Octopus Overlords

Did you mean Shatner Claus?

1. Jingle Bells (feat. Henry Rollins)
2. Blue Christmas (feat. Brad Paisley)
3. Little Drummer Boy (feat. Joe Louis Walker)
4. Winter Wonderland (feat. Todd Rundgren & Artimus Pyle of Lynyrd Skynyrd)
5. Twas The Night Before Christmas (feat. Mel Collins of King Crimson)
6. Run Rudolph Run feat. (Elliot Easton of The Cars)
7. O Come, O Come Emmanuel feat. (Rick Wakeman of Yes)
8. Silver Bells (feat. Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull)
9. One for You, One For Me
10. Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer (feat. Billy Gibbons of ZZ Top)
11. Silent Night (feat. Iggy Pop)
12. White Christmas (feat. Judy Collins)
13. Feliz Navidad (feat. Dani Bender)
14. Jingle Bells (feat. Henry Rollins) (Punk Rock Version)

https://happymag.tv/william-shatner-christmas-album/

As someone working directly with both AWS and Azure...this is a huge surprise to everyone. AWS is
ahead of the game in technical prowess and price-wise. The tech world was shocked by the decision and immediately thought it was likely crooked. I thought itd be too complicated for anyone to dig into so I'm happy to be proved wrong.

I am completely against Trump’s retribution against Bezos and have no doubt it’s because Trump is trying to silence the Washington Post. Totally unacceptable.

That said, Amazon has set itself apart from other companies Hepcat names (Apple, MS, etc.). Amazon has opened up a third party marketplace where anyone can sell anything to anyone. Amazon does nothing to vet the items being sold by third parties, and is willfully ignorant of the counterfeit products being sold by third parties and often Fulfilled By Amazon with Prime pricing so that those products get delivered to consumers in such a way that the consumers are confused into thinking they are buying from Amazon. At the very least, Amazon puts an imprimatur of legitimacy on these products.

And, of course, Amazon profits from the sale of these products, most of which originate from China. Which is why it has gone out of its way to recruit these Chinese sellers and done nothing to vet them or their products. Every 1/50th of a second, a new product originating from a seller in China is listed on Amazon.com.

Why does this matter? Setting aside the fact that Amazon’s practices have eviscerated many businesses selling genuine product because they cannot keep up with the counterfeits undercutting their prices, Amazon’s practices are dangerous. These aren’t just counterfeit sneakers and apparel being sold. Amazon is selling counterfeit electronics that blow up in people’s homes. Counterfeit vitamins that contain dangerous ingredients. Counterfeit cosmetics that are harmful. Counterfeit bike helmets that split apart on contact.

These products don’t meet the specifications the real products do, and they are often dangerous. Sometimes fatally so. Amazon knows all of this, and it knows it’s in the cross-hairs these days and not in a good position. That’s why this year, for the first time ever, Amazon disclosed in its 10K filings that it faces a substantial business risk resulting from its inability (or unwillingness) to protect consumers from counterfeit products offered on its platform.

Kurth wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:08 pm I am completely against Trump’s retribution against Bezos and have no doubt it’s because Trump is trying to silence the Washington Post. Totally unacceptable.

That said, Amazon has set itself apart from other companies Hepcat names (Apple, MS, etc.). Amazon has opened up a third party marketplace where anyone can sell anything to anyone. Amazon does nothing to vet the items being sold by third parties, and is willfully ignorant of the counterfeit products being sold by third parties and often Fulfilled By Amazon with Prime pricing so that those products get delivered to consumers in such a way that the consumers are confused into thinking they are buying from Amazon. At the very least, Amazon puts an imprimatur of legitimacy on these products.

And, of course, Amazon profits from the sale of these products, most of which originate from China. Which is why it has gone out of its way to recruit these Chinese sellers and done nothing to vet them or their products. Every 1/50th of a second, a new product originating from a seller in China is listed on Amazon.com.

Why does this matter? Setting aside the fact that Amazon’s practices have eviscerated many businesses selling genuine product because they cannot keep up with the counterfeits undercutting their prices, Amazon’s practices are dangerous. These aren’t just counterfeit sneakers and apparel being sold. Amazon is selling counterfeit electronics that blow up in people’s homes. Counterfeit vitamins that contain dangerous ingredients. Counterfeit cosmetics that are harmful. Counterfeit bike helmets that split apart on contact.

