It's like you take a quick 25-year nap and all of a sudden sexually harassing coworkers is taboo and won't be tolerated. Can't they at least give them time to adjust? These fuckers have floated through life above the law for too long, and if it's time to burn it down then I will help flick the Bic. Hollywood bigwigs are the Slime de la Slime.
Things I am not surprised about: Harvey Weinstein, anyone at Fox News, or really any other old, unfuckable white dude abusing their position to sexually assault, harass or coerce pretty young things to fuck them. Find a crime, prosecute and fuck them all. What's the controversy here again? I give it another 2 weeks before the "tainted legacy" articles come out about Hefner, like anyone would be surprised. NFL protests are annoying. Protests are supposed to be annoying. I agree with Nett that it would help if there was a specific goal, an end in sight or hell...an agreed upon point to them. "Police violence and the treatment of blacks"...ok, what do we as NFL viewers do about it? In seeing JJ Watt raise $30M for Houston, it's a powerful platform, but....what's the objective? If there isn't one, then you're ostensibly being a nuisance for no reason. It's one thing to say "they want x and I can do something about it", it's another to say "they want x, and it has fuck-all to do with me, so why am I sitting through this?" Same thing for BLM, Occupy, etc....what the fuck is a reasonable, achievable goal that protesting will help achieve? This is the issue with the left in general: no leadership, no concrete objectives that are easily understood by common folk, just outrage about who the bad things are happening to. The right can always lean on the Jesus pulpit to martial their masses, and they have no compunction about lying their fucking faces off to do it (see using Jesus as a rallying point), but they can't actually govern this way. Much of what they have proposed is cranking Reaganism to 11 and in 2017, it's the legislative, economic and social equivalent of committing seppukku. Things that I think warrant more serious, objective attention: Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Puerto Rico, etc. are still utterly fucked up from the hurricanes. The Las Vegas shooter still has more questions than answers. Trump's job. I was going to cherry pick, but fuck it: all of it. This guy is a disaster, and collectively there needs to be an adult voice in the room saying what the fuck we as a country do about it. Russia buying political Facebook/Google ads. This is an example of frightening behavior by tech giants that are just now coming under regulatory scrutiny. How do you regulate the internet? How you "solve" issues like inequality, healthcare costs, education, etc. without it devolving in "whargarbl" outrage. How other, similar countries do it would be valuable insight, and yet.... I swear to Christ, the next round of bullshit divisive news is going to ask: "Is it anti-American to hate hot-dog eating contests?" Fuck you mindless, spineless cunts.
Are you talking about my complaint with the NFL or in general? If it's the NFL, my participation (watching) is a voluntary act. I have clearly stated that the product quality has fallen off consistently over a long period of time for a number of reasons and that adding the politics, of people whose opinion doesn't matter to me to the situation, as I have stated before, may lead me as it has others to stop voluntarily watching. You jokers seem to forget that the only thing that matters is the product (game quality), their good vibes feels they try to spread end up pissing neutral bystanders off in addition to the percentage of the population that disagree with the position. That is bad for the product because the quality isn't high enough to make up for bullshit grandstanding that the media then puts on blast to overshadow said product. If you are referring to my general complaints, I will say this: I am unmoved by the quality of the ice cream or who does or does not have cherries. My concerns are generally with the ice cream man and how he manages his operating costs to include how much he spends on ice cream, how much he charges for the ice cream and the sheer volume of cherries being given away for free. My interest is in seeing a healthy ice cream business that endures and I fear that most people are more self-interested in trying to get a free scoop or extra cherries.
Weinstein is going to domate the outrage news cycle for the foreseeable future. Twitter just suspended Rose Mcgowan's account which is a hilariously bad fuck up on their part. I'd have to say, even though the "outrage" that late night comedians didn't codemn/joke about Harvey throughout the weekend is another superfluous political points grab(there was very little time for late night shows to react in a decent manner), I think Lorne Micheals reaction is pretty telling of the situation of the left in this country. It does show, in my mind, that coastal liberals live in their own bubble where it's all hobnobbing and back scratching. Average middle country Americans might not be totally aware of Harvey Weinstein but he has been pretty interconnected with most of the left power players for a while, hell Obama's daughter just interned for the company.
