Bluey's Dad
-
Posts
2,821 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Bluey's Dad
-
-
5 minutes ago, faultydet said:
Are we name calling now chokeson?
My post was completely correct. It is well known that all of the Social Media magnates are left wing socialists, and that is a fact you cant change regardless of the left wing newspapers that you quote.
I was commenting on the post I quoted, as to the question of why Facebook and Twitter are treated differently, not on who reads what on each platform.
As usual, it is so easy to flush the lefties out.
I don't think I called anyone anything?
I said your post was incorrect and provided evidence to support my assertion.
Other posters can decide which of our positions they find more persuasive.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Demonland said:
Are you implying that I could make such a rookie error?
Just to be clear; the error was not mine.
I was implying the opposite - that I am disappointed that a major Australian newspaper would make such an error.
-
2
-
-
18 minutes ago, Demonland said:
But the bearded Demon acknowledged the danger when competing against the biggest bodies of the competition.
“Obviously someone my size needs a lot of power. You can’t be my size and just get pushed over because you’re strength then becomes a weakness,” Gawn told the Herald Sun.
“I still need to be as strong as possible and sometimes a little bit of extra weight can help that, so that could be one sort of problem.”
Please tell me that elementary school grammatical error isn't copied directly from the Herald Sun.
His quote brings to mind our JLT match against North when Petracca gave a little nudge to Majak Daw, who's much much larger, to take an easy mark and goal. My brother's a North supporter and I was watching with him. Good times.
-
7
-
-
1 hour ago, DaveyDee said:
I agree & in today’s world anybody who hits that save button and publishes content online in the public domain is a journalist- why I found it interesting they made a clear point and mentioned social media.
Facebook, Twitter hold content and data on there own servers and in their own data centre - but that is not the case for all sites.
99% of the population don’t understand the internet - descriptive metadata, keywords, web bots meaning nothing to them.
Not necessarily.
The post themselves yes are often held on servers owned/leased by the social media company.
However an external link posted to their site takes the user to that external site.
To what extent a social media company should be responsible for a user posting a link to an external site which contains false information is a significant question society and the law need to answer.
Would love for any lawyers out there to weigh in on this.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, faultydet said:
Facebook and Twitter are outrageously biased towards left wing ideologies, and program their sites to filter in that direction. They have been allowed to continue unchecked by the authorities because they assisted the left wing globalist agenda
Trumps people are already talking about an internet "Bill of Rights" because of the actions of almost all of the social media platforms.
Not before time.
Hilarious because according to Oxford, it is the exact opposite:
“On Twitter, a network of Trump supporters consumes the largest volume of junk news, and junk news is the largest proportion of news links they share,” the researchers concluded. On Facebook, the skew was even greater. There, “extreme hard right pages – distinct from Republican pages – share more junk news than all the other audiences put together.”
Left wing media outlets are certainly guilty of the same sort of sensationalised click-baity partisan journalism that the right wing outlets are. However as indicated by the Oxford study, fake news is shared on social media by the right more than the left.
There are two separate issues here
The first is reputable media outlets sensationalising and intentionally mislabelling headlines in order to drive web traffic and ad revenue. They report quickly to compete to get that traffic and often the truth gets put second. This is a huge issue, and as has been posted previously if someone like an AFL player can stand up to misrepresented facts and maybe change this trend then all the better. This sensationalism of stories is something found across the spectrum of media organisations (left, right, and those who claim to be unbiased).
This sort of journalism has been called 'fake news', but it isn't. It's simply a lower quality of news that we are used to and as a society deserve. It can contain factual inaccuracies but at its heart is not meant to be fake. It is fake by virtue of lower journalistic standards and the speed at which it moves.
The second is the intentional construction of patently false stories, deliberately written and created to spread misinformation. They're written by trolls in impoverished nations who are paid simply to create something that will be shareable on social media or achieve a political aim. This is true 'fake news'. Deliberate deception masquerading as journalism. This is also a huge problem, and this is the sort of news that is overwhelmingly shared by the right on social media, as indicated by the Oxford study.
The two issues were conflated after Trump's election. The term 'fake news' started to trend, so Trump appropriated the label (which formerly applied only to the second form) to include the first. Now we think of both of these types of news as 'fake'. It's a sneaky trick of language, because including them both under the one umbrella conflates the issue. It puts CNN and MSNBC (who sensationalise and obfuscate) on par with a Romanian troll farm which outright deceives. They are clearly different, although the actions of both are deeply troubling.
