|
Insanite posted:It was flippant, but reading a propaganda outlet was the only way to see her editorial. It was not published elsewhere. Do you not have any reservations whatsoever about using a source that is obviously trying to weaponize what Reade went through to further their own nefarious agenda and goals, which almost certainly does not align with yours? Is making sure Reade's voice gets heard the only thing you care about? If you do care about Reade at all, then seeing her exploited like this by a mouthpiece of a monstrous totalitarian regime should make you disgusted. There is literally no reason to do a "gotta hand it to them" with regards to RT, ET or any similar outlet. They don't care about Reade, they don't care about you. By acting as a vector to spread their reporting, you're helping launder their image into a more legitimate one — and that is one of their goals for having given her a platform.
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 07:02 |
|
|
Insanite posted:Are you not interested in responding to this? No, I'm not interested in responding to it. That's a topic for another thread and only relevant if the mods are interested in it. You're very obviously trolling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 22:17
|
|
|
Insanite posted:I know that I mentioned Reade's editorial because banning RT in this forum would mean banning the sharing of her editorial. In the off chance there is something on rt worth posting, someone could always just pm a mod to ask about posting it? Or wait 6 hours until a non-poo poo source picks it up and post it then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 22:23
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:If you do care about Reade at all, then seeing her exploited like this by a mouthpiece of a monstrous totalitarian regime should make you disgusted. We already have a thread for discussing Tara Reade, and this post would probably be more appropriate there, but this is an extremely patronizing attitude. She's an adult woman with agency, and she made the informed decision to publish her story with the biggest outlet that would do so. She wasn't puppeteered into anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 22:28
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Do you not have any reservations whatsoever about using a source that is obviously trying to weaponize what Reade went through to further their own nefarious agenda and goals, which almost certainly does not align with yours? Not really, no. The op-ed is only in one place. I would prefer that it have a larger, more mainstream American platform, but here we are. quote:Is making sure Reade's voice gets heard the only thing you care about? No. I think that it's very important, but it's also an exemplar of how things like outlet blacklists can potentially suppress discussion about sensitive, unpopular, or niche issues. quote:If you do care about Reade at all, then seeing her exploited like this by a mouthpiece of a monstrous totalitarian regime should make you disgusted. There is literally no reason to do a "gotta hand it to them" with regards to RT, ET or any similar outlet. They don't care about Reade, they don't care about you. By acting as a vector to spread their reporting, you're helping launder their image into a more legitimate one — and that is one of their goals for having given her a platform. It's not ideal, no. Reade has agency, though, and probably had to make a difficult call about this, herself. This is a thread about posting and discussing sources, though. What would you like to do regarding D&D rules and content that lives on rt.com? I think that sharing it while being able to discuss RT's biases is good, as is discussing what drove Reade to publish there rather than in another outlet, too. e: If something is obviously horseshit, it should be roasted and possibly probed, but that is nothing new. Deteriorata posted:No, I'm not interested in responding to it. That's a topic for another thread and only relevant if the mods are interested in it. I'm attempting to have a discussion in Debate & Discussion. I think that source blacklists are a dumb idea, and I'm saying as much. The topic is obviously relevant to this thread, given the many posters within it--including you--who are talking about source blacklists, probes that are directly related to source trustworthiness, and pre-posting homework. Herstory Begins Now posted:In the off chance there is something on rt worth posting, someone could always just pm a mod to ask about posting it? Or wait 6 hours until a non-poo poo source picks it up and post it then. Would this apply to Reade's op-ed, or just news stories? That you should have to PM a mod to clear an opinion piece like that would be a departure from the status quo. Insanite fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Feb 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 22:33
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:Making posters go through a checklist just seems condescending. It is always a good idea to interrogate where your media is coming from, but we're all adults here, and anyone posting in D&D is familiar enough with NPR, WaPo, Fox, BBC, RT, CGTN, etc to understand their inherent biases, where they get their money, why they cover or don't cover certain stories and so on. I don't see a lot of posters barging in with "Hillary Eats Babies" stories sourced from patriotguneagle.biz.cx or whatever. I don't think the idea is that posters need to go through that checklist in full each time they want to post an article or whatever, just that it's a solid thing to keep in mind whenever you decide to share something here. Otherwise, you're right in that it's seemingly rare (at least from where I'm sitting) that we get people posting "Hillary eats babies" stories or articles from outlets that publish them in all seriousness. When it does happen, people are usually pretty quick to call it out. The bigger problems I think are people posting rando twitter takes about an article from a well known outlet with little or no context as to who that rando is and why we should care about that take; or people posting a tweet linking to an article along with their take that once you read the article you can easily conclude that they either A) didn't read the article or B) are acting in bad faith by distorting what the article actually says. I think these are bigger issues because more often than not, if it's an inflammatory take, it leads to really stupid derails where we spend several pages debunking why that take is inflammatory or misleading. Holding people more accountable for posting misleading takes or not bothering to read an article so they can get their poo poo stirring take in would hopefully go a long way on cutting down on that from happening. Handsome Ralph fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Feb 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 22:47
