Main Paineframe posted:

what are y'all's thoughts on people getting fooled by satirists and posting joke tweets that they didn't realize were jokes

I've seen a fair few instances of that lately

Jaxyon posted:

It's bullshit that the Tara Reade accusations on the sitting president are forbidden discussion in the USPOL thread.

Yes it does turn into a lot of poo poo when it comes up, because people feel strongly about it. The solution there is to mod more on it, otherwise you're going to continue to have people bringing it up over and over because it's not being addressed.

Saying "this always causes a poo poo show" reeks of "this is just causing drama" which is what lots of orgs and groups do when people bring up injustice, be it, racial, gender, or sexual assault, in order to silence it.

And don't accuse me of brigading in from CSPAM I don't post there.

The president being an accused rapist is just as relevant for Biden as it was for Trump. Or Clinton. And you're telling SA victims how much they matter when you're banning discussion when it's about certain people.


edit: In case it's unclear why this is in the sourcing thread, this explicitly came up during discussion of whether RT was a relevant source, in USPol

Jaxyon posted:

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"

Jaxyon posted:

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".

fool of sound posted:

In order to facilitate this, the following additional rules are in effect:
---Post in good faith, and assume others are posting in good faith: Playing devil’s advocate is tiresome; post things you genuinely believe or are curious about. Unless you have ample reason to do so, assume that others also believe what they post, and react accordingly. If you disagree with someone, aim to inform or convince; do not assume malice. If you suspect that someone is trolling, repeating disproved claims, or lying about their positions or facts, disengage gracefully and report them.

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.

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."

Kalit posted:

A journalist who works for (or used to recently work for) RT America doesn't like Matt Duss?? I'm shocked How about you post some context in addition to these "hot takes" next time.

For example, what's wrong with that Guardian article called Patience in Afghanistan? Based on Rubinstein's post, it appears that he's inferring that Duss is advocating for continued war in Afghanistan. However, when you read the article, Duss is saying patience is needed to see the outcome of their election before sending even more troops over.

Please actually put some effort into looking up the author and content of tweets you post in addition to providing your own thoughts on what you're posting. This is a terrible post.

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.

Aruan posted:

Beyond punishing people for lying about what a source claims or posting clickbait misleading garbage, I don’t think it’s the responsibility of moderators to police sources. The key to this, though, is to let people refute sources in real time. You are welcome to post something from RT and other posters are equally welcome to dunk on you for that. If you can’t defend your post then you’re going to get proverbially owned. Let the thread police itself.

fool of sound posted:

This thread is relevant to all of D&D but is particularly important to the upcoming USNews thread.

As for the question, I think that the issue isn't "should the Reade column be banned"; it's more "should the person posting the column be asked to defend it up front because it's published by a questionable outlet" and "to what degree is it appropriate to criticize the outlet rather than the content of the article".

OwlFancier posted:

There literally are people ITT arguing that anything published by RT is wrong because it is foreign russian propaganda.

OwlFancier posted:

Lester Shy posted:

OwlFancier posted:

There literally are people ITT arguing that anything published by RT is wrong because it is foreign russian propaganda.

OwlFancier posted:

Please illustrate the difference to me between saying that Reade cannot be trusted and that Reade is wrong or lying. Other than phraseological cowardice.

Insanite posted:

Additionally, given previous context, what's the probable difference between prohibiting a source and forcing posters to fill out a source quality checklist--that is not required for 'trusted' sources--before sharing it in this forum.

TBH, I think Cefte got all of this right on page 1.

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

Yeah lol, I think they agree almost fully, not sure why they're railing against each other...

Jarmak posted:

Accusations of bad faith posting are god damned Trumpian levels of projection here.

Roland Jones posted:

... it's not like the British Broadcasting Corporation isn't effectively controlled by the party in power...

Solkanar512 posted:

Yes, directly insulting me as “trumpian” is surely the way to convince me that you’re posting in good faith.

Dett Rite posted:

...
2. Why did they post it?

Because Tara Reade's op-ed was posted in USPOL, and ignited considerable discussion to which he finds himself opposed.
...
5. What details were left out, and why?

The context in which these metrics were proposed (someone posted an op-ed by Tara Reade discussing her rape, which he believed should not be permitted)
....

Bootleg Trunks posted:

Woah, Matt Duss!
...

Kalit posted:

Speaking of Russiachat, is RT America a reliable news source or not? I'm just wondering if any journalist who works (or recently worked for) them should be trustworthy or not.

Thom12255 posted:

What should we trust that comes out of Putins mouthpiece though? Anything RT says is true can be found easily in multiple other outlets that aren't run by a mafia anti-democratic state.

Neurolimal posted:

Without getting into the specifics because that's apparently sensitive for USPOL: how many other major outlets have let Tara Reade write an opinion piece?

