|
Kalit posted:Maybe we should have a separate thread for rape/sexual assault in politics related? As far as the USPOL thread, a lot of the time its brought up, it's in non-good faith reasons IMO. It's posters who just want any excuse to bring it up so they can play the gotcha It's relevant to USPOL, it should be in USPOL Relegating it to another thread is, again, far too similar to how sexual assaults are handled badly in other organizations/settings. "This causes too much drama and it's just here to try and undermine [important person who is accused]. But we care, so you can have a safe place to talk about it while we ignore you"
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 20:28
|
|
card instead of engaging in what a poster is actually saying.
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 16:30 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:It's relevant to USPOL, it should be in USPOL Last time I checked, lots of political related things are relegated to their own threads in D&D. USPol is focused on current US news. There's been no new developments about Biden being a rapist or Tara Reade for quite a while. It does nothing but causes multiple page derails of poo poo that's been said a million times before. Kalit fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Feb 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 20:32
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Last time I checked, lots of political related things are relegated to their own threads in D&D. USPol is focused on current US news. There's been no new developments about Biden being a rapist or Tara Reade for quite a while. It does nothing but causes multiple page derails of poo poo that's been said a million times before. Stop trying to act like you're fighting for a noble cause. Saying "sexual assault allegations deserve to be talked about" isn't some performative nobility white knight poo poo. It's pretty basic. I've seen SA talked about in a lot of orgs and it mostly goes exactly like this. People who want to deny it stir up a huge amount of poo poo and then someone can say "welp it causes drama, we should stop talking about it".
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 20:38
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Saying "sexual assault allegations deserve to be talked about" isn't some performative nobility white knight poo poo. It's pretty basic. Please show me where the rule or mod-given order of "no posting about sexual assault in current US political news in the USPol thread" exists? I'll even do you a solid and show you where the "post in good faith" rule exists, which was broken when Reade was brought up today as an excuse to try to justify RT when its commonly known she had given interviews to other news sources: fool of sound posted:In order to facilitate this, the following additional rules are in effect: Kalit fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Feb 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 20:55
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:It's relevant to USPOL, it should be in USPOL If you missed the last feedback thread, we're trying to break subjects that draw large amounts of ongoing discussion out of USPol, so that the thread can move on to new news, while the subject that got broken out gets the full focus it deserves without being mixed in with a bunch of other random crap.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 21:00
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Please show me where the rule or mod-given order of "no posting about sexual assault in current US political news in the USPol thread" exists? I'll even do you a solid and show you where the "post in good faith" rule exists, which was broken when Reade was brought up today to try to justify RT when its commonly known she had given interviews to other news sources: Here's where the mods said no Tara Reade chat. It didn't say "by all means post about Tara Reade from good sources" GreyjoyBastard posted:hello we are not doing tara reade chat here Handsome Ralph posted:Gonna go ahead and repeat what GJB said last night -- Main Paineframe posted:If you missed the last feedback thread, we're trying to break subjects that draw large amounts of ongoing discussion out of USPol, so that the thread can move on to new news, while the subject that got broken out gets the full focus it deserves without being mixed in with a bunch of other random crap. I both don't agree with that, and specifically don't agree with that with regards to sexual assault discussion. I don't think I need to explain, again, why this is especially problematic with regards to sexual assault discussion? It's not like primary chat, which is almost entirley irrelevant after the election. Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Feb 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 21:01
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:I might suggest you try and apply the media criticism questions (just a couple posts back) to Reade's editorial in RT since this is after all a thread about discussing sources. Yeah, pretty much. There's a reason RT published Reade's column, and it directly pertains to what this thread is about. As someone stated earlier, it perfectly fits Russia's propaganda model of using state-backed sources to give voice to and/or amplify anti-American dissent, when credible and higher caliber sources won't touch it with a ten foot pole. It's also a wonderful example of why such sources virtually always lead to pages upon pages of inflammatory and acrimounous posting: because infiltrating domestic conversations like that is their goal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 21:21
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I both don't agree with that, and specifically don't agree with that with regards to sexual assault discussion. I don't think I need to explain, again, why this is especially problematic with regards to sexual assault discussion? If you're accusing someone on Something Awful of being a sexual assaulter, that's something you should raise to Jeffrey. If you're not, then I hope you can understand the differences between an internet forum discussing news articles and an organization covering up internal accusations of sexual assault against its own members.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 21:42
