Podcast Spinning Hurts Ideologues and Search Engines

Requiring real names and ending anonymity online doesn’t make the internet safer or friendlier to tackle trolls, as it just changes into flaming

tynamite
I'll polish this up in August

If ever I said a pithy musing that was funny or profound, or sociopolitical soundbite, how often do you think, until someone else misconstrues or conflates what I meant?

I always wanted to refrain from talking about political or culture wars type issues online. All to protect my brand, as once people had it in their head that it’s what I primarily write about, it’ll then detract from anything else so they won’t even bother to look past that.

I never really wanted to express my political opinions online, not even the sociological opinions about controversial or hot button topics, such as gender or race. The only reason why I ever did so on forums, is because other people asked me for my opinion out of curiosity – otherwise I would have never said. I just

From Collective Understanding to Sharded Understanding

One thing I am noticing though nowadays, is that it’s more likely for people to have other people’s opinions tacked-on to theirs, just because theirs sounds similar or alike to someone else’s. Why do I have to have to be inadvertently associated with ideologues or famous figureheads, who are either are more extreme than me (and in my opinion coarsening and dismantling) or they have hijacked the ideology’s principles to be a shadow of its former self and the enemy it once fought against? Well for the second one, that is much like Germany’s post-holocaust hate speech laws newly being used to censor far beyond its remit.

Why is this? If it’s more likely for other people’s opinions to become tacked-on to someone else’s, merely for them expressing a similar or likewise opinion, in a way that wasn’t fathomable 15 years ago, then why is that happening increasingly so today? I would say that we have gone from a collective understanding to a sharded understanding.

Luckily for me, someone else said what I was going to say and came up with the terminology for it. In hindsight, the woman who wrote the above article didn’t intend to coin a terminology so if she’d of known that she’d be doing so to be still referenced years later, then she would have written the article differently and probably of named the terminology something else. I would rename content collapse to content debasement, so that it wouldn’t be confused with context collapse.

So the article above, talks about how collective understanding is moving towards sharded understanding. Despite the world’s knowledge being more centralised on Alexa Similarweb Top 100 websites, away from the murky depths of usenet, newgroups and the myriad of forums, people have started to increasingly become more confused as to what a specific entity means, whether an ideology, event, topic, method or anything else.

The other article talks about how people would previously compartmentalise different areas of their life online, to have different audiences, it has since changed so everyone broadcasts towards the same audience, with no separation between audiences with varying degrees of knowledge, experience or interest or any given topic.

The last article talks about how even though there is an arguably increase of the amount of content posted, to be distributed to a larger audience at the same time, the quality of the content has become reduced, and the range of the content has become narrowed, to meet the lowest common denominator, if content within topics is to be looked at by comparing the scope, range and focus.

Podcast Spinning Is The New Article Spinning

I’m sure you’ve read (or even heard), those article about how there’s a lot of new podcasts being created. I would say it’s a reaction to two things, first the “adpocalypse” where Youtube demonetised millions of channels for sociopolitical censorship reasons and even more so because the advancement of Artificial Intelligence being used for moderation, means that Youtube along with Facebook and virtually every other social network, video sharing and link aggregator, how they can automatically scan all their hosted content to then flag and remove infringing content.

I don’t really know anything about semantic search, linguistics or Natural Language Processing (not to be confused with Neuro-linguistic Programming) but from as far as my rudimentary understanding is, that they can detect….

  • Semantic search
  • Sentiment analysis
  • Topic recognition
  • Making inferences about the user from a list of criteria, under a Confidence Score percentage
  • And whatever else, I don’t know

My point is, they don’t just look at the presence of the word but also the context of how the word is used, when doing their automated AI moderation.

For example, we’re now able to detect 94% of all violative content on YouTube by automated flagging, with 75% removed before receiving even 10 views.

Source: Building greater transparency and accountability with the Violative View Rate

With all the talk of Trump being banned from Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Twitch and Youtube, amongst others, along with Google Search and Google Autocomplete being biased against Trump, I would say that there’s much more sex workers making podcasts to bypass the censorship, than there are trump supporters doing so.

Google can no longer tell the difference between a primary, secondary and tertiary source

Writers Should Know What “Article Spinning” Is

I have a feeling that I’m going to have to keep repeating the definition for it, over and over again, as the Brave Search search results aren’t very useful for this. Refer to the infobox below.

A/B testing is when a website gives 5 or 10% of their audience a test design for when they access the website, while the remaining audience, the majority, the 90% or 95% are given the normal web design.

The person doing the A/B testing will be analysing certain metrics, to see which one is more likely to deliver the desired result (a conversion).