|
|
|
Insanite posted:Would this apply to Reade's op-ed, or just news stories? I mean you can always ask, the reade op-ed at least has enough relevance that I'd be surprised if anyone would block it from being posted (with suitable context, ofc) in an appropriate thread. That said I do really struggle to come up with any situation that a similar exception would be made for anything else on RT.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 22:48
|
|
|
Not only do blacklists stifle discussion, sometimes you need to talk about "bad" sources because they shape the news. If there's a blacklist and Ted Cruz writes a moronic op-ed for Fox, can you share it here without mod approval? Obviously we wouldn't take an Infowars "news" story as factual, but we recently had a president who was friends with Alex Jones; I think that can make Infowars' angle on a given issue worthy of discussion. I just think a blacklist creates a weird situation where you're only allowed to talk about certain subjects if you disagree with them. Handsome Ralph posted:The bigger problems I think are people posting rando twitter takes about an article from a well known outlet with little or no context as to who that rando is and why we should care about that take; or people posting a tweet linking to an article along with their take that once you read the article you can easily conclude that they either A) didn't read the article or B) are acting in bad faith by distorting what the article actually says. I agree with this 100%. I'd love to see less tweet-posting in general outside of things that are actual breaking news. I have a whole app on my phone if I want to look at tweets, and posting a tweet is often a way to get away with saying something incendiary without having to back it up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 23:07
|
|
|
I do agree that lazy pseudo-retweeting is a drag. Unless it’s notable or at least a good springboard for a discussion, it’s just using SA like a janky Twitter client of sorts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 23:11
|
|
|
I haven't seen a single person post an infowars story in dnd in loving ages and I don't for a moment feel like we're missing out on any valuable or enlightening discussion. Nor would the massive derails of people mocking whoever posted it plus the mocking of the infowars piece itself be conducive to any actual discussion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 23:12
|
|
|
I would like to have a specific "this column is hot garbage" thread for dissecting and mocking stupid, poorly written, nakedly self serving, and/or untrue opinion pieces in reasonably major publications. I think there should be a place for discussing worthless editorials that isn't dropping them in USPol/USnews.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 23:17
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I would like to have a specific "this column is hot garbage" thread for dissecting and mocking stupid, poorly written, nakedly self serving, and/or untrue opinion pieces in reasonably major publications. I think there should be a place for discussing worthless editorials that isn't dropping them in USPol/USnews. Yeah we had that "bad editorials" thread ages ago that was good for this sort of thing. I like laughing at bad takes as much as anyone else but it really should be done in a thread with the purpose of mocking so there's no confusion as to why someone posted that article.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 23:22
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:This thread is relevant to all of D&D but is particularly important to the upcoming USNews thread. Same for questions of the trustworthiness of institutions. The consensus among the "America = (inherently) not foreign" posters seems to be that America is the baseline, representative of a general category of "Good Western societies with a trustworthy mainstream media and political class" - a position that is hardly aligned with reality if you actually bother to compare it to other Western societies. Not saying it is uniquely bad, worse than all other Western societies at everything, but to flatten "the West" into some general good category in which you can just trust the mainstream requires some major ideological blinders. Basically, what is your position in regards to the non-American parts of the forums, the non-country specific parts, and their interactions with rulesets created within the context of the American parts which appear to take up 90%+ of your time?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 07:36