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Yeah, pretty much. There's a reason RT published Reade's column, and it directly pertains to what this thread is about. As someone stated earlier, it perfectly fits Russia's propaganda model of using state-backed sources to give voice to and/or amplify anti-American dissent, when credible and higher caliber sources won't touch it with a ten foot pole. It's also a wonderful example of why such sources virtually always lead to pages upon pages of inflammatory and acrimounous posting: because infiltrating domestic conversations like that is their goal. Just the simpstic Knee-jerk of "source bad" lead people to defend an Islamophobic Russian nationalist who only opposed an annexation and supports others while condoning race riots. If you don't think that's necessarily counts as being an "Far right insurrectionist" fine that there was more to it than russia fake news. Sure one of my sources was indeed the hill but i just looked at what they sourced and confirmed for myself what he said. Didn't even bother to read the hill. Straightforward source dismissal is ultimately a lazy static and is against the ethos of effort posting and talking to others. It's true that RT is exploitative propaganda but I feel that makes it more important to suss out to do the research on whether it's completely making something up, twisting an half truth, or exploiting an legitimate issue. Telling people the well they're just brainwashed and not actually enaged with the inaacturares like what a source dismissal does isn't good faith By all means if how they use poo poo sources or misread sources show them to be an rear end punish them and if the actual actual has no evidence or other articles refute then it does make sense just go source bad but for it to be the automatic response to the problem isn't in line with the board's ethos and at best their defense is "They don't deserve to be treated better." Rockit fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Feb 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 21:54
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If you're accusing someone on Something Awful of being a sexual assaulter, that's something you should raise to Jeffrey. It's not an accusation of sexual assult, and you know that. But trying to say "well discussing this in an internet forum is different" because it's not, not in the way it's being handled. It's very common in organizations to stop talking about sexual assault allegations against an important person by blaming "drama" even when it's not about a member. You see this in fandoms all the time, with regards to the celebrities they're fans of. It doesn't have to be an organized cover-up. What it is, is deciding that something that's vastly applicable and common(sexual assault by a man in a powerful position) and is simply too controvertial for discussion. In a thread where every time Glenn Greenwald gets linked we have a 3 page derail. It's enforcing patriarchy and rape culture, even if you're not consciously moderating by saying "yes I support patriarchy and rape culture". In practice, you're making sexual assault allegations not a safe thing to discuss because you're valuing the comfort of some posters over the discussion of tough and stressful things. What sexual assaults are OK to talk about in politics? Some? None? Is sexual assault discourse banned from the thread or just this specific one, and if so why?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 21:54
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If you're accusing someone on Something Awful of being a sexual assaulter, that's something you should raise to Jeffrey.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 22:01
|
|
|
Rockit posted:I understand the difference but you can't just deny the silencing effect talking about sexual assault allegations have on people who think their own abuse and/or the average abuse claim is just as credible as Tara's. Sure there's probablites some actual diffrernces between them(Even if i think those differences don't matter the way the mainstream would think they do) but they don't know that and getting people to shut up wouldn't just make them get over it like you're planning. If you want to talk about it, start a thread and go hog wild.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 22:03
|
|
|
Rockit posted:Just the simpstic Knee-jerk of "source bad" lead people to defend an Islamophobic Russian nationalist who only opposed an annexation and supports other while condoning race riots. If you don't think that's necessarily counts as being an "Far right insurrectionist" fine that there was more to it than russia fake news. Sure one of my sources was indeed the hill but i just looked at what they sourced and confirmed for myself what he said. Didn't even bother to read the hill. TBF, this goes way beyond simple source dismissal. The OP that started all of this posted tweets without looking anything up about them. Without providing any context. In which the tweets were a mess of screenshotted tweets/article headings/etc mashed together. The issue at hand is because it is common in USPol to see people who are a) posting information without verifying it, and b) posting context-less jargon without providing their own views/explanations because it fits their narrative. In my initial response, yes, I did question the source of it being from an RT reporter. I stated my initial skepticism of this. However, I also looked up one of the claims that he made and showed how he was trying to paint a false picture. For reference, here's my response: Kalit posted:A journalist who works for (or used to recently work for) RT America doesn't like Matt Duss?? I'm shocked Kalit fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Feb 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 22:04
|
|
How about you post some context in addition to these "hot takes" next time.
