised. Satire uses humour and exaggeration to make news more interesting, and this is a way in which news can be fabricated to meet the agenda (Tandoc, et.al, 2018). The format in which it presents information allows for fake news. Parody also uses humour to attract consumers, however it differs from satire because it directly uses non-factual information to present their humour (Tandoc, et.al, 2018). The content used in Parody has proven to be subtle but still able to make the consumers glued. Fabrication is the publishing of non-factual information in a legitimate website to make the news look real (Tandoc, et.al, 2018). This ideally means that a legitimate platform is used to lure people into believing the presented information. Manipulation is based on visual views, this is where two photos can be combined to form one thing with the intention of misleading the viewers, and this is called photo-shop and is used a lot due to the skills and techniques people have gained through new media. The final typology is called propaganda, this is where political parties/entities create false news to influence the public into voting for them or abiding by their notions (Tandoc et.al, 2018). These are their strategic ways in which they lure the public into being in favour of them.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allcott, H. and Gentzkow, M., 2017. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), pp.211-36.

Shao, C., Ciampaglia, G.L., Varol, O., Flammini, A. and Menczer, F., 2017. The spread of fake news by social bots. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.07592.

Shu, K., Sliva, A., Wang, S., Tang, J. and Liu, H., 2017. Fake news detection on social media: A data mining perspective. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 19(1), pp.22-36.

Tandoc Jr, E.C., Lim, Z.W. and Ling, R., 2018. Defining “fake news” A typology of scholarly definitions. Digital Journalism, 6(2), pp.137-153.

[viralhottopics]

Good luck getting out of your Facebook bubble now

Facebook has been criticized for the "filter bubble" effect; it's unclear if Mark Zuckerberg knows how to fix the problem.

Image: Christopher mineses/Mashable

Mark Zuckerberg used nearly 6,000 words to describe the future of Facebook Thursday, but you could sum it up in two: global domination.

Sure, Facebook’s CEO appears more “woke” than ever. He meditates on substantive issues like inclusivity, the eradication of disease, responsible artificial intelligence and the future of media.

And yet. In the simplest terms, his manifesto is about how the social network will continue to be a relevant online product as more of the world becomes connected. It explores how Facebook can become a key part of global “infrastructure,” to borrow a word Zuckerberg uses literally 24 times, that will make it an indispensable part of daily life for people across the planet.

SEE ALSO: Zuckerberg removed a line about monitoring private messages from his Facebook manifesto

Let’s be very clear about one thing: Facebook is not medicine. It is not a job that puts money in your pocket or a roof over your head. Nor is it the phone that connects you to your mom several states away, or the plane that takes you to her. It is an online platform where posts from estranged friends and family members are interrupted every so often by ads for “3 free soups”:

We’ll take the Trump takes with some delicious soup, please.

Image: Facebook

Facebook exists to grow and to make money. It treats expansion as a merit unto itself, as if there is some inherent quality to people being on Facebook that betters society.

Consider how Zuckerberg grapples in his manifesto with the idea of disturbing content.

“The guiding principles are that the Community Standards should reflect the cultural norms of our community, that each person should see as little objectionable content as possible, and each person should be able to share what they want while being told they cannot share something as little as possible,” he writes.

It’s the exact type of unprincipled thinking that has ruined Facebook in the past.

There’s a leap therethat someone seeing “objectionable content” is in effect a “bad” thing that should be avoided at all costs. You might think Zuckerberg is referring to extremely disturbing content, like child pornography or videos of suicide, content that no one would argue should be on Facebook but he is not. Rather, it calls to mind a report from November suggesting Facebook would be open to news censorship to break into the Chinese marketplace.

“Even within a given culture, we have different opinions on what we want to see and what is objectionable,” he writes. “I may be okay with more politically charged speech but not want to see anything sexually suggestive, while you may be okay with nudity but not want to see offensive speech.”

Zuckerberg doesn’t grapple in the manifesto with the idea that things that are disturbing could be important to see, perhaps because of the fact that they’re “objectionable.”

Furthermore, his idea about solving this “problem” should raise eyebrows. Emphasis ours:

The approach is to combine creating a large-scale democratic process to determine standards with AI to help enforce them.

