> Your files within Dropbox are sent to a third-party AI only when you chose to interact with AI powered features. For example, when you ask a question about a file.
yeah, some of these posts take a weird tact on privacy. the switch prevents access to files via openai's API, but for that to be relevant you need to engage the Dropbox AI.
really, the trouble is Dropbox is outsourcing your private files to a third party and masking that via a optin (in the US) toggle.
I don't think users should have to worry that their service negotiated a invasive privacy process with a third party and they aren't being forthright about how it leaves the premise.
Everyone knows what they are doing when gambling etc
But nowadays crypto is being pitched as an investment to the layperson who doesn’t understand the risks and isn’t being told those risks by the exchanges. It’s those folks the SEC is trying to protect.
That and prevention of larger market issues that can arise from unregulated financial services, ie FTX
Gambling is a pretty easy concept to understand, and it’s been with all of us since we were kids. Person A wagers an amount that a certain outcome will occur. Person B accepts that wager and agreed to the terms of the wager. If every kid on the playground can understand how a bet works I guarantee adults can too.
I can assure you many people gambling on slot machines think they'll come out ahead. Gambling can be extremely addictive and harmful, to the point the addict stops using logical reasoning.
I don't think they actually think they will come out ahead. I think they are willfully ignoring reality. Gambling addicts also lie about how much they have won gambling, but that isn't because they can't count, they just ignore the inconvenient reality, because being aware of that reality would be extremely painful when you don't feel like you can control your addiction to gambling.
Gambling is easier to understand than investments. That being said I agree there should be more regulation. You should be required to state excatly what expected value and variance is when you offer gambling games. Same with fees. "This slot machine pays off 45% of your bet on average and here is how often you win X, Y, Z" or "organizer of this poker game earns about 90% of deposited money in rake and other fees while the remaining 10% is cashed out by the winners".
It would be a better world if we had regulation forcing such disclosure but it doesn't mean that if we still don't have it for gambling we shouldn't have it for things advertised as investments.
They do. Everyone knows they get the money only if the wind otherwise they lose it all. Most underestimate the "house always wins" factor, but that's not the point here.
Crypto advertises with FOMO on a new world. It's "everybody is doing it, don't be a sucker but a winner in the future", and not "this is a risky asset where you might lose everything".
This is just another dark pattern. All you need is freezing, it’s instant to freeze/unfreeze and required to be free by law.
They just hide the option on the site and make it seem like you need to pay for “locking”. I end up having to use Google every time to actually find the page to unfreeze.
Yes I know that traditionally media has been used for propaganda, but I'm surprised by the reactions in this thread and those who find what seems like fairly objective reporting as biased.
Can someone show me a story from the NYT world or US news sites that are deliberately misleading? If this propaganda is so rampant then where is it? (Note: I'm opinion articles excluded because they are uh opinions).
Given enough time - NYT will generally correct a deliberately misleading story - so tracking down these sorts of changes requires use of internet archive.
Here is one!
On a story about Joe Rogan and his covid treatment - the NYT said "he was treated with a series of medications including ivermectin, a deworming veterinary drug"
The first version of the article, calling ivermectin a "deworming veterinary drug" is intentionally misleading as it is WIDELY used internationally in humans for all sorts of issues.
It is on the WHOs list of essential medications for HUMANS, it is the 420th most commonly described medication in the US for HUMANS, the inventor won the Nobel prize for how it helps HUMANS.
Luckily, the NYT changed it to be less misleading - but the point stands. They intentionally misled their readers.
> Luckily, the NYT changed it to be less misleading - but the point stands. They intentionally misled their readers.
It's telling that even when they issue a correction, the corrected language is always quite clearly still misleading.
They did the same thing with the 1619 project. One of the original articles stated:
>"...one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery."
Many prominent historians evicerated them for this fabrication.[0] The NYT responded in a manner scarcely discernable from lying[0 again], after which they were subject to a second eviceration[1], and only then did they issue a (weaselly) correction[2], which was presumably the smallest change they could manage.
>"...one of the primary reasons *some of* the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery."
Which, of course, is clearly intended to suggest the very same lie.
You don't have to be deliberately misleading. You can intentionally omit certain stories or pieces of stories, and focus the bulk of your coverage one way or another to the omission of perhaps the wider truth. You can find expert opinions going every which way on every topic, so who you bring in as an expert to give an opinion also has weight to the narrative you are creating. In fact you have to do these things in many cases, because you have a finite amount of journalists you can hire or experts opinions you can reasonably draw on to cover a limited set of stories; news orgs don't scale to infinity. Perhaps in some cases, good access to sources depends on maintaining a friendly relationship toward these sources in terms of what you are publishing about them. Maybe you also don't want to jeopardize your relationship with your advertisers.