In marketing and online advertising, if the user performs the desired result after clicking on an advert (eg. creating a user, purchase, signing up to newsletter), then that’s a conversion.

The metrics they could be monitoring is the bounce rate, page views, session length, time spent on each web page, returning visitors, etc.

If it’s found that the B design that 5 or 10% of their users got, is more successful at delivering higher conversions and better visitor metrics, then that’s the design they’ll be keeping.

Article spinning is type of plagiarism that is more subversive and inconspicuous, whilst being so different to what we deem as typically plagiarism, that it doesn’t really meet the definition of typical plagiarism.

Article spinning is commonly done by news companies, including news verticles (cars, technology, fashion), or industry insight news (music industry news, marketing news, retail news)

It is done when a news website (of some sort) is expected to be publishing new stories as content every day or few days, when there’s a slow news day, so they have to publish something that’s substantial, otherwise they’ll disappoint their visitors, repeat readers, advertisers, subscribers along with being shared along the grapevine, buzz, virality and the blogosphere, forums and social networks.

How article spinning works, is when a writer or journalist has absolutely no ideas for a new article, what they will do is browse “user generated content” websites where lots of people congregate, to then take little bits of pieces as ideas, more like fragments of 3-8 words or maybe later 8-15 words, to then have each fragment then develop into 1-3 sentences.

They keep all these sentence fragments and coupled sentences, stored in some list somewhere (whatever they use to store their notes) and once their list of fragments becomes numerous enough for there to be some sort of common theme or interesting triangulation to be made, they’ll then write an entire article based on that.

However the plagiarism part of the article spinning, comes from the fact that they’ve just combined tiny fragments of things from other articles, to give them the inspiration for their article, whilst proactively going out of their way to LOOK for such things prior to generating any ideas themselves in the first place.

Prime Example of article spinning: Every article on the Huffington Post website

Prime example of podcast spinning: Daily Wire

The GRIFT is real

  • one
  • two
  • three

short explanation here

 

Read this blog article for more details.

Article Spinning in the form of a podcast, hence Podcast Spinning

In case you haven’t read the infobox above, Huffington Post and The Daily Wire are both article spinning websites. However as the Google Panda algorithm was first implemented in 2012, Daily Wire can’t exactly do what Arianna Huffington did to get rich, as she was in the right place at the right time, before the exploit got patched. But as AI moderation finds it much harder to analyse spoken word audio-visual content, than it does with plain text from an article (most likely a blog), then to make money from article spinning, logically speaking, it would have to be best done, in the form of a podcast, hence podcast spinning.

I’ve been reading newspapers for over 15 years, so I’m not the target audience for HuffPo, Daily Wire or Andrew Tate. And besides! Andrew Tate’s content doesn’t seem original and new, it’s the same regurgitated stuff from the previous decade in the 2010s from all that red pill style Pick Up Artist stuff. Andrew Tate is a troll and rage profiteer who wants to be controversial, raise valid points in an abrasive way and to be an influencer or famous, just like Milo Yiannopoulos.

So exactly how does it harm writers and search engines?

It harms search engines because if a person listens to a podcast and is then inspired or discerning enough to write a blog article based on the information or paraphrased events, soundbites and statistics that predictably wouldn’t of been properly sourced (plagiarism, remember?), then when any such article does appear, due to the difficulty of analysing spoken word content using AI Moderation, compounded with a lack of sources, attribution or direct quotes – then Google and other search engines are then tricked into thinking that what should be legitimately classed as a secondary or tertiary source, is then unknowingly classed as a primary source, to then reach Page 1 for a search query (especially long-tail queries), without merit, to the detriment of more deserving and better sourced blog articles.

An example of the repercussions this can cause, is if you want to search for something political and in the absence of Youtube putting the most advertiser friendly and viral-prone content at the top of the search results, imagine if in Google Search, that the results on Page 1 were more like Russell Howard and Keemstar Drama Alert, whilst all the Jeremy Paxman type videos were relegated to Page 5 into obscurity.

Podcast Spinning Killed Drip-Feeding

Tynamite expresses an opinion: I think…..
Someone on discord: That sounds like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro
Tynamite expresses an opinion: I think…..
Someone on discord: That sounds like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro

I’ve read multiple accusations on blogs and forums that Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro commits plagiarism. As far as I’m concerned, article spinning and plagiarism goes hand in hand. They’re two sides of the same coin. You can’t have one without the other. Based on what I know about Huffington Post, I haven’t really read the plagiarism accusations much but it’s probably true.