The idea is to give everyone in the community options for how they would like to set the content policy for themselves. Where is your line on nudity? On violence? On graphic content? On profanity? What you decide will be your personal settings. We will periodically ask you these questions to increase participation and so you don’t need to dig around to find them. For those who don’t make a decision, the default will be whatever the majority of people in your region selected, like a referendum. Of course you will always be free to update your personal settings anytime.

Let’s put this another way: In Zuckerberg’s idealized, and likely upcoming, version of Facebook, the default option for what is “appropriate” in your News Feed will be determined by groupthink that is specific to your area. The manifesto isn’t overly specific, of course: Regions could be a town, city, country, continent or national park for all we know. The devil will be in the details of how this is rolled out.

But you can see the trouble already: Even as Zuckerberg concedes in his note that Facebook has a “filter bubble” problem, he outlines a system that delivers content according to a moral standard set by a majority of people. Godspeed if you find yourself in a minority of people interested in “politically charged speech” about abortion in Forsyth County, Georgia. Check those News Feed settings, folks!

This definitely isn’t going to pop anyone���s Facebook bubble.

It’s the exact type of unprincipled thinking that has ruined Facebook in the past. Rather than take a meaningful stance in favor of the free spread of information, Zuckerberg, as ever before, walks a middle course that serves Facebook’s aimsto be a happy place for all people, thus ensuring its user base can grow without provoking the ire of tyrants or censors. Individuals are not served by this thinking; they’re limited by it, because by default, they won’t engage with news or content that unsettles.

And we get it: Facebook is a business, it can do whatever it wants, and of course its major incentive is to grow and be all things to all people. The concern comes when Zuckerberg intertwines these motives with something ideological, because Facebook has frequently been a threatening force in the world.

SEE ALSO: 2016: The year Facebook became the bad guy

Remember when it allowed hoaxes and propaganda to spread uninhibited in the lead-up to the election of Donald Trump? When the company tried and failed to become a dominant internet service provider in India? When it removed a line from this very manifesto suggesting it could use AI to monitor private communications and profile people? Or when it allowed advertisers to discriminate on the basis of race?

And how does Zuckerberg presume to know which approach will work best for everyone on this planet when 71 percent of his company’s senior leadership is white and 73 percent male?

read this passage a few times. this is an enormous weird claim about how.. people.. think? become themselves? the whole letter is like this! http://pic.twitter.com/vq7ml61eOg

John Herrman (@jwherrman) February 17, 2017

His solution is to steer clear of politics himself and and design technology solutions that make the hard choices for his company. Yet again Zuckerberg is deluding himself by asserting that refusing to fully own a position means he isn’t taking one.

“In times like these, the most important thing we at Facebook can do is develop the social infrastructure to give people the power to build a global community that works for all of us,” the CEO writes.

Or, as he put it a bit more specifically to Recode‘s Kara Swisher: “Our approach is to try to get community to do it and I would rather that it come from community rather than us”

That’s nice in a sensethe manifesto also includes a rather heart-swelling passage about Zuckerberg wanting Facebook to better empower administrators of the network’s groups, thereby creating “meaningful” interactions even outside of cyberspacebut this is just a remix of the same old song.

Just as Facebook has refused to take responsibility as a media company when things go wrong with the editorial content it serves, Facebook will be able to shrug it off when its “social infrastructure” is used for prejudice or violence. Don’t forget that this is the same company that, as recently as October, couldn’t stop its new “Marketplace” feature from being overrun with illegal weapons, drugs and wildlife.

All this to say: It’s nice that one of the most important companies on this entire planet has a CEO who’s apparently done a little bit of soul-searching as the world cascades into hellfire, but Facebook has failed to earn our trust as consumers of its product. The problem is that it doesn’t need it. Facebook will continue to grow and morph and harvest our data, and so many of us are a little too over-invested in the social network to log off or demand something better.

There’s no question that Facebook has already changed the world, perhaps irrevocably. It’s the product that conditioned us to share photographs, videos and “status updates” from our personal lives online without hesitation. It has used the mass data created by its 1.86 billion users for astounding projects. The ability for A.I. to recognize and describe elements of photographs to the blind, is a striking example, but Facebook’s automated “Trending” news feature, which has been tweaked to better understand how we all consume media, is also substantial.

We’ll no doubt continue to see amazing things as Facebook and its technology mature. But don’t be shocked if (when) Zuckerberg’s 6,000-word idealism coalesces into something a bit less pretty.

Read more: http://ift.tt/2lTz3l9

from Good luck getting out of your Facebook bubble now