Samantha Bee was the only one I think, but its shes not quite the kind of late night host the others are. Man do I wish Jon Stewart was still doing the Daily Show, and I bet he does too a bit. There are like 10 different hosts trying to fill that void to varying degrees of success.
I know it seems silly, in the grand scheme of things, to give a shit about how Hollywood is run, but this week is making me rethink its importance. I’ve always thought it would be nice to have more women working in Hollywood, and more and better movies made by and for women, and while I think some of the salary dust-ups that have happened have had reasonable explanations I’ve thought some of them were indeed unfair. But it was hard to care with as much gravity, or care as much about salaries in the millions. But I do think how things are done in Hollywood matters. It’s the most visible industry in this country; I don’t think we have as much access to how any other kinds of workplaces are generally run and there aren’t really any other industries where the day-to-day of it is discussed as news or gossip. I think there’s a trickle down effect from the example it sets. All this week I’ve been seeing these conversations in different industries, of women speaking up that it’s the same way in media and comedy and tech and science, and I’m feeling hesitantly hopeful that maybe now that fucking finally there have been some consequences for these bigger names that have been synonymous with being shitty to women for basically my entire life, that things might start changing across the board. It really sucks that I’ve spent this whole week feeling lucky and grateful that I’ve only worked with women so far and have never had to choose between trying to do something about being sexually harassed or assaulted or abused, and having a job or career advancement. I’ve been finding it interesting that of all years, this is the year all of these titans of sexual assault are being taken down. When a guy who’s had a lifelong history of sexual harassment and assault and abuse accusations and whispers and lawsuits, who raped his wife and possibly (probably) a thirteen year old girl, who very openly - and not just on hot mics- discussed how he abused his power when it came to women in such a casual way that he clearly didn’t even comprehend that it could ever possibly be a bad thing, who possesses so many characteristics that women can identify with those of their abusers, can still be elected to the most powerful position of the country, that was the ultimate sign that people just don’t give a shit, that it won’t ever matter, that things won’t ever change. And sure, the Cosby trial didn’t go as people wanted and yet another serial rapist won’t have a single consequence for their actions, but then O’Reilly finally got taken down, and Ailes finally got taken down, now Weinstein finally got taken down. Hey, maybe Coney Island will finally be Woody Allen’s last movie. Maybe Polanski will get what’s coming to him. Then maybe it’ll eventually start spreading outside of Hollywood/media. Who knows.
Wait what? The news came out Thursday. Noah worked in a last minute bit on it on that nights show. Late night shows don’t tape Friday-Sunday. Oliver did something on Sunday if he counts. Then Colbert, Meyers, Fallon, and Kimmel have all talked about it.
Right, it was the right media, using a left talking point tactic, that "the silence is deafening" in a situation where the people they were criticizing didn't have a realistic time frame to respond.
I don't really hear people ask, what should be done about this exactly? They're essentially just advertising. Do people actually think someone is going to vote one way, sees some Russian troll ad and just does a 180? Are these Russian trolls more powerful than the American media? If so, why does anyone think that? The political candidates advertise on facebook too. Hillary, in one of her more hilarious campaign moves released an army of online trolls of her own. Was this more or less effective? Last numbers I heard was that a max of 10 million people even saw the ads. So less than 10% of the voters. Of that 10% how many were swayed by facebook ads? I mean, really? How many ads did they see? How did this really shape their perspective? I think way more people are swayed by what John Oliver and Tucker Carlson tell them. Now, the wikileaks could have changed minds, I suppose. Then again, that only works if the candidate in question is guilty as sin. I just find it odd that so many people are so sure Russia can just advertise on facebook and totally swing an election, while at the same time being sure CNN and MSNBC don't have that same power. It's not to say that the Russians aren't cunts, but people are giving them way too much credit. Really though, I think it's that people these days are just too immature to admit their candidate lost because they sucked. It would have been the same shit if Trump lost, just in a different way. He's not exactly the same, but this is basically John Oliver now. The main difference is Oliver is more outrage driven/alarmist, and even more poorly researched. Regardless, people practically worship the guy. I guess it's not worse than any other pundit or comedian so what does it really matter at this point?