These products don’t meet the specifications the real products do, and they are often dangerous. Sometimes fatally so. Amazon knows all of this, and it knows it’s in the cross-hairs these days and not in a good position. That’s why this year, for the first time ever, Amazon disclosed in its 10K filings that it faces a substantial business risk resulting from its inability (or unwillingness) to protect consumers from counterfeit products offered on its platform.

The real issues at Amazon ultimately amount to a separate reason why Trump ought to be impeached and removed. Having repeatedly expressed a desire to punish Amazon for critical media coverage in an outlet that Bezos owns, and having taken at least some actions in support of that end, the Trump administration can't take any real action against Amazon (even if merited) without conveying an implicit message that the action is punishment for negative media coverage. Which just reiterates how unacceptable it is for a President to say that in the first place - it taints everything that the administration does, and muddies any real efforts to address the significant issues that Amazon presents.

At a minimum the administration needs to put a strict firewall between Trump and anything Amazon related. But we know how much Trump cares about good governance.

Kurth wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:08 pm I am completely against Trump’s retribution against Bezos and have no doubt it’s because Trump is trying to silence the Washington Post. Totally unacceptable.

That said, Amazon has set itself apart from other companies Hepcat names (Apple, MS, etc.). Amazon has opened up a third party marketplace where anyone can sell anything to anyone. Amazon does nothing to vet the items being sold by third parties, and is willfully ignorant of the counterfeit products being sold by third parties and often Fulfilled By Amazon with Prime pricing so that those products get delivered to consumers in such a way that the consumers are confused into thinking they are buying from Amazon. At the very least, Amazon puts an imprimatur of legitimacy on these products.

Thanks for the details. Sounds like counterfeiting is a problem with more than just Amazon. eBay, Etsy, Alibaba...any online retailer that opens their services up to third parties is getting swamped with knockoffs. It's probably going to take a collective effort from online retailers and domestic/foreign authorities to stem the tide.

But yeah, hating on Amazon for this does not mean one should hope that Trump can effectively eliminate anyone who speaks out against him using the power of his office. I don't care how much someone hates a corporate (or any) entity. You should never wish for a leader with that much power and vindictiveness.

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2019 9:49 am Thanks for the details. Sounds like counterfeiting is a problem with more than just Amazon. eBay, Etsy, Alibaba...any online retailer that opens their services up to third parties is getting swamped with knockoffs. It's probably going to take a collective effort from online retailers and domestic/foreign authorities to stem the tide.

No doubt, counterfeits on eBay, Etsy, Alibaba, Wish, etc. are an issue, too. But they are a different beast. When was the last time you saw a stack of Etsy or Alibaba boxes in front of your neighbor's door? The Amazon brand is everywhere, and when people buy from Amazon, they feel like they're dealing with Amazon - a massive company and a ubiquitous brand. But they're not. Or at least, they're not technically most of the time. Amazon (and its third party sellers) go to great lengths to conceal that from consumers, and it's a real problem.

Think about it this way: When someone goes on Etsy or Alibaba or eBay, there's a certain amount of "buyer beware" in play. That same sentiment doesn't exist on Amazon, especially when the thing you're buying is Prime and FBA and shows up in an Amazon box.

Is that true? I look at seller feedback before I buy from "the marketplace." I also try to make sure I'm getting what I think I'm getting. After Otterbox was recommended to me to protect my phone, I was mildly surprised how deep I had to go searching on Amazon before actually getting to an Otterbox. That sort of occasional surprise and how horrible their heuristics are at giving me what I search for even when I use specific models always make me cautious of their marketplace.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2019 5:11 pm Is that true? I look at seller feedback before I buy from "the marketplace." I also try to make sure I'm getting what I think I'm getting. After Otterbox was recommended to me to protect my phone, I was mildly surprised how deep I had to go searching on Amazon before actually getting to an Otterbox. That sort of occasional surprise and how horrible their heuristics are at giving me what I search for even when I use specific models always make me cautious of their marketplace.

Nothing is universal, and the more press Amazon has gotten recently about how much of a cess pool its platform is helps. But I think for most consumers, if they search for an item on Amazon, whatever seller wins the buy box is the one that's getting the order.