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Can the mod team clarify its position vis-a-vis "foreign" outlets then? Because this thread is heavily skewed towards an instinctual understanding of politics as being American or foreign, when in fact to a lot of goons, America is foreign. I think it's pretty obvious... if you're in USPol, non-American sources are considered foreign. If you're in UKMT, non-UK sources are foreign. This isn't to say that either country's news outlets are themselves perfect. Here in the US for example, Breitbart et al regularly peddle Russian propaganda, as it happens to be pro-Trump and anti-Democrat, which means it aligns with the outlet's own agenda. This propaganda doesn't always come from Russia directly; sometimes it comes from proxies such as pro-Russian elements in Ukraine or Crimea. But it is always obvious when either of these happen, and it's frankly not a lot of extra work to figure it out — sometimes the article will even flat out say from where or whom the "news" originated. Regardless though, if a domestic source is publishing propaganda (which is different from bias/spin or even having an agenda, as we covered earlier), then it is worth bringing it up, ideally by the poster using the source.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 15:49
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I can read their post that way too now that you mention it. I took "people who do this are posting in bad faith" after quoting me to be referring to me, but I can see how they could be refering to the people I was talking about... but why double down when I pushed back instead of indicating that they weren't talking about me? Sorry for the confusion and anger then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
Prompt: ---Clickbait articles with misleading headlines ---lovely editorials written to drive negative social media engagement ---Posting articles as an embedded tweet with an attached hot take ---Debating the validity of sources, or expressing skepticism about facts or subtext ---Discussing a useful article from a normally bad source, or vice-versa When and how should mods and IKs intervene? Response: No one's proposing that mods run a blacklist of sources. That's obviously unnecessary and a burden on moderators. People talk about a blacklist specifically to make the idea of dealing with this stuff seem like too much work, and make the mods=censors argument. We do not need every cited link to be some exhaustive bias accounting. Acting as if we're demanding perfection, or endless prevarication between biased and bad faith sources, is just the equivocating bullshit of people looking for cover to troll the forums. Nor is anyone sane suggesting that there's no such thing as a concrete reality. We should not favor the sources that say what we want to be true, or which match our ideology. If you don't want to engage with a shared reality in which information sometimes runs counter to your shared beliefs, gently caress off to TheDonald, or go masturbate in a closet or something. That's already the fundamental problem with twitter- if you have an account and use it, you are getting a concentrated, radicalizing stream of personally targeted messages intended to enrage you and narrow your sources of information and worldview. This has been discussion poison for years now, and just because we're not chuds doesn't somehow make us immune. What is needed is a consistent, generally applicable, consistently enforced rule. Proposed rule When a user links a tweet or story in USPol, they should say: A) what the source is, B) why it's credible or why it's specifically not credible, and C) why or who the mediating source is if there is one (like someone posting a sentence over a story link in a tweet or video that changes how it's read). I am happy to explain what a mediating source is. I have charts. There's no required format, but when a user doesn't do this, they should get probated. Full stop. No exceptions. All DnD threads. Ohh, that's too much work! Bullshit. Stop linking things that wander across your screen without reading them or doing even the barest minimum critical thinking. Stop assuming titles are representative. Stop making everyone else do the work of refuting your putrid stream of reactive tweets. I don't trust the mods to enforce this! The mods are already enforcing something like this. This way it actually stands a chance of sticking and being enforced consistently- and we can call them out when it isn't. It's infinitely better than not having a rule. Ohh, that's too much work! Mod Edition! Not if you begin by consistently enforcing the rule and get it established as a norm. It did not take the covid thread that long to recognize that Feigl-Ding is a useless fearmonger. It seems like a lot of work because right now a bunch of jackasses are deliberately making it as hard as possible. Get some rules going and it gets a lot easier to get rid of those jackasses. People will self-enforce and actually maintain a social practice of critically examining information, even if it leads them to conclusions they wouldn't otherwise support. God help us we might actually have some loving nuance around here. You can't moderate your way to a better forum. You appear to be confused, my friend; 4chan's /b is in a different tab; try your homepage. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Feb 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 00:42
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Proposed rule I like this, but think A/B can be enforced more loosely if the article is straightforward and factual and from a well-known source; if someone posts a CNN article about an new executive appointment being announced, we probably don't need to examine who CNN are of if they are trustworthy on that issue. If they do a dossier on said appointment, then it's valid. I'm perfectly happy with C always being in effect though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 01:07
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I like this, but think A/B can be enforced more loosely if the article is straightforward and factual and from a well-known source; if someone posts a CNN article about an new executive appointment being announced, we probably don't need to examine who CNN are of if they are trustworthy on that issue. If they do a dossier on said appointment, then it's valid. I'm perfectly happy with C always being in effect though. The poster should at least be able to say it's CNN. Not requiring A and B at all means the jackasses start equivocating about what's a "well-known source".
