I liked your posts on pumpkins, superstitions, and the flour molds. There must be something wrong with my brain; I didn’t submit to “died suddenly” clickbait.
I was being a bit facetious in my comments about my seasonal posts. People do comment that they enjoy them, and I appreciate that there are posts outside of the constant bombardment of COVID or WEF information and other things like that.
I should have commented that watching to see the content would not be an example of falling for clickbait, and there's likely to be many that just wanted to see the content of the documentary who then realized the questionable nature of some of the information. It's just that clickbait can make things extremely popular and very quickly.
I believe the ACTUAL government backed psyop is certainly worse than the person reporting inaccurate information in ignorance. But when the ignorant person realizes he has disseminated incorrect info, he must publicly and clearly correct it.
I watched “Watch the Water” when it came out and felt uncomfortable throughout almost the entire thing. It definitely knocked my respect for Stew Peters considerably. The ONLY reason I watched Died Suddenly is because I have always thought someone should make a video or write a lengthy piece with as many references to real people who have died suddenly throughout this nightmare. The people included would be those whose vax status can be verified via virtue signaling Facebook, Twitter, Instagram posts, or if they worked or attended school at a place which mandates the shots, or if loved ones verified shot status. This would leave out countless others whose status could not be verified, but still... Anyway, by the title, I thought that’s what it would be about. Ugh.
I still think someone should create such a list...maybe one that can be easily amended as more people die suddenly.
As for clickbait, it doesn’t really tempt me. Of course, if you classify titles like, “Healthy Italian Wedding Soup Recipe” or “The 10 Best Weekend Getaways in Texas,” etc, clickbait. It’s not clickbait if the article or video contains what the title promises, right?
So, I suppose I will say that there was a bit of an ambiguity in parts of my post. There definitely are things that are reported on which, without a lack of proper background information, may be reported by someone who is unaware of the inaccuracies which is fine and happens.
However, what if one were to know that the information was inaccurate or is being manipulated, but knows that if they release that information it will lead to clicks and virality. So rather than ethically not using said content, the content is instead used with an indifference to ethics if it means getting popular. Hence, is it worse if something is a psyop or if someone acts in a way that focuses solely on getting clicks and views with a disregard for journalistic integrity and factual reporting.
I hesitate in general when I see "died suddenly" and to be honest it's being used quite often now, and when I look at such information I become a bit skeptical as to how many of these people died in a sudden manner or has a lot of information left out. I mean, in reality what does it mean to die suddenly? Heart attacks and strokes can inherently be sudden, or are we referring specifically to the ambiguity that is sudden cardiac death or sudden adult death syndrome?
I think the initial definition of clickbait referred to its subversive nature in that the title didn't necessarily match the content. However, I think clickbait now generally refers to something that is created in a way that's supposed to entice you to click or engage with the content.
I definitely agree with you that someone using information he knows to be inaccurate or is being manipulated, yet still uses the information for ranking & popularity is slimy and unethical.
In my view, “died suddenly” refers (in our current environment) to very young people dying unexpectedly (i.e. healthy, no illness) and healthy adults under...say 65...who pass in the same way. Even if it’s a cardiac arrest, if it’s a 30 year old healthy person, it’s NOT normal.
I immediately smelled limited hangout. Whether intentional or not, I believe Stew is being either used or using us. This is how they do it, get a useful idiot to tell the story they want, or simply install a fake guru to begin with.
Not everything is a psyop (maybe), but also, trust your nose.
Given the content of the documentary it's enough to warrant skepticism and raise questions as to why the kitchen sink of "people passing out videos" were included along with some of the conspiratorial stuff. So maybe it is all a psyop, but regardless the presentation is questionable without necessarily needing to look at why.
The "it's a psyop" mentality strikes me as something akin to superstition or how our ancient ancestors tried to explain the world around them with pantheons of irascible gods and goddesses who ultimately used human beings as their playthings.
If there is one consistent human urge it is the "there has to be a reason" impulse. People always want to know the reason why things are as they are. And when actual reasons are not forthcoming, people are prone to fill in the blanks with intuition, hunches, gut checks, et cetera. Only instead of conjuring up irascible gods and goddesses, people conjure up psyops.
I think I prefer the irascible gods and goddesses. They're more entertaining.