I'm aware the general board may be bleeding into this post. If the mods see fit to delete my post I understand. I just wanted to add a little clarity to the debate here, given the AFL players are concerned with misrepresentations in the media. Also faultydet's post was patently untrue and so I felt it needed to be corrected.
Edit: corrected typo "faultydiet" to "faultydet". My apologies.
-
3
-
-
3 minutes ago, DaveyDee said:
Interestingly, this has massive implications for all publishers of content both on or offline.
Wonder when or how long its going to take for the AFLPA ( on the behalf of some players) to sue Bigfooty? or
An Ex-official suing Bomberblitz for slander with comments regarding their conduct regarding recent issues at their club?
Yep it's huge.
I assume forums like BF and Demonland have different publishing rules that apply to them given the content is posted by a community. Again, not a lawyer, but it will be interesting to see how it all develops.
Also don't know how it applies to FB and Twitter. They also aren't really responsible for constructing content, but they are responsible for its distribution.
-
40 minutes ago, Jaded said:
Been looking for a new profile pic. Thanks!
(•_•)
Doesn't seem very
( •_•)>⌐■-■
JADED of you
(⌐■_■) -
1 hour ago, KingDingAling said:
Players shouldn't even pay attention to the media. There will always be fake news - especially in Australia where journalists appear to be able to write whatever they want (as Dustin Martin well knows). Good players focus on the game instead of the headlines. If they want to do something productive about fake news (if it offends them so much), then sue the papers. Outside of that they are wasting their time and need a reality check. Stop sooking and play football.
Interestingly, this is starting in the US.
Fox News is being sued for publishing a story they knew to be false:
"But the premise of the article soon fell apart after the primary source, who is also suing Fox News, said he was falsely quoted. After leaving the article online for several days, Fox News issued a retraction, but no apology for the story"
It's happening, but I guess change is slow.
So yeah, maybe footy journalists will calm down on the false statements if they start getting sued by players. You'd need to prove reputational damage though, which I assume would be difficult to do (I'm no lawyer).
-
It's clearly an issue with journalism in general.
Stories are pushed to one extreme or the other, to elicit the maximum amount of outrage or partisan support. Stories are headlined to generate web traffic, not to reflect the contents of the story or the actual issue in order to get clicks for ads.
News and journalism have been chasing their tail since the internet became a thing. They missed the boat and are now trying to stuff an outdated business model onto a computer screen. But for that model to work, they need ads and a huge volume of traffic. So they sensationalise to an extent we haven't seen before to get the traffic and the ad revenue that comes with it.
If the AFL players can counter or affect this to even a small extent then that's a win. But I feel like it's an uphill battle we're all fighting. Anything that forces journalists to get all (or at least more of) the facts is a win.
Right now, being first with a story is the priority for this type of journalism. It doesn't matter if the facts are wrong. It matters that you get the story first and the web traffic that goes with it. Maybe if they're called on their factual inaccuracies often enough, they'll start to prioritise accuracy over speed. I am doubtful this will happen though.
-
6
-
-
2 minutes ago, Demonland said:
Like getting a foot in the Friday night TV market we're going to have to put runs on the board for people to take us seriously and that includes fans.
Speaking from experience it's hard to get young ones on board to go to the footy when you've had a decade like we've had. I still buy my little ones a membership because I can afford it but I'm sure that there are many who can't or won't buy a membership for a kid that won't go to the footy.
Hopefully some sustained success will rebuild the membership but the results have to happen first.
My kids got scared of the Max Gawn height chart that came last year, which has now been banished to the wardrobe.
This club has challenges everywhere. A decade of mediocrity and now our most marketable player is Lurch.
-
1
-
2
-
-
22 hours ago, small but forward said:
Yeah - if my son had to write a book about our time at the footy, it would probably be called “Oh, that’s bull$h!t!!”
lol yep.
I heard my son ask my wife last year, "why is daddy so loud when he's watching the footy?"
It's tough trying to turn all the [censored] and [censored] into sugars and frigs. Little ears hear everything.
-
2
-
-
26 minutes ago, wisedog said:
I look at Obama and I think, what the f did you actually do? It's like your presidency was just a massive American PR exercise.