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 01:10
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The poster should at least be able to say it's CNN. Not requiring A and B at all means the jackasses start equivocating about what's a "well-known source". I was working under the assumption that the link/embedded tweet would point to them as a source. If it's someone subtweeting the article or the source is otherwise not immediately obvious, then absolutely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 01:12
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The poster should at least be able to say it's CNN. Not requiring A and B at all means the jackasses start equivocating about what's a "well-known source". A brief explanation or something with a tweet also helps a ton when tweets are deleted and you have no context for a post's reaction to a tweet, I see a lot of use in it for a thread where tweets may be ostensibly important news. Sometimes tweets go down super fast and I see it happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 01:13
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Prompt: I like this a lot!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 01:33
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:What is needed is a consistent, generally applicable, consistently enforced rule. Thank you for the wonderful post. I agree, something simple, concise, and consistent. Even if it's slightly annoying to keep doing it for links or tweets that are directly to NYT, CNN, etc, it keeps it even so people don't object and start unneeded derails (for example, another derail of "why RT isn't considered credible?"). If this ends up being something that's required, I do think it would be good to have a common/consistent format that's laid out in the rules (or OP of USPOL) thread that everyone follows. Kalit fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Feb 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 02:26
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Response:
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 06:42
|
|
|
We don't need more rules when the mods can't keep up enforcing the existing ones. There's not much risk of people being passively propagandized when there's an army of posters ready to explain how everyone agreeing with an article from Reason is plotting to undermine the entire administrative state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 14:40
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:We don't need more rules when the mods can't keep up enforcing the existing ones. There's not much risk of people being passively propagandized when there's an army of posters ready to explain how everyone agreeing with an article from Reason is plotting to undermine the entire administrative state. It would definitely cut down on derails. It would also be more transparent with posters and lurkers that pay more attention to news posts/tweets and not individual posts. Plus, I would say the pages of "whether RT is a credible source" derails in this thread and USPOL thread is showing exactly why we need to change something. It might even make the mods jobs easier. Instead of reading through the slapfights that are caused by sourcing/hot take tweets/etc, they instead just probate those who do not follow a new source format.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 15:19
|
|
|
... I had my own ideas and effortpost behind them, but these ideas are better. I might still do the effortpost because it gets into some useful working examples, but I want to focus on just one because:fool of sound posted:I was working under the assumption that the link/embedded tweet would point to them as a source. If it's someone subtweeting the article or the source is otherwise not immediately obvious, then absolutely. This was emptyposted in USPOL back in December. If you're not familiar with what's going on here, Rebekah Jones worked for the Florida state government and was fired after refusing a request to falsify data in such a way as to make the Florida COVID situation look better than reality. This all happened in the broader context of Florida governor Ron De Santis really wanting to re-open the state. She later made her own dashboard to report what data was publicly available and whether conditions on the ground were favorable to reopening. If you already knew who she was and what was going on, then it was immediately obvious what the context of this tweet was (the state pressuring a whistleblower) and why it was relevant to USPOL. If you didn't, then it looked like a goon just posting a random tweet by someone. I was in the later group. I recalled the broad strokes of what was going on in Florida and knew there was a whistleblower who made their own website, but I didn't know it was that person. To be clear: this was a good tweet that belonged in USPOL and I am ultimately glad it was posted. However I suspect that the poster emptyposted the tweet, rather than provide context, because it was immediately obvious to them who she was, what the context of this tweet was, and why it was worth sharing. Alas, it was not so clear for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 15:22
|
|
|
Kalit posted:It might even make the mods jobs easier. Instead of reading through the slapfights that are caused by sourcing/hot take tweets/etc, they instead just probate those who do not follow a new source format. I dunno it sounds like the issue is the endless slapfights and hot takes. We could just moderate those? Especially if we're banning specific sources anyway. There's 'no blacklist', but there is because someone just got probed for posting a PU video while literally saying that they are terrible but bringing up a specific broken clock incident. If I cross post that Prager U video into the libertarian thread to point out that even they agree that Jrod is a dumb lost causer, do I get mod smacked? Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Feb 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 16:22