Like with many things, the continued use of psyop or to immediately refer to it as "the" answer can dilute the actual term. Could everything be a psyop? Numbers wise yes there's a possibility for many things that otherwise seem impossible. I appreciate Bret and Heather's gripe with the 0% presented in the documentary when looking at the standard deviations. You can't say the likelihood of something happening is 0% at the same time you are presenting evidence that suggests that the phenomenon is, in fact, happening. I think it's those little things in the documentary that alludes to the fact that there doesn't appear to be someone in the back actually checking if the information is presented accurately.
There certainly is a need to have a reason, and sometimes that need and impulse can cloud judgement or have us look for an easy way out. It's one of the reasons why I look at the virus skeptic crowd and don't necessarily think it has to be a psyop.
I think people can believe in conspiracy theories, especially if they have evidence to support some of their conspiracies. However, I think we should be wary of looking at every situation and suddenly assuming a psyop is occurring. It's one thing to state that there is a possibility, it's another to look at everything going on and immediately stating that it's all a psyop, so I just wanted to just include my perspective and encourage the precautionary principle in some way.
Well let's be specific - you basically suggested it was just good old-fashioned clickbait, but think about that?
Clickbait is to get CLICKS.
Once they have the click the advertisers are happy - there is no need to keep on bullshitting throughout the entire video, sorry "movie" as literally a hundred or so people kept describing it all over Youtube and Twitter, while typing the name DIED SUDDENLY in all caps...
At the very least, they paid a LOT of people to pimp the vid all over social media, or, more likely, they were bots. Stew Peters doesn't strike me as the kind of guy with bot armies at his disposal, but hey, maybe?
Every single step of the vid they inserted easily-debunked errors. That's way beyond "Oops"; they knew damn well they were pushing a lot of garbage with the real stuff, as well as starting with classic conspiracy theory tropes and Bigfoot...
At a time when all the alt-media are under attack with the (usually) false charge of "misinformation", with some being cancelled, losing Paypal etc etc - these muppets tripped, slipped and accidentally produced a slick, well-produced 'movie', unleashing an army of bots or shills across the net to pimp it - knowing full-well it was full of crap?
Accidental oops is completely out of the question, so only 2 options
A. They're skilled and funded at slick production, with professional touches throughout, and yet forever tarnishing their reputation and that of the people in the vid and discrediting their message, for no reason other than to.... what?
B. They did it deliberately, with the intention of tarnishing the reputation of the people in the vid and discrediting their message.
Explain A.?
The video is free, you don't even need an email address to view it. They're not selling any product associated with it, no membership, nothing.
They spend all that time, effort and energy, and all that money, inc the shills, cos they just care so much, and want to get the truth out there - while filling the whole thing full of easily debunked bullshit?
To you, the precautionary principle means we should give them the benefit of the doubt?
When examining these issues one should always remember that the default position is simply "I do not know."
Not assuming something is a psyop is not the same as assuming something is not a psyop. It can more easily be interpreted as "hypothesis not proven."
Which leaves the door open for more proof. And if that additional proof is not yet forthcoming, it allows us to leave the question as is until that additional proof should materialize. As proofs appear, the question can be pushed that much closer to a final answer, but as long as the logic does not get ahead of the data, we are able to examine the data as it appears--which is exactly what we should do.
Well we have their track record of producing utter garbage about snake venom, and never acknowledging their errors, indeed they doubled down on it.
But hey, I guess we'll just have to wait for a peer-reviewed study proving that they produced the video in bad faith, cos until then we just can't know, huh?
A great many conspiracy theories evolve into conspiracy fact. There is no denying that, as recent history has proven that to be true time and again.
Many of the early assertions that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was a lab-created bioweapon arguably WERE "conspiracy theories" at the time, which is to say that there was a tremendous amount of speculation connecting what was then a tenuous amount of actual evidence.
This was a phenomenon I discussed as far back as February of 2020.
However, what those who dismissed those "conspiracy theories" failed to grasp is that they were raising, as many such theories do, real questions for which the mainstream narratives were not giving any real answers. For all the assertions by many that the zoonotic origin via pangolins was THE explanation for the origin of SARS-CoV-2, a close reading of the papers and research proposing this origin couched their conclusions in sufficiently broad and problematic language that they never actually closed the door on the lab origin.
In fact, when one reviewed the zoonotic origin research, there was a fair bit of speculation connecting considerably less evidence than those who pronounced the question "settled" led others to believe. One could even go so far as to say the zoonotic origin hypothesis itself was little more than a "conspiracy theory", just one that had been blessed with the aura of peer review.
