Red Mosquito

McParadigm wrote: to all the folks who didn’t read the first paragraph of the article before commenting

So we built a series of war games

simple schoolboy wrote:Were any of the underlying assumptions and rules for their wargames reasonable?

McParadigm wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:Were any of the underlying assumptions and rules for their wargames reasonable?

Even if they were, there’s no realistic way to model the next two months because the next two months are going to be so far outside the bounds of anything that happened before this year.

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:Were any of the underlying assumptions and rules for their wargames reasonable?

Even if they were, there’s no realistic way to model the next two months because the next two months are going to be so far outside the bounds of anything that happened before this year.

This is nearly always true.

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:Were any of the underlying assumptions and rules for their wargames reasonable?

Even if they were, there’s no realistic way to model the next two months because the next two months are going to be so far outside the bounds of anything that happened before this year.

This is nearly always true.

lol ok

Mickey wrote:I mean to be fair we did do this in 2000, basically.

Mickey wrote:I meant the long delay between election day and results, obviously the particulars here are quite different.

96583UP wrote:maybe what they meant in that quote was - they should treat it like disinformation because even if it is true, it's not worth reporting on given the life and death problems voters are facing right now so just refer it to US Weekly where it belongs

There’s something amusing — even a bit flattering — in such earnest protestations from a right-wing movement rooted in efforts to discredit the independent media. And this reassertion of control over information is what you’ve seen many journalists call for in recent years. At its best, it can also close the political landscape to a trendy new form of dirty tricks, as in France in 2017, where the media largely ignored a last-minute dump of hacked emails from President Emmanuel Macron’s campaign just before a legally mandated blackout period.

But I admit that I feel deep ambivalence about this revenge of the gatekeepers. I spent my career, before arriving at The Times in March, on the other side of the gate, lobbing information past it to a very online audience who I presumed had already seen the leak or the rumor, and seeing my job as helping to guide that audience through the thicket, not to close their eyes to it. “The media’s new and unfamiliar job is to provide a framework for understanding the wild, unvetted, and incredibly intoxicating information that its audience will inevitably see — not to ignore it,” my colleague John Herrman (also now at The Times) and I wrote in 2013. In 2017, I made the decision to publish the unverified “Steele dossier,” in part on the grounds that gatekeepers were looking at it and influenced by it, but keeping it from their audience.

This fall, top media and tech executives were bracing to refight the last war — a foreign-backed hack-and-leak operation like WikiLeaks seeking to influence the election’s outcome. It was that hyper-vigilance that led Twitter to block links to The New York Post’s article about Hunter Biden — a frighteningly disproportionate response to a story that other news organizations were handling with care. The schemes of Mr. Herschmann, Mr. Passantino and Mr. Schwartz weren’t exactly WikiLeaks. But the special nervousness that many outlets, including this one, feel about the provenance of the Hunter Biden emails is, in many ways, the legacy of the WikiLeaks experience.

I’d prefer to put my faith in Mr. Murray and careful, professional journalists like him than in the social platforms’ product managers and executives. And I hope Americans relieved that the gatekeepers are reasserting themselves will also pay attention to who gets that power, and how centralized it is, and root for new voices to correct and challenge them.