|
Deteriorata posted:If you want to talk about it, start a thread and go hog wild. Not that i'd prefer talking about this rather than actually trying to kill the knee-jerk "Source bad" instinct. If you don't want me to talk about this with you I made an post that i put a lot more effort on above that i really like to hear an response to. Rockit fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Feb 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 22:06
|
|
|
""I think that moving discussions of sexual assault, against one specific person, to a specific separate thread has a silencing effect for reasons previously stated"Deteriorata posted:If you want to talk about it, start a thread and go hog wild. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 22:13
|
|
|
Kalit posted:TBF, this goes way beyond simple source dismissal. The OP that started all of this posted tweets without looking anything up about them. Without providing any context. In which the tweets were a mess of screenshotted tweets/article headings/etc mashed together. Rockit fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Feb 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 22:17
|
|
|
Rockit posted:An effort post isn't just only rebutting one point and going "source bad" on the rest. It's possible for Duss to be reasonable on Afghanistan while unreasonable on syria(This is just an hypothetical..i assume otherwise but will do my own research on that) and when you're comparing your candidate to someone who condoned race riots you kind of are showing your own rear end. Not condoning that behavior as the tweets claim i assume but does show ignorance that isn't appropriate for someone trying to do FP. I'm not claiming my post was an effort post. I'm claiming that the OP was posting terribly and didn't even bother to look up what they were posting to ensure that the tweets were accurate (since at least the one I pointed out was wildly inaccurate/purposefully taken out of context). While also making a snide remark about the source of the tweets. Kalit fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Feb 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 22:24
|
|
|
Rockit posted:Just the simpstic Knee-jerk of "source bad" lead people to defend an Islamophobic Russian nationalist who only opposed an annexation and supports others while condoning race riots. If you don't think that's necessarily counts as being an "Far right insurrectionist" fine that there was more to it than russia fake news. Sure one of my sources was indeed the hill but i just looked at what they sourced and confirmed for myself what he said. Didn't even bother to read the hill. If something that is published or reported by a bad source is both correct and credible, there will virtually always be a better source reporting on it because it has passed the threshold for verifiability. That better source should be used instead, especially if the bad source is a well-known propaganda outlet and/or has been shown to frequently misrepresent the information for click-bating purposes. The exception to this is news that the bad source happens to break, which will be rare, and in such cases, again, it is better to wait until a better source reports on it. I'm okay with not blacklisting sources, but IMO there should be a more stringent requirement for the poster to answer axeil's questions if they insist on using a bad source: quote:Who created this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 22:26
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:And you're telling SA victims how much they matter when you're banning discussion when it's about certain people. Yep. We're here, we're reading, and whether or not it's the message you mean to be sending us, it's one we're receiving, loud and clear. I sincerely doubt that I'm the only lurker now contemplating yet another hiatus from D&D because of these rulings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 22:36
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I'm not claiming my post was an effort post. I'm claiming that the OP was posting terribly and didn't even bother to look up what they were posting to ensure that the tweets were accurate. While also making a snide remark about the source of the tweets. Thorn Wishes Talon posted:If something that is published or reported by a bad source is both correct and credible, there will virtually always be a better source reporting on it because it has passed the threshold for verifiability. That better source should be used instead, especially if the bad source is a well-known propaganda outlet and/or has been shown to frequently misrepresent the information for click-bating purposes. The exception to this is news that the bad source happens to break, which will be rare, and in such cases, again, it is better to wait until a better source reports on it. Expecting better sources even with those caveats is understandable but the response to act like if none is provided for you none exist is clearly insufficient. This place is supposed to be a discussion place with critical thinking not just feed of the least bad sources. Effort posting in response to this will only clearly things to the misinformed and give rope for bad faith actors to hang. Don't get me wrong..I would prefer if people who used biased/explotive/half-truth sources to acknowledge and explain themselves but forcing people to describe in details particularly how poo poo their sources isn't how to actually teach media literacy. To be blunt it sounds more like paperwork to piss people off rather than actually giving people brains. Just encourage them to say for example: "I know the hill is trash but they link to his website which he says those things." Or "I know the twitter is very sus but he linked the full video for context. It's not what he says but it's still pretty trash." Having those cavets and having others show what good media literacy is like is more effective rather than making people answer questionnaires. Rockit fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Feb 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 22:49