Of course, as the facts and data emerged, the case for the lab origins of SARS-CoV-2 only grew stronger, and the case even for lab manufacture through Gain-of-Function experimentation grew stronger. So much so that by May of 2020 it was clear that the zoonotic origin hypothesis was NOT the most likely hypothesis, that the lab origin hypothesis was by far the more probable explanation.
At this point, not only is the lab origin by far the most probable explanation for SARS-CoV-2, but the continued indulgence in Gain of Function research both regarding the SARS-CoV-2 virus as well as other infectious respiratory pathogens by many of the world's leading virology laboratories means that the origin question regarding SARS-CoV-2 is really a question of which biolab in which country contributed which piece of the final Frankenvirus concoction?
Of course, not every "conspiracy theory" pans out this way, and not all of those that do pan out in the way the initial hypothesis would present. But enough of them do attract increasing evidentiary support that one should never dismiss them out of hand. We should not be blind to the logical and analytical faults about "conspiracy theories" that renders them as such, but we should also be willing to admit that, quite often, they are on to something.
Right - and all the signs point to this "movie" called DIED SUDDENLY was deliberately released as an psyop. Yes, that's a 'conspiracy theory' (a term itself actually created to discredit those asking questions, so such discrediting has a long, proven history)
There are questions. Questions need answers--answers composed of verifiable facts and objective evidences, more than what currently is available, based on the commentaries I have seen.
op is worse, hands down. It involves the most powerful actor with probably excellent knowledge of how to seed things and possibly even surreptitious help from platforms deliberately warping perceptions in an entirely unnatural direction.
clickbait on the other hand usually starts with something genuine. It may add a lot of garbage and possibly discredit the entire argument in the minds of more knowledgeable and/or intelligent viewers, but it wants to leverage an existing belief, and has no particular reason to *deliberately* undermine whatever solid arguments may exist.
I suppose I wouldn't necessarily state that clickbait starts with something genuine. I think one thing I've been thinking about is to what extent the inherent deceptiveness of clickbait can be damaging. For those who already agree with the message we may consider ourselves to be rather unphased, and we may overlook issues with the understanding that certain topics are important. However, it also shouldn't fall upon the reader or viewer to sift through the content and steelman the information that should otherwise not be included.
If the information is of merit, have the information stand on its own. Fluff wouldn't be needed to make a point. But what if the fluff or the other information was included with the intent of adding that shock and horror value. Would it be worse if the content was included with an indifference to the ethics of including that material of it means it goes viral?
I think the incentive for, "don't care, got the clicks anyways," is very strong and probably shouldn't be overlooked.
"what if the fluff or the other information was included with the intent of adding that shock and horror value"
True that's sorta bad. It might be true to say that ops overall have what you might call a centrist bias (because they usually look to conserve status-quo power) while clickbait has an extremist bias.
When the producers have a history of spewing garbage that makes you wish you'd never told anyone about Ardis or Peters, it's right to be suspicious.
That they started with Bigfoot and managed to sprinkle in easily-debunked "errors" for every subject they covered, is just too damning to think it's just clickbait.
The real kicker for me, before even seeing it, was seeing the same pattern over Youtube and Twitter - comments mentioning how horrible or grisly was DIED SUDDENLY the movie.
Why were so many people using ALL CAPS?
Why were those same people all calling this video or documentary a "movie"?
If it looks like an op, sounds like an op, behaves like an op and has the exact same effect as an op would have, then it's an op.
PS: I'm a advertising copywriter when not doing hypnotherapy; this was beyond clickbait
Are you suggesting that my post on clickbait is itself clickbait?! Perish the thought!
But seriously, everyone can have an opinion about this being a psyop. My intentions weren't to suggest that there wasn't this possibility, but that there are other alternatives that could explain what's happening.
And if we were to consider a psyop, I may actually consider Watch the Water to be a more compelling argument since that just came out of nowhere and has evidence of a lack of correcting the record given the follow-up interview and the interview at the end of October.
I just generally have trouble when we have to start going into X-D chess territory to explain things.
But again, we could very well find out that all of this was an attempt to discredit skeptics, and quite frankly if that came to be I wouldn't be too surprised. I just wanted to provide my perspective on how these things can sometimes play out. People still clicked, people still watched, and if the end goal was to go viral then it certainly did that.