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Literally my first post in this thread was laying out a ruleset in a similar manner to what you've done now. My suggestion focused a bit more on the content and whether the poster agreed with it, AND the actually quite important rule of having to ensure your post makes sense if your source gets deleted, but very much in the same vein as what you've suggested here. Your accusation of bad faith is itself in bad faith. My favorite part of this post is how you accuse DV of posting in bad faith because "no one actually has been making that argument".... and then the very next post after it was someone making that arguement. edit: I lied, my favorite part of this post is that you're lying out your rear end and you yourself very specifically made that arguement A Buttery Pastry posted:I very much get the feeling that some people here want to just blacklist "known propaganda outlets" without ever being forced to question establishment outlets, or even seeing others do the same. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Feb 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 16:29
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Proposed rule I like this as well. Though I do agree with FoS's idea that if the tweet/article is clearly labeled as coming from WaPo/CNN/NYT it might be redundant to expect the poster to tell us what the source is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 16:44
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I dunno it sounds like the issue is the endless slapfights and hot takes. We could just moderate those? Maybe a mod could correct me, but it seems like trying to wade through slapfights/derails from hot takes to understand context/who to probe is what's so time consuming/hard to moderate in the USPOL thread. As far as that probation on linking a PragerU video and if that should/should not have occurred  TBH, it seems unfair to me that Vahakyla got probed but the_steve didn't for being the first one to bring up PragerU, but that's a current moderation decision. The post by Discendo Vox doesn't seem to be advocating for that style of moderating though.E: Looking at the probation reason again, maybe saying "go watch this" was the crossing line, even though additional context was provided? TBH, randomly linking a cropped screenshot of their twitter account that doesn't contain any news/political information doesn't seem any better to me. Kalit fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Feb 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 16:47
|
|
|
Handsome Ralph posted:I like this as well. Though I do agree with FoS's idea that if the tweet/article is clearly labeled as coming from WaPo/CNN/NYT it might be redundant to expect the poster to tell us what the source is. I don't completely disagree but "CNN is reporting <single sentence summary>" really isn't too much effort to ask, and I think preferable to the alternative of not having the rule.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 16:51
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I don't completely disagree but "CNN is reporting <single sentence summary>" really isn't too much effort to ask, and I think preferable to the alternative of not having the rule. I think that's a fair ask and I'd be fine with that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 17:20
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:My favorite part of this post is how you accuse DV of posting in bad faith because "no one actually has been making that argument".... and then the very next post after it was someone making that arguement. Jarmak posted:edit: I lied, my favorite part of this post is that you're lying out your rear end and you yourself very specifically made that arguement As for bad faith, I really do think it's a big issue that people see bad faith when it's just disagreement. Like, sometimes posters are just so far apart ideologically that they have a hard time reading each others posts properly. It becomes more like "What would this mean if I wrote it?" rather than "What is this person trying to say?" I'm actually not a big fan of calling things bad faith, but when someone literally writes out the motivations of other posters like it's just fact then I have a hard time seeing another conclusion. There's no attempting to find some common understanding, just a broad dismissal of all posters using a word in an argument for having a bad motive. Handsome Ralph posted:I think that's a fair ask and I'd be fine with that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 17:32
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Literally my first post in this thread was laying out a ruleset in a similar manner to what you've done now. My suggestion focused a bit more on the content and whether the poster agreed with it, AND the actually quite important rule of having to ensure your post makes sense if your source gets deleted, but very much in the same vein as what you've suggested here. Your accusation of bad faith is itself in bad faith. I didn't say anything about you. You're basically just telling on yourself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 17:44
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I didn't say anything about you. You're basically just telling on yourself. Discendo Vox posted:People talk about a blacklist specifically to make the idea of dealing with this stuff seem like too much work, and make the mods=censors argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 17:47
|
|
|
If you aren't going to point to specific posters you think are arguing in bad faith then of course people disagreeing with you or discussing the topic you've identified as bad faith will assume it's about themselves. Has the rule of assuming good faith been enforced ever beyond the most obvious posts about posters?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