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:It's enforcing patriarchy and rape culture, even if you're not consciously moderating by saying "yes I support patriarchy and rape culture". In practice, you're making sexual assault allegations not a safe thing to discuss because you're valuing the comfort of some posters over the discussion of tough and stressful things. Remember when someone brought up a detailed description of accusations against Biden when they were barely, tangentially relevant in an effort to own their posting enemies, a survivor pointed out that it was unnecessary and triggering them, and the response was not an apology but instead "I'm aligned with you" along with a clarification of specific details for anybody who didn't get it? Because that was a thing that happened just a couple of weeks ago. Who, exactly, is creating an unsafe space for survivors here?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If you missed the last feedback thread, we're trying to break subjects that draw large amounts of ongoing discussion out of USPol, so that the thread can move on to new news, while the subject that got broken out gets the full focus it deserves without being mixed in with a bunch of other random crap. Regardless of what your intent might be this is not functionally different from "talk about it in a corner where we don't have to look at it" There is a finite amount of posting attention available and it tend to concentrate in particular threads, thus breaking subjects of discussion out of threads has the general effect of taking attention away from them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Remember when someone brought up a detailed description of accusations against Biden when they were barely, tangentially relevant in an effort to own their posting enemies, a survivor pointed out that it was unnecessary and triggering them, and the response was not an apology but instead "I'm aligned with you" along with a clarification of specific details for anybody who didn't get it? In fact..I did that in the very thread you're talking about . Rockit fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Feb 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 23:05
|
|
|
We have at various points allowed people to discuss Reade's accusations in multiple threads but it progressively devolved into massive shitshows that were all around disgusting and unpleasant and, imo, categorically unhealthy both on an individual level and to dnd as a space as a whole. Even in the threads that had multiple extremely severe warnings of 'if you are lovely about this you will get huge probes.' If there's a way to have a thread for discussing the allegations without being extremely lovely about it, I'm fine with that. So far though, none of the normal moderation tools or tightly moderating stuff has been at all effective in creating any productive discussion on the subject. Also after this long, I don't know what people would even be discussing about it anymore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 23:14
|
|
|
Perhaps it is not possible to have a dispassionate discussion about a subject that people are extremely invested in and where the positions they hold are likely to converge with other trends in their political views, so either you accept that arguments are going to be extremely angry and that nobody is likely to be interested in changing their mind, or you ban discussion of it, which is still, whether you like it or not, supporting one of the sides of the argument. That is a trend you can extend to a lot of political topics, in fact. Banning things because you don't like how they are argued often supports one side of the argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 23:19
|
|
|
Yeah it sucks that that's what it has come to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 23:31
|
|
|
Politics is messy and bloody because power in society is zero sum, I don't really think we should ever expect it to be otherwise? You can't expect people to pretend like it isn't because it makes conversation nicer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 23:33
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:We have at various points allowed people to discuss Reade's accusations in multiple threads but it progressively devolved into massive shitshows that were all around disgusting and unpleasant and, imo, categorically unhealthy both on an individual level and to dnd as a space as a whole. Even in the threads that had multiple extremely severe warnings of 'if you are lovely about this you will get huge probes.' shitness of the discussions it was if in the feedback threads it was in the self-fulfilling prophecy way.) I don't entirely blame y'all for this choice but if people find Reade credible they just aren't going to hear "While people are only going to be unreasonable over this accusation not yours/any others." like y'all trying to say even if that's actually true. You must at least respect that if do nothing else different. Edit: I do appreciate you doing just that Herstory. Rockit fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Feb 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 23:33
|
|
|
To continue on previously topic: I think my preference for cavets and effort rebutting makes more sense with this being an atypical kind of board to this website. People who lurk will be more comfortable and be more welcome with posting to deal with misconceptions than they would having to write an questionnaire if they're source is weird. .