Yes, it went viral, straight into the arms of the ready-to-go debunkers, who debunked the heck out of it and already knew exactly what Youtube vid they stole the clot clip from, which 'DIED SUDDENLY' people were still alive, which ones died before the vaccine was released etc.
But if its any consolation, I cite all of the articles I use in my posts so that people can check for themselves the veracity of the information I use. I also try to include excerpts and figures from said studies rather than just a hyperlink and vague sentence so that readers can be aware of where the information is coming from and where they can look for more.
My work is always done with the inherent nature of wanting readers to "trust, but verify" the information and I try to be as transparent as possible. Well, maybe not trust. I try to encourage readers to be skeptical of everything they read, but the more information and evidence presented the stronger my ideas are.
I know how frustrating it can be when reading a news article or a post somewhere and being unable to figure out where the hell the study came from or finding out that no citation was added so that the reader has to put in work in finding the actual article.
I'll say that it takes a lot more time to try to hyperlink, include figures, captions, and citations and I really don't need to do so, but I do it for the transparency to my readers.
So if I show a figure I say, "this is what the figure suggests", then present the figure or describe it in further detail so that I can say, "here's the information I'm referencing. Do you think my interpretation is wrong or inaccurate? Please let me know."
In all honesty, this is likely to bog down my writing and make it far longer and more boring to read, but I'd rather take that route if it is done with the intent of fleshing out my ideas.
I never want my readers to feel like they are being told what to think, but how to think and engage in critical thinking and parsing of information.
"Personally, I’ve gone the route of writing what I like given that the financial income doesn’t incentivize me (i.e. pressure me) into going fully down the COVID route4. I will also say it’s been better on my mental health to not have to keep writing about COVID."
And I like reading what _else_ you write about. I like reading about biochemistry -- I guess I must, having been reading about it for decades -- and I like the way you present things because it leaves me less inclined to want to pull my hair out trying to understand. My hair is thin enough already. Yes, that's a complement.
I liked your posts on pumpkins, superstitions, and the flour molds. There must be something wrong with my brain; I didn’t submit to “died suddenly” clickbait.
I was being a bit facetious in my comments about my seasonal posts. People do comment that they enjoy them, and I appreciate that there are posts outside of the constant bombardment of COVID or WEF information and other things like that.
I should have commented that watching to see the content would not be an example of falling for clickbait, and there's likely to be many that just wanted to see the content of the documentary who then realized the questionable nature of some of the information. It's just that clickbait can make things extremely popular and very quickly.
I believe the ACTUAL government backed psyop is certainly worse than the person reporting inaccurate information in ignorance. But when the ignorant person realizes he has disseminated incorrect info, he must publicly and clearly correct it.
I watched “Watch the Water” when it came out and felt uncomfortable throughout almost the entire thing. It definitely knocked my respect for Stew Peters considerably. The ONLY reason I watched Died Suddenly is because I have always thought someone should make a video or write a lengthy piece with as many references to real people who have died suddenly throughout this nightmare. The people included would be those whose vax status can be verified via virtue signaling Facebook, Twitter, Instagram posts, or if they worked or attended school at a place which mandates the shots, or if loved ones verified shot status. This would leave out countless others whose status could not be verified, but still... Anyway, by the title, I thought that’s what it would be about. Ugh.
I still think someone should create such a list...maybe one that can be easily amended as more people die suddenly.
As for clickbait, it doesn’t really tempt me. Of course, if you classify titles like, “Healthy Italian Wedding Soup Recipe” or “The 10 Best Weekend Getaways in Texas,” etc, clickbait. It’s not clickbait if the article or video contains what the title promises, right?
So, I suppose I will say that there was a bit of an ambiguity in parts of my post. There definitely are things that are reported on which, without a lack of proper background information, may be reported by someone who is unaware of the inaccuracies which is fine and happens.
However, what if one were to know that the information was inaccurate or is being manipulated, but knows that if they release that information it will lead to clicks and virality. So rather than ethically not using said content, the content is instead used with an indifference to ethics if it means getting popular. Hence, is it worse if something is a psyop or if someone acts in a way that focuses solely on getting clicks and views with a disregard for journalistic integrity and factual reporting.
I hesitate in general when I see "died suddenly" and to be honest it's being used quite often now, and when I look at such information I become a bit skeptical as to how many of these people died in a sudden manner or has a lot of information left out. I mean, in reality what does it mean to die suddenly? Heart attacks and strokes can inherently be sudden, or are we referring specifically to the ambiguity that is sudden cardiac death or sudden adult death syndrome?