Insanite posted:

I know that I mentioned Reade's editorial because banning RT in this forum would mean banning the sharing of her editorial.

Likewise, assigning posters homework as a prerequisite for sharing RT content would, at the least, discourage sharing her editorial.

I don't appreciate being told that I'm discussing it just to slam people.

Insanite posted:

It's not a defense of RT. It's an example of a consequence of source homework/ban policies that I'd hope everyone can agree would be bad.

Insanite posted:

"But I think putting it in the same tier as Fox News/OANN/etc is fair? I don't believe there's any hard set rules about those, but everyone seem to know to avoid using those (or their reporters) as a source."

I think this is already the case, and it seems to work fine? I don't know why there's such an appetite for source blacklists or graylists.

Insanite posted:

What constitutes looking into a source?

If it's filling out a pre-posting checklist, that's a chilling effect and also seems a weird + onerous.

If it's thinking critically about posting a story before sharing, and eating a probe if that story is obviously misleading, that should already be the status quo.

Jarmak posted:

edit: To be clear on context, that one-liner off the top rope was the first time Tara Reade was mentioned in the discussion.

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.

Discendo Vox posted:

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).

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.

Harold Fjord posted:

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?

Discendo Vox posted:

No. You need to make them say it. If they can think it's obvious, then you're just going to get the same issues of people spamming "obvious", misleading, tweets. Enforcement also becomes subjective. This keeps all the problems of toxic abuse and feedback that a clear rule would avoid.

Ytlaya posted:

Then how is there any difference between how different sources should be treated? The standard would just be a universal "a source should include some sort of concrete evidence of what it's claiming," and this would apply regardless of what the source is. So there wouldn't actually be a difference between the way CNN and RT are treated, since posting either source would need to include some sort of evidence that the claims in the article are accurate (which to be clear is my own view on how things should work).

Ytlaya posted:

I think the complete opposite would make more sense (though I think that ideally such probations would be consistent regardless of source). It's easy to point to actual dramatic real-world consequences of people trusting sources like CNN or the NYTimes (and a history of such sources directly laundering government talking points through stories that cite "anonymous sources" or just directly quote State Department press releases, etc), but the same isn't even remotely true for something like RT* (with regard to the consequences part).

* For example, regarding the example you give with Syria, what are the actual consequences? Are you concerned that such things will prevent the US from attacking Syria? Situations like this are basically consistent with the idea that it's bad to trust media when the topic is one where said media can be expected to have an obvious bias or conflict of interest (regarding Syria, both US and Russian media are inherently compromised). But in terms of consequences, US media propaganda can be tied to support for essentially every harmful US military endeavor. It's hard for me to think of downsides resulting from "the US public being convinced a foreign country isn't bad" (edit: actually I can think of some, but it only applies in situations where the public feels positively about a harmful country that the US government also materially supports, like Saudi Arabia or Israel; so it would be bad if the US was giving material aid to Assad and people supported this, but there's no realistic scenario where US media is making people hate a country that the government supports)

Ytlaya posted:

It also doesn't make sense to compare RT and Fox News, since "news with the obvious bias of being negative about the US and opposed to US foreign policy" is inherently going to be more correct than "news with the obvious bias of supporting the Republican Party/neocons." All news has some sort of direct ideological angle which should be accounted for. For example, you obviously would not want to use RT as a source about Russia-related topics, but you similarly would not want to use the NYTimes as a source about anything involving US foreign policy (since it has a long history of propagating state talking points).

Ytlaya posted:

I think that people in the US (or US-allied countries with similar media, like the UK) usually can't look at our own media with clear eyes, because it's been normalized for us our entire lives (and there's also a whole ecosystem of NGOs that exist to legitimize state policy). Taking it seriously is just "what you do" and it's ridiculous to even think of treating it in the same way you treat bad foreign media. Maybe it makes mistakes by echoing pro-war talking points that destroy entire countries, but those are just honest mistakes and should have no influence on how future reporting is perceived. Even if we acknowledge problems with it, we think there's somehow more "nuance" to it because it feels "normal" to us (as opposed to the spooky foreign propaganda). But actual history does not support this perspective - US media has never failed to be a mouthpiece for the most horrific things our country has done, and there's no rational reason for someone to be more concerned about foreign propaganda than mainstream domestic US media.

Ytlaya posted:

So I can't really understand what reasonable cause there is for someone to be concerned and upset about relatively obscure foreign media occasionally saying wrong or misleading things with the intent of opposing US foreign policy/military involvement. At worst it's just white noise - why should I care if a handful of people are persuaded towards the correct position for potentially incorrect reasons, especially when, on the other side, you have media with a long history of persuading most of the American public to support actions with 6-7 figure casualties? It's like comparing an ant with an elephant.