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2021 00:01
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:We have at various points allowed people to discuss Reade's accusations in multiple threads but it progressively devolved into massive shitshows that were all around disgusting and unpleasant and, imo, categorically unhealthy both on an individual level and to dnd as a space as a whole. Even in the threads that had multiple extremely severe warnings of 'if you are lovely about this you will get huge probes.' I think part of it is it has become a proxy for the ever present "electoralism vs nothing matters" clique battles, and that sucks. Survivors deserve better. However there are plenty of other subjects that don't lead to productive outcomes that aren't outright banned in the thread and a specific incidence of sexual assault being one of the ones that is doesn't look good at all. Personally I haven't noticed any especially strict moderation on the subject in any USPOL thread, despite what you're saying, on this subject. The crackdown on low content in the last 24 hours was more severe. Space Gopher posted:Remember when someone brought up a detailed description of accusations against Biden when they were barely, tangentially relevant in an effort to own their posting enemies, a survivor pointed out that it was unnecessary and triggering them, and the response was not an apology but instead "I'm aligned with you" along with a clarification of specific details for anybody who didn't get it? "People aren't giving sexual assault the space and respect it deserves" is not an effective counter to me saying that people ren't giving sexual assault the space and respect it deserves. Absolutely if someone is saying "this hurts and triggers me based on my experience" the response is to apologize not say "well too bad" and that's true in any discussion like this, and doing otherwise is being a dick.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2021 00:32
|
|
|
I have made the terrible mistake of having other things to do than posting today, but two things on the Reade Topic: - my original warning was more terse and expansive than a proper communication of my intent would have been, because I was putting out an immediate impending trashfire late-ish at night and getting towards bedtime, and - as you may be able to tell, some moderation discussion has ongone since then bit sorry about the former, I'll bear in mind in the future that my pronouncements bear more weight than when I was an IK even when I'm sipping herbal tea and donning my fuzzy pink bunny slippers Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Feb 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2021 00:39
|
|
|
Lychnis posted:Yep. We're here, we're reading, and whether or not it's the message you mean to be sending us, it's one we're receiving, loud and clear. I sincerely doubt that I'm the only lurker now contemplating yet another hiatus from D&D because of these rulings. To be honest I'm in the opposite camp, I would like to see more discussion of the whole Reid thing but the way it kept getting approached in USPol was a really uncomfortable, inhuman one that would leave me less informed than feeling like I was soaked in toxic sludge. But that's mostly because USPol is so narrow a focus that it just doesn't make sense. I think the story needs to be part of the discussion, but it absolutely isn't a news item at this time. It really does seem more appropriate as part of a bigger thread about humanizing victims and discussing rape culture in general. Like the story dovetails well with what kind of hosed up poo poo women I know have had to deal with from authority figures. That may feel like a "containment thread" but I 100% gaurantee you that even explicity "containment" threads have an immense impact on forums culture. To put it another way, the USPol thread is real handy for figuring out where a bill is so posters can figure stuff out and potentially pressure their congresspeople/make calls/chit chat about votes. A thread on sexual assualt really should cover much more than that and should probably come with a less juvenile atmosphere & a solid OP with activist resources and literary works.for reference. I know the #metoo thread sputtered out, but I do think something more homegrown that was based on personal experience & knowledge would have more legs than a twitter hashtag. This isn't a "just make a thread" kind of dismissive post like Deteriota just made either, I totally get that it would he an insanely hard thread to make. Either because you're an imbecile who isn't qualified at all to discuss this (me) or because one may be dealing with trauma (even secondhand trauma) to talk about how bad the issue actually is (my big gay husband is more in that category, but he's in no state to discuss that poo poo here since he's working in a hospital lab during this loving thing)
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2021 15:03
|
|
|
OK, so this thread will be around the better part of another week, so here's where I'm at so far: ---Posters are responsible for actually reading the articles they are linking, and demonstrating that by accurately summarizing the parts they found interesting, or at least ensuring that the attached tweet does so. ---When linking opinion pieces, posters should add their own commentary; their position on the subject or on the value or lack thereof in the column. I think those are reasonable basic guidelines for posting sources. My concern now is guidelines for debunking bad articles. There's a difference between outright false sources and sources that post facts with a severe bias, obvious or otherwise. The former are pretty easy to moderate, the latter less so: poor sources frequently give platforms to people outside the mainstream, and sometimes these are valuable articles. Similarly, good sources sometimes have some awful and unreliable writers on staff. A black/whitelist isn't really the solution here, and I think we should discourage posters attempting to enforce their own. So the question is, when an article is called out as misleading or false, who is the burden of proof on, the original poster, the accuser, or to a greater or lesser degree both? Remember that breaking or exclusive news isn't always reliable, and can be difficult to prove or debunk. Posters might accidentally post information that turns out to be incorrect by no fault of their own.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
