|
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
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2021 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 03:03 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If people want to sincerely advocate for lovely positions I am quite willing to entertain that, unless we can all agree to simply exclude some political positions from the forum, but I do not have any patience for failure to acknowledge that controlling sources via the power structures of the forum is itself a political act. I think we're all in agreement here that some political positions should be excluded from the forum. For example, vile and immoral positions like white supremacism or pedophilia, as well as positions that have overwhelming evidence against them like flat-eartherism or young-earth creationism. Refusing to impose even the most basic standards on sourcing is itself a political act, as demonstrated by every major social media site becoming a hive of far-right conspiracy bullshit. By becoming so sensitive to far-right cries of "bias" and seeking to minimize moderation as much as possible, the likes of Facebook and Twitter gave blatant misinformation and violent white supremacism free reign to spread unchecked. By obsessively trying to carve every last bit of so-called bias out of their moderation standards, they created awful hellholes where moderators were forced to treat "kill all men" and "kill all Jews" equally. Deteriorata posted:How about rather than a blacklist, more of a graylist - sources of agreed dubious integrity that if cited hold the poster to a higher standard. Personally, I think the standard should come down to a basic level of due diligence. When I see some surprising or enraging poo poo online, I don't immediately rush to copy-paste it into a D&D thread - I take a few minutes to try to confirm it, checking it against other sources and checking the veracity of other things written by the source I got it from. If it turns out that I can't find the factoid in question from any other source, and also the source I got that factoid from mostly posts articles endorsing various conspiracy theories, then I don't loving post the hot take because it's probably crap. Nowadays, it's so easy to see enraging clickbait on social media and embed it directly into SA that I suspect a lot of people are going straight from their Twitter feed to USPol without taking any pitstops along the way to check their info or their source.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2021 00:59
|
|
|
I don't think the Tara Reade article is super relevant here because it's an op-ed. It doesn't try to claim to be anything more than the positions of the particular person writing it, who has no particular affiliation with RT besides the fact that they let her write an op-ed. No one's looking at the Tara Reade article and saying "it must be right because it's posted on RT". They're evaluating it based on Tara Reade's credibility as a survivor, not RT's credibility, because RT doesn't have any credibility to lend to the article. That's completely different from talking about, say, RT news articles about Alexei Navalny, in which RT reporters' credibility and the credibility of RT as an organization might play a major role.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I dunno it sounds like the issue is the endless slapfights and hot takes. We could just moderate those? Prager University is a literal propaganda org run by a talk show host with the explicit goal of influencing education in a right-wing direction and spreading conservative theories. It's pro-racism, defends the alt-right and white supremacists, denies climate change, and more. Even if they do accidentally stumble into a take that isn't obviously wrong for once, I'm sure you can find that take from another source that's at least less bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2021 14:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 03:03 |
|
|
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. How can you sit here in 2021 and say it literally doesn't matter if stuff is true or not as long as it leads people to the ideological stance you desire? That's not a healthy stance for a debate forum or even a loving Facebook group.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2021 15:54
|
|