BTW, the WSJ has been all over Amazon. Here are a couple really good recent articles:
Amazon's Heavy Recruitment of Chinese Sellers Puts Consumers at Risk

Amazon Has Ceded Control of Its Site. The Result: Thousands of Banned, Unsafe or Mislabeled Products

Amazon should suffer by consumers not Trump. He’s demonstrated himself to be a terrible negotiator.

While convenient, Amazon is deliberately shilling knockoffs of many brands. Printer tapes and cartridges are so bad, I dont buy there anymore. Small run out of print books are often heinously overpriced. Some collectibles (D&D Tiamat) are up-priced for Chicago but not when I buy from work which places my IP in Ohio. The search engine is crumbling under its own weight. They changed my buying behavior BUT I can change back.

Or Congress could pass a law if the Republican Senate cared about consumers. Or passing laws.

could the 'Amazon shenanigans' discussion be moved to its own thread? there is certainly no lack of content for that in the long run.

Zarathud wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2019 5:56 pm Small run out of print books are often heinously overpriced.

HPB.com leverages a network of used book sellers outside of their own imprint.

hitbyambulance wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2019 6:00 pm could the 'Amazon shenanigans' discussion be moved to its own thread? there is certainly no lack of content for that in the long run.

Well, in this case Amazon's conduct is very relevant to the first amendment discussion, because Trump has tied punishment of it to critical coverage by the Washington Post. And there's certainly an argument that the government should address Amazon's business practices in some way notwithstanding what Trump has said (though I tend to disagree with that argument).

Anyway, point is that it happens to be relevant to this thread for that reason. I assume that it will peter out soon enough (and to the extent that it devolves *just* into an Amazon discussion, that should at some point migrate elsewhere).

As a former e-retailer, I have a lot of bad things to say about Amazon. I'll hold my peace for another thread. What's relevant here is that Bezos funds the WaPo with money he earns from Amazon.

Washington Post

“Will we point back to November 2019 as the day the music died for the news industry?” as University of Missouri journalism professor Tom Warhover put it.

There’s reason to think so, at least for local newspapers.

Here’s some of what happened in the past few days.

Gannett and GateHouse, two major newspaper chains, finished their planned merger, and the combined company intends to cut the combined budget by at least $300 million. That will come on top of unending job losses over the past decade in the affected newsrooms of more than 500 papers.

The McClatchy newspaper group — parent of the Miami Herald and Charlotte Observer — is so weighed down by debt and pension obligations that analysts think it is teetering on bankruptcy.

And the storied Chicago Tribune on Tuesday fell into the control of Alden Global Capital, a hedge fund that has strip-mined the other important papers it owns, including the Denver Post and the Mercury News in San Jose.

...

Local newspapers — and, again, their readers — are already wracked by what’s happened, even since newspaper advertising revenue plummeted more than a decade ago.

More than 2,000 local newspapers — mostly weeklies — have gone out of business in the past 15 years, Penny Muse Abernathy of the University of North Carolina, told me in an interview last summer.

If anything, the pace of that loss has quickened.

And many of those papers that are left are phantoms of their former selves with only a few reporters and editors to cover whole metro areas.

Newspapers depend on reporting. Without reporting, there is no reason to buy or advertise.

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:48 pm

Jaymann wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:45 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:44 pm And if you're giving Mothra permission to then attack you, that's okay too?

Are you really Drazzil in disguise?

Nope, hoping he won't survive.

Christ...really?

Wow. Just...wow.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:48 pm I get that defending Amazon in this situation is a bit like allying with Stalin to defeat Hitler. But that's still the right thing to do under the circumstances.

What has Amazon done that merits comparing them to any historical mass murderer? I think some folks are suffering from a case of the overly dramatic when it comes to Amazon.

I think Bezos would happily mass murder if he could somehow make it legal and improve his bottom line. He is a sociopath.

My guess is you aren't really sure what the definition of sociopathy is.

hepcat wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:09 pm My guess is you aren't really sure what the definition of sociopathy is.

Condecending much?