Respectfully, Obama did plenty.
In particular, the Affordable Care Act was monumental. Worth noting that Americans overwhelmingly support the ACA, but don't like Obamacare. Apparently education is so bad in the states that they don't know it's the same thing. Just the Obama label is enough to turn people against something they like.
I understand the attraction of someone like Trump, especially given his position as an 'outsider' who can take on the elites. The issue for me is that this I think this is deceptive. He's a political outsider, but he's also a billionaire who's just as conflicted (if not more so) than the Democrats he sought to replace. He's an 'elite' too. Sure, he's a bomb that the electorate threw at a political system that wasn't working and I get how that feel satisfying - but TBH I don't think a bomb was the best solution.
He gets away with so much more than a Democrat President could. I'd ask all Trump supporters, in all honesty, to think about what their reaction would be if:
- Obama appointed his son-in-law to a senior WH advisory role and had him read the President's daily intelligence briefing (because they're too long), only for his temporary clearance to be revokes.
- Obama said the government should take people's guns away without due process.
- Obama refused to impose sanctions on a foreign power despite congress passing laws to do so with a veto-proof majority.
- Obama played golf every weekend, despite specifically saying he wouldn't have time.
- Obama charged the government millions of dollars to stay at his own resort.
- Obama failed to even nominate enough candidates for open white house and cabinet positions, and most of those he did appoint he either fired or left.
- Obama appointed a woman who destroyed evidence of torture to be head of the CIA (Trump did this this morning).
- Obama said he'd fix healthcare and when he couldn't said "who knew healthcare was so complicated?"
- Obama's lawyer paid off a porn star to keep quiet about an affair he had while his wife was pregnant with his son.
That's just off the top of my head. I purposefully have left out the 'Russia stuff' as he calls it, because it's so complex I don't have time to discuss it.
I'd really love for Trump supporters to look at that list and really truly consider what their reaction to those actions would be if it was Obama and not Trump. Especially the guns one. If Obama said what Trump said, there would be talks of revolution from the South.
Just because jobs are up doesn't make all of this ok.
As a side note - I am also male and white. I'm not sure why you feel ashamed of it? I don't. I don't feel like I censor myself. I don't feel like I have to modify my behaviour. I don't feel that pressure that my father says he feels to constantly monitor what I say or do. I imagine that would be very uncomfortable and sometimes wonder what thoughts he is having that he cannot voice for fear he will be called racist. If that was the case then I can certainly see the appeal of Trump. But without being able to identify with him or his politics, I look at him with a colder eye and find him sorely wanting both as a human being and as a President.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Ethan Tremblay said:
Until religious organisations start paying tax I have no issue with the AFL not paying any.
Both should pay, IMHO.
-
3 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:
If you're interested, this is the test in layman's term from the ATO site and just to blow your mind the definition of a charity relies substantially upon a law passed in Elizabethan times (that's Queen Liz the First back in the 1600's) :
Your sporting organisation will be exempt from income tax, and can self-assess its exemption, if it is not a charity and meets all of the following requirements:
- it is a not-for-profit society, association or club
-
it is established for the purpose of encouragement of either of the following
- a game or sport
- animal racing
-
it meets one of the three following tests
- physical presence in Australia test
- DGR test
- prescribed by law test
- it complies with all the substantive requirements in its governing rules. This means that your organisation must operate only in a manner consistent with its rules of core importance to its operation, including those related to its object and purpose and those relating to its NFP status.
- it applies its income and assets solely for the purpose for which it is established.
lol.
Seems like anyone could just create a non-profit sporting organisation and simply pay themselves a massive salary to run it.
Surely not Gil though. He probably works for the love of the game.
Thanks for the post, very informative.
-
Just now, Sir Why You Little said:
Seriously.
They are classed as a “not for profit” organization
and i am deadly serious!!
I am flabbergasted.
The AFL is as business-like as they come.
So that $400m broadcast deal is just tax-free income?
I think my head just exploded.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 05/03/2018 at 4:28 PM, Sir Why You Little said:
The bottom line here is purely this. We are a club that is in a city of 5 million people, we have at this point 40,000 members and we must share the city with 8 other clubs, so revenue is tight
A hell of a lot of Australians gamble on anything, not me, but i am in the minority. So if we get rid of our machines, the revenue is lost to someone else, the gambling won’t stop.