If you talked up a blacklist, then yes, the shoe fits. You're consistently arguing for more onerous, less feasible moderation and trying to create a space for nonsense equivocation between sources. I attacked the argument, and you made it personal. This is, of course, the root problem- having to constantly navigate a tide of bad faith arguments, in service of other bad faith materials.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Feb 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Why is that an important distinction? A "respected" news source who in good faith acts as a stenographer for someone intentionally trying to push bad information, due to the inherent structures bias of the media outlet they work for and the society they live in, is no more telling the truth or improving the reader's understanding of the world than the same reporter just making that exact same poo poo up. The difference between the two is largely whether they are or perceive themselves to be pro-status quo/establishment or not. Talking the actual material effect of their output, not whether one is more morally correct than the other. This does not seem to me to be rooted in the evil intentions you are ascribing it. Do you have more to support this theory of secret plots to confuse posters into trusting Russian propaganda?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 18:01
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No one's proposing that mods run a blacklist of sources. That's obviously unnecessary and a burden on moderators. People talk about a blacklist specifically to make the idea of dealing with this stuff seem like too much work, and make the mods=censors argument. Freakazoid_ posted:We should probably have a blacklist or whitelist of acceptable/unacceptable sources, because once in a long while some goon will drop blackcrimestatistic.jpg and wonder why they got a ban+month. UCS Hellmaker posted:Great example.is anyone using rt tweets or articles as a source, a propaganda arm is not something that should be considered good faith, and it be the same as someone linking breitbart articles or the daily stormer, almost certainly false or so completely out of context that the underlying quote or story is completely different from what's written. Deteriorata posted:If a news item is legit, you should be able to find a reference to it in something more reliable. Putting the Washington Examiner on a blacklist is reasonable. fool of sound posted:I'm less interested in black listing sources, outside of egregious cases, and more interested guidelines for how posters should interact with sources. It's a moderation issue when posters misrepresent what their source says, its probably a moderation issue when a poster embeds a tweet of someone else misrepresent a source, but is it a moderation issue when a poster only reads a clickbait headline and writes some incendiary take based solely on that? Is it a moderation issue when someone agrees with a racist editorial that was published in the Washington Post it New York Times? Similarly, where does media criticism become dismissing a valid source for ideological reasons? These are more the sort of questions I want to work out. I'm not going to maintain a white/blacklist. Discendo Vox posted:God help us we might actually have some loving nuance around here. Cefte posted:You can't generate good content through moderation, the problem doesn't scale. You can certainly kill it with moderation, though. Those are good things. They're not an increase in good content generation, they're a decrease in bad content generation, but if implemented in the best possible fashion, they'll increase the average quality of sourced posts in the forum. On the neutral, posts by posters who have an ideological axe to grind (this is all posters, but fill in your desired out-group) will be largely unaffected by the proforma, like so: Barkane, the climate-change denying dog posted:Here's a quote from Roy Spencer, a tenured climatologist and an ex-NASA chief scientist for climate studies: his opinion on anthropogenic climate change is really relevant! I'm quoting his blog, so it's direct from the man himself! Badislav, the small verdant human posted:Here's some video of Ukranian fascist atrocities against peaceful Ukrano-Russians. It's direct from the source of our totally not Russian peacekeeping forces, and while they're obviously directly involved in the conflict, it's footage direct from theatre! Beigel-Ding, the pastry with a PhD posted:Here's a qualified healthcare expert, who is also a pastry, and who has been right about a lot of things as a result of a college minor in static horology, here to talk about the ongoing pandemic on Twitter. Cooptation of academically qualified researchers is a trick old enough to draw a pension; on a similarly geriatric note, venerable scientists daily degenerate to the point that they mistake their area of expertise for general authority, or simply let the racism seep out of their amygdala. All that is aside from some random with a video on twitter: almost the definition of an unverified source, but is it the new Ngo, or Darnella Frazier? If they fill out the proforma with 'this is direct video of a breaking news event', what happens? That's the crux for me, and the core source of negative outcomes that can outweigh the good, depending on implementation. The question remains open: what happens when someone (a poster, an idiot king, a mod) disagrees with credibility assessment provided by another poster? Here's the prompt that started this thread: quote:Some topics for discussion, by no means exhaustive: So, where does that leave us? If the only outcome is you get probated for not filling out the proforma, it's neutral to good - some people will read articles they might not have, some tweets will be given appropriate context, and nothing will really be lost. On the other hand, if this consultation thread results in a 'consensus' that empowers:
Based on qualitiative disagreement on the credibility of sources On a case-by-case basis Cefte fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Feb 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 07:02 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:If you talked up a blacklist, then yes, the shoe fits. You're consistently arguing for more onerous, less feasible moderation and trying to create a space for nonsense equivocation between sources. I attacked the argument, and you made it personal. This is, of course, the root problem- having to constantly navigate a tide of bad faith arguments, in service of other bad faith materials. Discendo Vox posted:I attacked the argument, and you made it personal. This is, of course, the root problem- having to constantly navigate a tide of bad faith arguments, in service of other bad faith materials.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 18:40
|
|