Journalists advocating *NOT* to subscribe to local papers:

But when you pay for a newspaper, you’re also making a decision to send money to whoever owns it. And if you really care about local news, you might want to think twice about continuing your subscription to one of the 50-plus dailies operated by Alden Global Capital under the Digital First Media nameplate in Denver, Detroit, Long Beach, San Jose, Boston, St. Paul, and other smaller cities. Good journalism still gets done at these newspapers because reporters care. But less and less of it gets printed, because Alden owner Randall Smith and his right-hand man, Heath Freeman, don’t care about the news. As newspaper industry analyst Ken Doctor has amply documented, Alden is cannibalizing its papers for profit in a way that should repel subscribers.

Newsrooms have contracted everywhere, but few as dramatically as Alden’s. Deliberately starving its newsrooms and shriveled its news pages, Alden’s “ milk-it business model” is designed to extract the value of a newspaper over time until the day—poof!—their papers vaporize

Surprised to see Boston on their list; the Globe is owned by local billionaire John Henry. They must be referring to the Herald. (Yes, Boston is still a two-newspaper town; the Herald has always been the lowbrow competitor.) I'll subscribe to the Globe for as long as their Spotlight team is still doing deep, investigative journalism.

Kraken wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:22 pm They must be referring to the Herald.

Correct

Drazzil wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:36 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:09 pm My guess is you aren't really sure what the definition of sociopathy is.

Condecending much?

No, just saying he's not a sociopath.

And the Trump War against the 4th Estate and the 1st Amendment continues:

President Trump's 2020 campaign announced Monday it will no longer allow reporters from Bloomberg News to obtain credentials to cover Trump campaign events.

The big picture: Campaign manager Brad Parscale described the decision to ban Bloomberg reporters as a reaction to Bloomberg News' announcement that it would no longer do investigative journalism on Democratic 2020 candidates, following the entry of the media outlet's owner, Mike Bloomberg, into the presidential race.

That doesn't really bother me that much as long as it is only his campaign events and not White House events.

To be real, much of this is on Bloomberg. Holding on to his news organization creates a clear and obvious conflict of interest.

"I run a media outlet, and I've decided to run for president without breaking ties with it" is a recipe for, even in the best case, accusations of untouchable billionaire privilege.

Jimmy Carter sold his peanut farm.

Holman wrote:To be real, much of this is on Bloomberg. Holding on to his news organization creates a clear and obvious conflict of interest.

"I run a media outlet, and I've decided to run for president without breaking ties with it" is a recipe for, even in the best case, accusations of untouchable billionaire privilege.

Jimmy Carter sold his peanut farm.

Agreed. We had to get rid* of an employee who was running for city council because of the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Having a large news organization with your name on it is very problematic.

*We brought him back as soon as he lost.

Holman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:51 pm To be real, much of this is on Bloomberg. Holding on to his news organization creates a clear and obvious conflict of interest.

"I run a media outlet, and I've decided to run for president without breaking ties with it" is a recipe for, even in the best case, accusations of untouchable billionaire privilege.

Jimmy Carter sold his peanut farm.

Jimmy Carter's story is a bit more complicated than that but it also happened *after* he was elected. I don't think we should expect business people to divest upon declaring. The reality is this is an edge case.

That said, I agree that the perception of the conflict is a problem. The statement by the editor doesn't do anything to help anything and shoveled a huge helping of #fakenews support to the Trump campaign...so thanks for that Mike.

This is a "big star" in the political news world?

He does make some good points. The GOP IS trying to trivialize the proceedings through numerous stunts; and the proceedings are sometimes hard to watch due to the constant, acrimonious shouting and bickering from both sides. This has turned into a three ring circus and...sadly...that's Trump's natural environment.

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:55 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:51 pm To be real, much of this is on Bloomberg. Holding on to his news organization creates a clear and obvious conflict of interest.

"I run a media outlet, and I've decided to run for president without breaking ties with it" is a recipe for, even in the best case, accusations of untouchable billionaire privilege.

Jimmy Carter sold his peanut farm.

Jimmy Carter's story is a bit more complicated than that but it also happened *after* he was elected. I don't think we should expect business people to divest upon declaring. The reality is this is an edge case.

That said, I agree that the perception of the conflict is a problem. The statement by the editor doesn't do anything to help anything and shoveled a huge helping of #fakenews support to the Trump campaign...so thanks for that Mike.