For fuck's sake. They're revising the timeline AGAIN. MGM Resorts just released a statement: "Although we prefer not to comment on the details of the investigation, we are issuing this statement to correct some of the misinformation that has been reported," said MGM Resorts. "The 9:59 p.m. PDT time was derived from a Mandalay Bay report manually created after the fact without the benefit of information we now have. We are now confident that the time stated in this report is not accurate. We know that shots were being fired at the festival lot at the same time as, or within 40 seconds after, the time Jesus Campos first reported that shots were fired over the radio. Metro officers were together with armed Mandalay Bay security officers in the building when Campos first reported that shots were fired over the radio. These Metro officers and armed Mandalay Bay security officers immediately responded to the 32nd floor. We will continue to work with law enforcement as we have from the first moments of this tragedy as they work toward developing an accurate timeline." This makes no damn sense.
John Oliver and Tucker Carlson technically fall under the jurisdiction of the FCC. This the the impact of the ads that we know of...I would also argue there's a ton of shady, unscrupulous shit that can be done with the data companies like Facebook, Google, etc. gleefully sell. The question in my mind is: if Russia wanted to buy airtime on Fox News, there are policies in place to ensure that it won't be considered undue influence on our elections. What policies are there in place for Facebook data, with the same purpose in mind? None, unless I'm mistaken. There are numerous limits to free speech (yelling "fire" in a theater, for example), but functionally ZERO limits on the internet. Which is fine, because you by and large opt into the data policies put forth in the legalese no one reads. However, when something like Equifax happens..... For example, if Facebook wanted to allow Russia to run ads, buy detailed personal data on US citizens, and use said data to convince those citizens that you get AIDS from tap water, it wouldn't be entirely difficult to do, would it? Sure they wouldn't get 10 million people to change their mind. But, what 55-75,000? That's firmly in the realm of possibility. That's scary shit to me, because there's absolutely NOTHING in place to stop that from happening and mounting evidence that something along those lines already has. Ten million voters, probably not...but remember it takes 10x the amount of effort to refute bullshit than to spread it. What would a Russian shell company lose from photo-shopping a photo of Hillary at the Pizza-gate restaurant and posting it to Facebook to a Michigan grandfather of three? Not a fucking thing. So who fixes it or protects us? Facebook/Google/etc. as arbiters of objective truth? The world would run dry of fact-checkers and moderators if they tried to correct every article of utter bullshit that swam through their channels. They've existed with no regulation this long, because they've only sold to companies, never considering more powerful entities could manipulate them. I think in 2016, they did, and from now on, it's a gaping liability that other superpowers (Russia, China, etc.) can gleefully exploit.
The media by not sucking. But really people have to protect themselves for not falling for every bullshit thing they read. Yes, it would. I think. Hope I'm not giving my fellow yanks too much credit here. Like what? In Florida she lost by 113,000 In Ohio by 450,000 In Pennsylvania by 55,000 In North Carolina by 180,000 She needed almost all of those states. The idea that facebook ads determined the outcome is just silly. It's the result of democrats not wanting to admit they fucked up by picking the worst candidate they've ever given a nomination. The whole thing with fake news is people believe whatever bullshit about the candidate they already don't like. For all the praise the police are getting I'm starting to think they're totally clueless. How have they still not figured this out? This is pretty basic shit at this point in an investigation.