It's on the person who is themselves serving as a source. Otherwise they are able to weaponize the bad material and overwhelm others who are forced to refute it...over and over and over.fool of sound posted:poor sources frequently give platforms to people outside the mainstream, and sometimes these are valuable articles. This is just wrong. A bad source is a bad source. The notion of "mainstream" does tremendous and inappropriate work in framing how information and sources operate. We gain nothing from giving bad faith a credulous platform as "non-mainstream". The mediating source is not separable from the message. The methods and motivations of the source are the factors that have always mattered. The intuitive entailments of being "mainstream" or not just becomes a proxy for not thinking these things through. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Feb 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2021 20:12
|
|
|
I agree, which is why limiting sources to your personally preferred window is a proxy for not having to substantiate them when they push your preferred argument and why I don't want to see it enforced by the moderation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2021 20:19
|
|
|
I'm curious about 'poor sources frequently give platforms to people outside the mainstream, and sometimes these are valuable articles' because as we routinely see, there is basically no one with an opinion too out there or too stupid or too bigoted or too right or too left to get platformed by regular, ostensibly facts-oriented american media and I'm really unclear who these people with valuable opinions are that aren't being allowed onto any of our 5000 not-state-media news organizations even are? In the off chance that some russia today or voice of america tier entity did in fact publish something newsworthy, it would be a matter of hours before a non-garbage media source picked up the story and I think waiting a few hours for that to happen is entirely worth not having to try to moderate the newsworthy:propaganda value of stories published by state run medias.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2021 20:29
|
|
|
Mainstream vs. non-mainstream is a meaningless distinction in this context. There are a lot of non-mainstream sources that also happen to both be high quality and do their reporting in good faith. RT, Newsmax, OAN, Breitbart, etc. have neither of those qualities. There is zero reason to use them as sources, regardless of what argument they are pushing and whether you personally agree with that argument. I'm okay if the mod team decides not to maintain a blacklist, but it should be acceptable to treat posters who use such trashy sources with high levels of suspicion and disdain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2021 20:30
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:My concern now is guidelines for debunking bad articles. There's a difference between outright false sources and sources that post facts with a severe bias, obvious or otherwise. The former are pretty easy to moderate, the latter less so: poor sources frequently give platforms to people outside the mainstream, and sometimes these are valuable articles. I'm not trying to be an aggressive dick but this is fantastically missing the point. Bad sources are bad specifically because they intentionally mix facts in with disinformation and dishonest context in order to push a false narrative. Making you think they sometimes have something valuable to say is literally how propaganda outlets push disinformation in the public narrative: treating it as something worthy of individual analysis elevates the disinformation to something that's "up to debate" by literally, again, attempting to play themselves off as simply "not mainstream". Biased/crappy sources are one thing and they can be points of debate: "Why should we trust 'The Hill'?" is a valid point to be made in an arguement and doesn't mean that source needs to be moderated, but active disinformation outlets like the Washington Examiner, OANN, etc should be restricted to media literacy discussions or times when the fact a story is running is itself a story.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2021 20:36
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'm not trying to be an aggressive dick but this is fantastically missing the point. Bad sources are bad specifically because they intentionally mix facts in with disinformation and dishonest context in order to push a false narrative. Making you think they sometimes have something valuable to say is literally how propaganda outlets push disinformation in the public narrative: treating it as something worthy of individual analysis elevates the disinformation to something that's "up to debate" by literally, again, attempting to play themselves off as simply "not mainstream". This can be understood in part as a result of anchoring effects or mechanisms-it's a big part of why the "I'm skeptical of all sources" viewpoint usually leads someone straight off a cliff. We need to be able to rely on some claims or sources to a degree because we can't actually prove or disprove all information from first principles. Propaganda uses the combination of true and false beliefs to elicit trust from targets, and from there get them to use false beliefs (that appeal to their priors) as anchoring points. This then makes them effective propogators. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Feb 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2021 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 16:30 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:This can be understood in part as a result of anchoring effects or mechanisms-it's a big part of why the "I'm skeptical of all sources" viewpoint usually leads someone straight off a cliff. We need to be able to rely on some claims or sources to a degree because we can't actually prove or disprove all information from first principles. Propaganda uses the combination of true and false beliefs to elicit trust from targets, and from there get them to use false beliefs (that appeal to their priors) as anchoring points. This then makes them effective propogators. This is separate from the Russia-favored domestic approach of using openly false information and state media control to get users to disengage from civic participation, and to convince themselves that their general disengagement makes them smarter or more informed. To add to this: I think a lot of parallels can be drawn between being unwilling to actually make decisions about moderating sources and the mainstream media's initial paralysis in regards to calling Trumps lies for what they are: lies. Proceeding down that path will bring us down the same result: no discussion, just the weaponization of bad-faith information. Honestly I think a lot of parallels can be drawn in general between the media/social media policies regarding Trump and his minions and moderation issues in USPOL. Including the success of "actually, we can just dump assholes off our platform and/or tell them they can't spread lies".
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2021 20:55
|
|