We should 100% expect business people to divest. The #1 rule in ethical public service is no self-dealing. If business people want to run for the top office in the land, they need to be entirely free of even the perception of conflict of interest. We need to know 100% that they will put the Country and the Public interest first.

One of the huge problems I have with these billionaires thinking they are qualified is that they generally have zero experience with Public Service (Bloomberg actually does have some) and placing public good over private interest, as well as getting things done in an environment where you also have to represent your opponents.

Edit: Replying out of order here. Whoops!

On a different note - Rick Wilson gets it. The media will bullhorn propaganda as long as it appears to be under the color of authority.

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:20 pmWe should 100% expect business people to divest. The #1 rule in ethical public service is no self-dealing. If business people want to run for the top office in the land, they need to be entirely free of even the perception of conflict of interest. We need to know 100% that they will put the Country and the Public interest first.

I dont disagree. I just think until Trump we didnt have an issue with someone *not doing that* in modern times *after* they were elected. I think they should be free to hedge their bets *before* election.

One of the huge problems I have with these billionaires thinking they are qualified is that they generally have zero experience with Public Service (Bloomberg actually does have some) and placing public good over private interest, as well as getting things done in an environment where you also have to represent your opponents.

Yup - Its a problem. These folks often live in a bubble that makes them overestimate their abilities and being too transactional comes at a cost as Trump demonstrates.

malchior wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:42 pm

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:20 pmWe should 100% expect business people to divest. The #1 rule in ethical public service is no self-dealing. If business people want to run for the top office in the land, they need to be entirely free of even the perception of conflict of interest. We need to know 100% that they will put the Country and the Public interest first.

I dont disagree. I just think until Trump we didnt have an issue with someone *not doing that* in modern times *after* they were elected. I think they should be free to hedge their bets *before* election.

One of the huge problems I have with these billionaires thinking they are qualified is that they generally have zero experience with Public Service (Bloomberg actually does have some) and placing public good over private interest, as well as getting things done in an environment where you also have to represent your opponents.

Yup - Its a problem. These folks often live in a bubble that makes them overestimate their abilities and being too transactional comes at a cost as Trump demonstrates.

I'd argue that Dick Cheney's relationship with Halliburton did a lot of damage too, and I don't recall whether the Clintons were divested from the Whitewater Real Estate shenaningans by '92 either, or while he was the Arkansas Gov.

Cheney had sold his interest. He shouldn't have however participated in any decisions that involved them. His friends and former coworkers benefitted from his official actions potentially.

As I remember the Clintons were divested in the sense that the Whitewater scheme had failed by then. It wasn't great but it was notable as the beginning of the hyperpartisan bull shit from the GOP. It has to be viewed through the lens that it was heavily distorted. Maybe not at Benghazi levels but mostly because they hadn't tuned their disinformation machine to maximum volume yet.

The NY Times is a complete mess at the worst time possible. The paper of record has a very noticeable bias against acknowledging political reality at this point. There are literal examples of the NY Times amplifying information they *had to know* was misleading from Republican leadership without qualification.

The New York Times’ three-year struggle to sustain its reporting algorithms, built for two political parties that have comparable relationships to reality, collapsed into a sordid heap of nonsense over the weekend.

The two central political truths of the moment are the profound asymmetry between the parties — one relying mostly on facts and the other trafficking almost entirely in deceit and division — and the wildly abnormal nature of the Trump presidency.

But smart, capable Times reporters, corrupted by an editorial regime that prevents them from acknowledging those elemental truths, over the last few days put forth such epically, historically bad examples of pox-on-both-your-houses, boring-what-else-is-new, and self-contradictory political coverage that press critics on social media — including several former Times editors — were appropriately united in despair.

The fault, at the end of the day, clearly lies with New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet, who has frequently defended the Times’ political coverage as appropriately non-confrontational and measured.

This is a collapse of leadership, and a disaster for American journalism at the most critical moment imaginable.

As the article notes - Nate Silver even called them out on an instance of it.



We are nearly 8 years on from Mann and Ornstein pointing all this out and the big media outlets are still enabling the same behavior. In fact, Ornstein was pretty much banished from tv appearances after that piece was published. A major part of why we are living in a post-truth world.