Re-read the post. I'm not saying the Facebook ads won the election. I think social media was used in this election to spread misinformation (trolls will be trolls), and will likely continue to be used for such. I think it's entirely possible that social media was MANIPULATED to spread misinformation, and that to my knowledge there's nothing to stop it from happening again. I think you underestimate how many people are swayed by this stuff. Look at the anti-vaxxer movement, or the Pizzagate fabrication for example (and remember that 10x effort figure). I'm 100% willing to bet that a few grand worth of Facebook ads, well targeted that claimed "Gerber baby food is cancerous and they've known about it for years" would hit viral within a week, and that companies stock would plummet. Millions of people might not believe it, but it's far harder to disprove that and a sizable chunk, probably a majority of people who were exposed to that ad would avoid that brand in the future "just to be safe". The fact is, Facebook and Google will take the money, shrug their shoulders and run the ad. Any other media would be under intense scrutiny, exposed to a lawsuit, or in danger of having their license revoked, but if they report on a Facebook post, where's the accountability? I'm saying there's nothing to stop a foreign agent from buying data, and targeting US citizens with false ads/data. There are measures in place to stop Fox News from running ads for the Russian government, there are none in place to stop an internet company from running the same kind of ad far more effectively. That situation, coupled with the Equifax hack, where no one opted into giving this company their information, screams for some sort of oversight or regulation. A combination of no consequences for lies (or foreign fucking propaganda), and no individual having control over how their data is used has led us to a frightening place that needs to be addressed.
When it comes to nonsensical conspiracy theory stuff there will always be people that believe it. That's always been true. If that's your point, that you can't stop that from happening, well yeah. Frankly, I don't really sympathize with blaming google and facebook. They lie all the time, and not accidentally. In most cases they aren't being held responsible for it. I'm going to stick with the facebook issue, that a lot of people want regulated. How do you really do this without restricting free speech? Maybe you could limit Russian trolls, but you can't tell people what they are allowed to say or what they are allowed to believe. Sadly, the cure seems worse than the illness. Also, while I would not trust anyone to regulate speech, the kind of people that want to see facebook regulated are exactly the last people I would trust do it.
I agree that the media by and large has gone off the rails. However, they cannot be hijacked by foreign powers to spread misinformation (apparently, just by incompetence), unless you want to count Rupert Murdoch. Also however, the original point is social media very much CAN be hijacked, there's nothing in place to prevent it and that's a more important discussion to be had right now than "Harvey Weinstein/the NFL". I agree with Kampf, this crowd simply isn't skilled enough to install legislation that holds these companies accountable. I don't know what that legislation looks like, but I think between the Equifax hack (which has started discourse around not using social security numbers, or adding it bio-data for identification), and Mueller's investigation, which I think will show a state-sponsored, foreign power manipulating social media to try and influence an election (influence is damned hard to measure, but that sort of shit is all kinds of illegal), as well as just the monopolistic positions of these companies, it's hard to think why they should be left completely unregulated. A triple-headed monster has appeared: state-sponsored hacking has become more common (some "experts" suggested the Equifax hack was conducted using tools seen in other state-sponsored hacks), more data has become available for sale and that data is far more personal about the average American with absolutely no oversight, and with the large-scale hacks of Equifax, protecting yourself is no longer as simple as cancelling a credit card. How do you solve this problem? What legislatively can be implemented? How can a company like Facebook still sell data to a "foreign" entity like BMW, but not a Russian state shell company? I don't know. I do know this is a vitally important conversation to have, and it scares me that the people writing these rules are in their fucking 70's and don't seem to have my best interests in mind when they do it.
What. The. Fuck. The Mandalay Bay security guard was supposed to be interviewed last night. Right before he was was supposed to appear on camera, he disappeared. Now no one seems to know where he is.
Sounds like he may have had a last minute change of mind. Given what he's been through I think that's quite understandable.
Seriously in all this no one has asked about the hotel's own security footage? Don't tell me they don't have cameras in the hallways, that's a tremendous blind spot to have.