Replacing $10-12 Million per year would be nigh impossible, let’s be honest.
Poker Machines are legal to use.
Same as online Betting last time i looked.
Just remember the AFL doesn’t pay tax, but you can be sure the clubs do
Wait the AFL doesn't pay tax? Seriously?
How does that work, are they classified as a religion or something?
-
2 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:
Can we call it ‘The Zac Dawson thread’
-
7 minutes ago, Choke said:
Anyone have the time or ability to put together a worst ever team with every player over 100 games?
I'm sure there'd be enough crap players to make 100 games to make a full team.
Just curious (and also I think it'd be a laugh).
Just a quick look from our own list over the years, we had Sylvia, Godfrey, Bate & Grimes who played over 100 games.
I'm sure there are a few more 100 game gems on other club lists over the years as well.
Whitecross and Scheonmakers from Hawthorn spring to mind.
Edit:
not sure why I quoted myself instead of just editing my post. Brain work good today.-
1
-
-
Anyone have the time or ability to put together a worst ever team with every player over 100 games?
I'm sure there'd be enough crap players to make 100 games to make a full team.
Just curious (and also I think it'd be a laugh).
-
25 minutes ago, Devil is in the Detail said:
Get Viney to rip his arm off.
Like this?
-
2
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Nasher said:
Yes, no and no.
As the research continues to come in on the effects of concussion, the AFL will want to be seen to doing something. The something it does might not initially be the right something, but it can't be seen to be doing nothing, and won't reverse the changes it makes even once shown to be ineffective.
Expect Gus will always wear the helmet. The psychological benefit for him will become entrenched and he will see no benefit in attempting to wean off it (and nor do I).
But they'll have to balance that with all the players looking silly and therefore reducing the marketability of their product.
And then they'll probably start selling the helmets as advertising space to offset those concerns.
Then we can all recognise our favourite players not by their number or face but by their highly visible (and lucrative) helmet sponsor.
Then the commentators will start making up ludicrous player nick-names based on those sponsors.
"Subway kicks to BMW, but his kick is cut off by Dominos! He should have put a bit more sauce on that kick eh?"
We'll never get rid of BT. He'll be hailed as a comedic genius.
I'll see myself out.
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Ron Burgundy said:
I worked in a very large international law firm in London in 2004 and 2005. The hours were immense. Yet ...
For the whole of 2004, I had my parents record every game throughout the season, air courier the VHS cassette to me at a cost of 70 bucks a game, and I’d then pick up the VHS cassette from the mail room every Thursday evening (in respect of the game recorded the weekend just gone), go home, and start watching the game ‘live’ at about 10.00pm each Thursday night. Relevantly, I filtered my email messages during the week so I didn’t ever know the result prior to watching the game.
We had a good year that year. It was worth it.
Cost me a fair bit of dough though.
Pretty sure they had the internet in 2004.
But I suppose I would have struggled to explain to my parents how to rip a DVDR and upload it too. Might have been worth the $70 per game in shipping just to avoid having to walk them through it.
Actually now that I think about it, I KNOW they would have stuffed it up.
Snail mail probably the only legit option then.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, nutbean said:
I have to see the comedy as there is little I can do, not only about who they elect, but also about their whole decaying system of government and the poor choices they have as leaders to select from ( not that ours are any better)
Here ya go nut, some genuine comedy for ya:
The White House chief calligrapher has a higher clearance than Jared Kushner
I lol'd.
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, small but forward said:
Talking about "doing a Richmond" - this article penned on the Roar last week is definitely worth a read.
http://www.theroar.com.au/2018/02/20/one-opposition-team-can-dream-copying-richmond/
I like the cut of his jib. I especially liked his commentary on Tom Bugg.
From the article:
Key defender? Small defender? Rebounding defender? Inside midfielder? Outside midfielder? Ruckman? Key forward? Small forward? There isn’t an area on the ground where the Demons don’t have a player that is either already elite, or has the talent to get there.
That right there is amazing to read.
-
1
-
Fake News in Footy
in Melbourne Demons
Posted · Edited by Choke
yep it was a typo, I'll go fix it.
This is what I was responding to, by linking to an article referencing a study showing fake news being spread more by right-wing users than left. Given that this is a thread about fake news, I thought it was relevant to the discussion.
Edit: more typos. On fire today.