I think the initial definition of clickbait referred to its subversive nature in that the title didn't necessarily match the content. However, I think clickbait now generally refers to something that is created in a way that's supposed to entice you to click or engage with the content.
I definitely agree with you that someone using information he knows to be inaccurate or is being manipulated, yet still uses the information for ranking & popularity is slimy and unethical.
In my view, “died suddenly” refers (in our current environment) to very young people dying unexpectedly (i.e. healthy, no illness) and healthy adults under...say 65...who pass in the same way. Even if it’s a cardiac arrest, if it’s a 30 year old healthy person, it’s NOT normal.
I immediately smelled limited hangout. Whether intentional or not, I believe Stew is being either used or using us. This is how they do it, get a useful idiot to tell the story they want, or simply install a fake guru to begin with.
Not everything is a psyop (maybe), but also, trust your nose.
Given the content of the documentary it's enough to warrant skepticism and raise questions as to why the kitchen sink of "people passing out videos" were included along with some of the conspiratorial stuff. So maybe it is all a psyop, but regardless the presentation is questionable without necessarily needing to look at why.
The "it's a psyop" mentality strikes me as something akin to superstition or how our ancient ancestors tried to explain the world around them with pantheons of irascible gods and goddesses who ultimately used human beings as their playthings.
If there is one consistent human urge it is the "there has to be a reason" impulse. People always want to know the reason why things are as they are. And when actual reasons are not forthcoming, people are prone to fill in the blanks with intuition, hunches, gut checks, et cetera. Only instead of conjuring up irascible gods and goddesses, people conjure up psyops.
I think I prefer the irascible gods and goddesses. They're more entertaining.
Like with many things, the continued use of psyop or to immediately refer to it as "the" answer can dilute the actual term. Could everything be a psyop? Numbers wise yes there's a possibility for many things that otherwise seem impossible. I appreciate Bret and Heather's gripe with the 0% presented in the documentary when looking at the standard deviations. You can't say the likelihood of something happening is 0% at the same time you are presenting evidence that suggests that the phenomenon is, in fact, happening. I think it's those little things in the documentary that alludes to the fact that there doesn't appear to be someone in the back actually checking if the information is presented accurately.
There certainly is a need to have a reason, and sometimes that need and impulse can cloud judgement or have us look for an easy way out. It's one of the reasons why I look at the virus skeptic crowd and don't necessarily think it has to be a psyop.
Yeah it's just terrible how us numpties believe in conspiracy theories, huh Peter?
I think people can believe in conspiracy theories, especially if they have evidence to support some of their conspiracies. However, I think we should be wary of looking at every situation and suddenly assuming a psyop is occurring. It's one thing to state that there is a possibility, it's another to look at everything going on and immediately stating that it's all a psyop, so I just wanted to just include my perspective and encourage the precautionary principle in some way.
Well let's be specific - you basically suggested it was just good old-fashioned clickbait, but think about that?
Clickbait is to get CLICKS.
Once they have the click the advertisers are happy - there is no need to keep on bullshitting throughout the entire video, sorry "movie" as literally a hundred or so people kept describing it all over Youtube and Twitter, while typing the name DIED SUDDENLY in all caps...
At the very least, they paid a LOT of people to pimp the vid all over social media, or, more likely, they were bots. Stew Peters doesn't strike me as the kind of guy with bot armies at his disposal, but hey, maybe?
Every single step of the vid they inserted easily-debunked errors. That's way beyond "Oops"; they knew damn well they were pushing a lot of garbage with the real stuff, as well as starting with classic conspiracy theory tropes and Bigfoot...
At a time when all the alt-media are under attack with the (usually) false charge of "misinformation", with some being cancelled, losing Paypal etc etc - these muppets tripped, slipped and accidentally produced a slick, well-produced 'movie', unleashing an army of bots or shills across the net to pimp it - knowing full-well it was full of crap?
Accidental oops is completely out of the question, so only 2 options
A. They're skilled and funded at slick production, with professional touches throughout, and yet forever tarnishing their reputation and that of the people in the vid and discrediting their message, for no reason other than to.... what?
B. They did it deliberately, with the intention of tarnishing the reputation of the people in the vid and discrediting their message.
Explain A.?
The video is free, you don't even need an email address to view it. They're not selling any product associated with it, no membership, nothing.