The tide might be shifting somewhat in a positive direction. Todd has been still won't call them liars but he is at least saying that national media figures have a responsibility to think about how they are spreading disinformation. He will be hosting a special edition of MTP this weekend that will talk about this. Interestingly Dean Baquet of the NY Times will be on it. I have found the NY Times to be 'wretched' on this topic so I want to hear Baquet's views on this. I'm ready to be underwhelmed but maybe these guys are starting to get their shit together. Margaret Sullivan also had a piece in WaPo that tread some of this ground as well.

Jay Rosen's take down of Chuck Todd here is brutal but accurate. If you want to understand why the nation is a basket case you have to understand that the GOP has radicalized and the main big tent political analysts have continued to not only ignore it and rationalize it - they fuel it.

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 10:19 am Jay Rosen's take down of Chuck Todd here is brutal but accurate. If you want to understand why the nation is a basket case you have to understand that the GOP has radicalized and the main big tent political analysts have continued to not only ignore it and rationalize it - they fuel it.

Yeah, that piece is entirely fair. Though I do think that this is a case of "better late than never" for Chuck Todd and people like it. The more people like Chuck Todd wake up in advance of the 2020 election, the better.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 11:23 amYeah, that piece is entirely fair. Though I do think that this is a case of "better late than never" for Chuck Todd and people like it. The more people like Chuck Todd wake up in advance of the 2020 election, the better.

I just got around to watching his MTP episode on disinformation. My take is we are doomed if this is his reaction to his "epiphany". The 'special broadcast' was skin deep at best and ignored the GOP gorilla in the room entirely.

The show began with literal whataboutism to frame the opening of his episode on disinformation. He started the show by juxtaposing Kellyanne's pronouncement of 'alternative facts' to Bill Clinton -- "It depends upon what the meaning of the word “is” is." vs. He did go on to say the scale is different but also went and plucked disinformation from both sides on Facebook. Cuck Todd and staff pathologically *cannot* escape framing it as a 'both sides' story. It was infuriating from the get go.

He then had a quick panel with Marty Barron and Dean Baquet who lead the newsrooms at WaPo and the NYT. They engaged in pointless navel gazing that didn't address any of the failures of journalism from 2016 and on in a meaningful way. Instead they mused about what they think Trump voters want out of news and how it is important for journalists to not dismiss them. Sure...but...I kept waiting for them to say anything meaningful that would address what is happening at large now. It simply just didn't occur. Perhaps they have decided as 'gentlemen' they aren't going to air their dirty laundry in public. Whatever the case it was a true 'nothing happened' moment. Two of the most powerful men in news sitting there and it ended up being a tea circle. Sad!

They then had a relatively informative segment - right up until the *MASSIVE GAP* in the story appeared. It was when I pretty much gave up on this being a sign that change was going to begin. To explain, they dissected a lie to show how it works. In this case, the story that the Russians put out to undermine Crowdstrike in the Ukraine story. They went into how it worked - repetition and multi-faceted disinformation dispersion and the why - Crowdstrike is seen as an effective defense against Russian cyber attacks. A pretty good segment if they didn't glaze over that *US SENATORS WENT ON NATIONAL MEDIA OUTLETS AND REPEATEDLY SOLD THE RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA*. And the news outlets allowed this to happen over and over with little to no push back. Sorry to yell but holy shit is that a major miss on the story there.

In the end, this was the moment I personally threw in the towel on the whole thing. I stopped wasting time watching and instead skimmed the transcript here. There was only one more segment and it was ok. Probably the 'best dive' in the episode into social media effects. That panel at least acknowledged it was a problem on the right and they accurately say that they've already won the war (i.e. the right has duped these folks into a self-sustaining information bubble).

Chuck Todd pins it on the receiver of bad information for not sussing it out. There is some truth there but it only a piece of the problem. I'm more than ever convinced we are fucked. He can't admit that folks like him are an important cog in the disinformation machine. They help to amplify the noise. In essence, Chuck Todd looked in the mirror, said that the problem is 'out there' (e.g. social media / Russian propaganda) and didn't do any actual soul searching. I saw *little* that indicates that he understands his part or any glimmer of actual intellectual leadership, or a plan to defend us. We are on our own.

Am I so out of touch?

...

No, it's the consumers who are wrong.