If I was to drip-feed my articles, the more ideological ones I’m working on right now, or just save-to-print, then if those people start plagiarising it, which they probably will, as I’ve also seen lowly tumblr blogs (that are influential enough in the cultural zeitgeist to end up on Urban Dictionary) accuse them of plagiarism, then that will be highly damaging to my reputation.

To elaborate, if someone writes a “response article” to quote me in it, as the person writing the response article, will be have their opinions misplacingly tacked-on top of mine, then it’ll just be HIGHLY damaging for my reputation.

The end result being, if I was stupid enough to do what I’m saying I’m not going to do, which would be publishing sociopolitical blog articles about controversial or hot button topics, by by drip-feeding them, then I can get banned from paypal or any other payment processor, or some domain registrar or web hosting company, not because of my opinions per se or my intended meaning but instead from being misconstrued by having DW staff opinions tacked-on top of mine (by the reader or any response articles), whether malevolently or not.

So about why it took me around 4-5 months to plan these 43 blog articles, I know the planning stage can take a long time, if you’re increasing the level, ahem, altitude of how you are articulating things and advancing your argument. But also the fact that in our world of increasing sharded understanding from collective understanding, for a multitude of reasons, well with the podcast spinning coming from figureheads of an ideology (or criticism of an opposing ideology) who end up famous with column inches in the media, then why would I be drip-feeding even then? Outside of writing, there’s reading and Google Search has declined in quality for this reason, amongst others, well the thin content before that. So where do we go from here? I don’t know. There’s too much money to be made on Patreon, Ko-fi and Subscribestar, even if those figureheads are doing sensationalism, fabricated drama and taking people out of context.

Cancel Culture and Intentional Strawmen Arguments, Also Killed Drip-Feeding

It’s not enough to be original, valid and persuasive but you also must prevent misrepresentations from proliferating

Security by obscurity is exacerbating the problem of character assassinations

Conclusion

There is both a financial and ideological motive

Most of these podcasts are not truly live or a rolling take or spontaneous, instead they’re SEMI-SCRIPTED. Look at it this way.


Most celebrities are boring. They only appear interesting because their manager or PR company or some psychologist, has been teaching them how to appear more interesting in front of the camera, when really they’ve had media coaching and personality coaching and are actually boring if you met them in real life to spend 2 weeks with them.

Most of those women who appear on these types of podcasts (ie. Whatever, Fresh and Fit), they work with the producers BEFORE the recording starts, to be given cue cards about what types of topics will be discussed, from what events and what types of questions, so they can be prepared. This goes WAY beyond a typical journalist or tv presenter who researches their guest before an interview, these vacuous airheads get the complete structure, topics, themes and questions in advance.

Nothing about it is spontaneous or a rolling take. It’s semi-scripted and premeditated. The guests (mostly women) are acting who prepared their responses before filming.

So why do they go on the show? The livestream typically has 100,000 concurrent viewers
The guests who go on the show tend to get 5000 extra monthly crowdfunding subscribers after appearing on the podcast show merely ONCE (ie. Onlyfans, Patreon, Ko-fi, Subscribestar, Twitch Prime)

$5 x 5000
$10 x 5000

Now you can see why EVERYONE wants to appear on that podcast, no matter if you like the hosts or not, like their genre or style or not, or agree with them or not. People just get scammed thinking it’s spontaneous and a rolling take, when they’re acting for a semi-scripted pre-mediated thing where they liaised with the producers with cue cards, beforehand.

It’s a great moneyspinner! FREE MONEY

Reactionary youtubers do it too

I actually agree with feminist youtuber Marina Shutup here! The reactionaries soon realised that controversy creates cash so if they can take someone out of context and use the ad absurdium logical fallacy on them, then if by being a rage profiteer with their ragebait, that it gives them more money from the virality of the drama obsessed audience, then they can and will do that. I just don’t want to be associated with such people.

RE: Anti-Feminist Response Videos

I don’t have to be a feminist or agree with most of Marina Wanatabe’s opinions, to know that although Sargon’s grift was good for him in the short term, that it would irreversibly backfire in the long term, as by doing ragebait stunts like that (as a rage profiteer), it just detracts people away from your overall message and everything else you have to say, once the novelty factor, mystery factor and shock factor has eventually worn off.

If you think I’ll be drip-feeding over 10,000 words of sociopolitical articles of controversial, hot-button or culture war issues, then you’re either naive or crazy! After the series of Your Label My Stance, that’s my discussion of that sort of stuff done. They’ll be no Part 2/3/4/5. This isn’t a political commentary, weekly roundup or reactionary blog. Don’t be crazy, like me, or shall that be unlike me?

Further Reading

How SunnyV2 Ruined Video Essays
Every Commentary Channel Video

Related Posts