They spend all that time, effort and energy, and all that money, inc the shills, cos they just care so much, and want to get the truth out there - while filling the whole thing full of easily debunked bullshit?
To you, the precautionary principle means we should give them the benefit of the doubt?
Srsly, for realz?
When examining these issues one should always remember that the default position is simply "I do not know."
Not assuming something is a psyop is not the same as assuming something is not a psyop. It can more easily be interpreted as "hypothesis not proven."
Which leaves the door open for more proof. And if that additional proof is not yet forthcoming, it allows us to leave the question as is until that additional proof should materialize. As proofs appear, the question can be pushed that much closer to a final answer, but as long as the logic does not get ahead of the data, we are able to examine the data as it appears--which is exactly what we should do.
Well we have their track record of producing utter garbage about snake venom, and never acknowledging their errors, indeed they doubled down on it.
But hey, I guess we'll just have to wait for a peer-reviewed study proving that they produced the video in bad faith, cos until then we just can't know, huh?
You know, the precautionary thing?
The track record proves lack of credibility. Is that enough to declare this a psyop? No.
Without actual facts (sarcasm is not data, BTW), no, you cannot know. Knowledge requires facts. Until then it's just mere suspicion. Nothing more.
A great many conspiracy theories evolve into conspiracy fact. There is no denying that, as recent history has proven that to be true time and again.
Many of the early assertions that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was a lab-created bioweapon arguably WERE "conspiracy theories" at the time, which is to say that there was a tremendous amount of speculation connecting what was then a tenuous amount of actual evidence.
This was a phenomenon I discussed as far back as February of 2020.
https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/covid-19-as-a-bioweapon
However, what those who dismissed those "conspiracy theories" failed to grasp is that they were raising, as many such theories do, real questions for which the mainstream narratives were not giving any real answers. For all the assertions by many that the zoonotic origin via pangolins was THE explanation for the origin of SARS-CoV-2, a close reading of the papers and research proposing this origin couched their conclusions in sufficiently broad and problematic language that they never actually closed the door on the lab origin.
In fact, when one reviewed the zoonotic origin research, there was a fair bit of speculation connecting considerably less evidence than those who pronounced the question "settled" led others to believe. One could even go so far as to say the zoonotic origin hypothesis itself was little more than a "conspiracy theory", just one that had been blessed with the aura of peer review.
Of course, as the facts and data emerged, the case for the lab origins of SARS-CoV-2 only grew stronger, and the case even for lab manufacture through Gain-of-Function experimentation grew stronger. So much so that by May of 2020 it was clear that the zoonotic origin hypothesis was NOT the most likely hypothesis, that the lab origin hypothesis was by far the more probable explanation.
https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/ccpvirus-yes-it-is-bioweaponhtml
At this point, not only is the lab origin by far the most probable explanation for SARS-CoV-2, but the continued indulgence in Gain of Function research both regarding the SARS-CoV-2 virus as well as other infectious respiratory pathogens by many of the world's leading virology laboratories means that the origin question regarding SARS-CoV-2 is really a question of which biolab in which country contributed which piece of the final Frankenvirus concoction?
Of course, not every "conspiracy theory" pans out this way, and not all of those that do pan out in the way the initial hypothesis would present. But enough of them do attract increasing evidentiary support that one should never dismiss them out of hand. We should not be blind to the logical and analytical faults about "conspiracy theories" that renders them as such, but we should also be willing to admit that, quite often, they are on to something.
Right - and all the signs point to this "movie" called DIED SUDDENLY was deliberately released as an psyop. Yes, that's a 'conspiracy theory' (a term itself actually created to discredit those asking questions, so such discrediting has a long, proven history)
There are questions. Questions need answers--answers composed of verifiable facts and objective evidences, more than what currently is available, based on the commentaries I have seen.
op is worse, hands down. It involves the most powerful actor with probably excellent knowledge of how to seed things and possibly even surreptitious help from platforms deliberately warping perceptions in an entirely unnatural direction.
clickbait on the other hand usually starts with something genuine. It may add a lot of garbage and possibly discredit the entire argument in the minds of more knowledgeable and/or intelligent viewers, but it wants to leverage an existing belief, and has no particular reason to *deliberately* undermine whatever solid arguments may exist.