Herman and Chomsky have written about this phenomenon:
The basis for the entire piece is false, as many historians have said. People within the Times have admitted as much, and have even silently edited the piece without issuing corrections to remove some of the most blatant falsehoods as an attempt to save face.
The Times has lots of good journalism still, but is a propaganda laundering outlet. Falsehoods are published there so that other journalists, lawmakers, and academics can reference falsehoods in the Times as truth. This has happened in the past, just reference how they were used to launder misinformation with regards to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Let's go Brandon -> this is probably the most obvious of the stories.
Pretty much all of the followup stories re: the Abbot formula factory in the NYT and WaPo say that the factory was closed "in response to the FDA investigation" instead of the reality, which is it was closed "because the FDA needed to investigate."
The difference? The factory wasn't closed due to an FDA finding, it was closed so the FDA could find something. Big difference.
Those two are pretty simple.
Another trend is calling pretty much everything "voter suppression." Is asking for an ID voter suppression? Apparently it is. What about not allowing random people to collect and deliver ballots? Yes. What about making rules and regulations about ballot drop-off sites? Yes, voter suppression. The guardian is notorious for doing this.
There is so much. Any time there's a war, the NY Times manufactures consent, Iraq war and weapons of mass destruction for example, more than half of Americans thought Saddam had nukes.
Misleading can also be what the NY Times doesn't cover. For example, the Columbia Journalism Review published a scathing report on how the media misled on Russiagate and NY Times and other MSM just tries to ignore it:
Yes, the utter malice that has been displayed by the NYT over the years is mind boggling - yet they still seem to have this reputation as "the gray lady" as if they should be held in upmost regard. I get it that people want to trust in our institutions - but seriously, people need to wake up and stop taking things for granted. At least display a slight does of healthy skepticism every now and then.
Yeah it’s insane. Perhaps because their articles unrelated to foreign policy and politics are usually very well written, people assume they can trust everything
I don't think its individual 'truth failures' driving such a largescale change, but rather a gradual big-picture slide. For a softball example, an article on the front page of Hacker News right now is "Study Suggests Fructose Could Drive Alzheimer's Disease." See enough articles making such declarations and where they lead, and you gradually start dismissing them as probable junk without even opening them. It's not because you've carefully debunked past studies, but simply because what was implied (major breakthrough) and what happened (nothing) don't jive.
So a better example for your search might be to go back to the Internet Archive, and grab the NYTimes from a year ago. And start reading the articles, and see if things ended up logically leading where the articles imply they would. Beyond this I also don't think you can, in good faith, disentangle opinion from fact. Yes we SHOULD, but it's not like people carefully scrutinize a headline or article to assess whether it was categorized as opinion, and then largely disregard it if so. People treat opinion and factual reporting, more or less, the same. And sites intentionally interweave them in order to drive clicks. So you can't have your cake and eat it. Generate clicks by publishing junk, and people are just going to remember you publishing junk.
(parent author) Thanks for everyone's responses. I think there are some solid examples that folks provided that definitely give me something to mull over.
>Can someone show me a story from the NYT world or US news sites that are deliberately misleading?
How about their "reporting" on the jews and certain activities with them in a European country before the US entered WWII? Just do a modicum of research and if you are not thoroughly repulsed by the character of the NYT...
Newspapers have a problem with quoting law enforcement as if it's fact. 2 Hugh examples:
NYT quoted a Russian asset at the FBI claiming Trump's campaign had no clear links to Russia. Then Trump's own kid released the "later in the summer" thread. Newspapers quoted MPD about George Floyd's "medical emergency".
Headline is a bit misleading, the important conclusion is near the end:
“Bloom thinks the researchers make a good case that molnupiravir treatment is yielding some highly mutated viruses with the capacity to spread. But it’s not clear whether this could contribute to new coronavirus variants, or whether it is simply creating weakling viruses that are unlikely to spread very far.”
If it’s the former then I imagine the case is pretty strong to discontinue usage and switch to Paxlovid.
>If it’s the former then I imagine the case is pretty strong to discontinue usage and switch to Paxlovid.
Molnupiravir is already the last line treatment, it's been that way from the start. It should never be used in cases where the patient can take Paxlovid. Well it's above Convalescent Plasma, but that's because that's barely beneficial and I don't know if anyone is even using it now.
In order of preference:
1. Paxlovid
2. Remdesivir
3. Various IV Monoclonals
4. Molnupiravir
5. Plasma
Yeah it seems like Remdesivir doesn’t get mentioned much anymore. IIRC it had not so great efficacy numbers in earlier studies where it was given later after someone came to the hospital with COVID. Also IIRC it trialed pretty well if given early on an outpatient basis. It seems like it could fill some of the hole left now that mAbs don’t work, especially for people who can’t take Paxlovid.
This is an important distinction to make. By omitting it your original comment seems to be purposely touting a lack of concern for personal emissions reduction.