I suppose I wouldn't necessarily state that clickbait starts with something genuine. I think one thing I've been thinking about is to what extent the inherent deceptiveness of clickbait can be damaging. For those who already agree with the message we may consider ourselves to be rather unphased, and we may overlook issues with the understanding that certain topics are important. However, it also shouldn't fall upon the reader or viewer to sift through the content and steelman the information that should otherwise not be included.
If the information is of merit, have the information stand on its own. Fluff wouldn't be needed to make a point. But what if the fluff or the other information was included with the intent of adding that shock and horror value. Would it be worse if the content was included with an indifference to the ethics of including that material of it means it goes viral?
I think the incentive for, "don't care, got the clicks anyways," is very strong and probably shouldn't be overlooked.
"what if the fluff or the other information was included with the intent of adding that shock and horror value"
True that's sorta bad. It might be true to say that ops overall have what you might call a centrist bias (because they usually look to conserve status-quo power) while clickbait has an extremist bias.
Your post must be a part of the PSYOP!!!
(just kidding -- great reading)
Nah.
When the producers have a history of spewing garbage that makes you wish you'd never told anyone about Ardis or Peters, it's right to be suspicious.
That they started with Bigfoot and managed to sprinkle in easily-debunked "errors" for every subject they covered, is just too damning to think it's just clickbait.
The real kicker for me, before even seeing it, was seeing the same pattern over Youtube and Twitter - comments mentioning how horrible or grisly was DIED SUDDENLY the movie.
Why were so many people using ALL CAPS?
Why were those same people all calling this video or documentary a "movie"?
If it looks like an op, sounds like an op, behaves like an op and has the exact same effect as an op would have, then it's an op.
PS: I'm a advertising copywriter when not doing hypnotherapy; this was beyond clickbait
Are you suggesting that my post on clickbait is itself clickbait?! Perish the thought!
But seriously, everyone can have an opinion about this being a psyop. My intentions weren't to suggest that there wasn't this possibility, but that there are other alternatives that could explain what's happening.
And if we were to consider a psyop, I may actually consider Watch the Water to be a more compelling argument since that just came out of nowhere and has evidence of a lack of correcting the record given the follow-up interview and the interview at the end of October.
I just generally have trouble when we have to start going into X-D chess territory to explain things.
But again, we could very well find out that all of this was an attempt to discredit skeptics, and quite frankly if that came to be I wouldn't be too surprised. I just wanted to provide my perspective on how these things can sometimes play out. People still clicked, people still watched, and if the end goal was to go viral then it certainly did that.
Yes, it went viral, straight into the arms of the ready-to-go debunkers, who debunked the heck out of it and already knew exactly what Youtube vid they stole the clot clip from, which 'DIED SUDDENLY' people were still alive, which ones died before the vaccine was released etc.
Gosh, I hope reading your stuff isn’t clickbait.
No, I'm just being sarcastic here.
But if its any consolation, I cite all of the articles I use in my posts so that people can check for themselves the veracity of the information I use. I also try to include excerpts and figures from said studies rather than just a hyperlink and vague sentence so that readers can be aware of where the information is coming from and where they can look for more.
My work is always done with the inherent nature of wanting readers to "trust, but verify" the information and I try to be as transparent as possible. Well, maybe not trust. I try to encourage readers to be skeptical of everything they read, but the more information and evidence presented the stronger my ideas are.
I know how frustrating it can be when reading a news article or a post somewhere and being unable to figure out where the hell the study came from or finding out that no citation was added so that the reader has to put in work in finding the actual article.
I'll say that it takes a lot more time to try to hyperlink, include figures, captions, and citations and I really don't need to do so, but I do it for the transparency to my readers.
So if I show a figure I say, "this is what the figure suggests", then present the figure or describe it in further detail so that I can say, "here's the information I'm referencing. Do you think my interpretation is wrong or inaccurate? Please let me know."
In all honesty, this is likely to bog down my writing and make it far longer and more boring to read, but I'd rather take that route if it is done with the intent of fleshing out my ideas.
I never want my readers to feel like they are being told what to think, but how to think and engage in critical thinking and parsing of information.
"Personally, I’ve gone the route of writing what I like given that the financial income doesn’t incentivize me (i.e. pressure me) into going fully down the COVID route4. I will also say it’s been better on my mental health to not have to keep writing about COVID."
And I like reading what _else_ you write about. I like reading about biochemistry -- I guess I must, having been reading about it for decades -- and I like the way you present things because it leaves me less inclined to want to pull my hair out trying to understand. My hair is thin enough already. Yes, that's a complement.