|
I'll start by reposting my position on this issue from the last thread. I'll propose some rules for how to police sourcing later on.Discendo Vox posted:One thing that's been better very recently specifically because there's been a degree of enforcement on dropping random twitter posts into the space. Twitter as a format breeds decontextualization and reactance. People see something, get mad, and are incentivized to effortlessly spread it without considering the source or context. Rules specifically addressing sourcing and preventing this pattern would be helpful. This does not mean that sharing all tweets is bad, but means that the practice requires some form of constraint. ---Discussing a useful article from a normally bad source, or vice-versa I'll weigh in on this one now as I think it can be separately addressed. It will virtually never transpire that useful information will solely come from a bad source. Other sources for that information will be available. Where a bad source is the sole source of the information, its badness necessarily effects how the information can be understood or trusted. Bad sources are worth sharing only for the purpose of dissecting and attacking how they are bad, especially how they seek to appeal to us. When someone shares a message from a bad source, they are also a mediating source for that information. Someone who is receiving messages from bad sources needs to interrogate why they are receiving these messages...and if they're then spreading them on the forums, they need to be treated similarly. This is true whether the bad source is the only source of the information or not. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Jan 30, 2021 |
#
¿
Jan 30, 2021 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 03:44 |
|
|
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 It happens because they're not reading the source or not bothering to check its context. Punish them outside of situations where there was no available context.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2021 00:33
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:To be clear I'm talking about sources like The Hill, that lean heavily on clickbait and hearsay, or something like Al Jazeera, which have a clear agenda but also provide coverage that can be difficult to otherwise get in English, not outright nonsense sources like OANN. The latter are easy to moderate. There are also issues like the New York Times, who have good factual articles but publish a ton of absolute garbage editorials. "mainstream" or "big" does nothing for helping evaluate a source. It's just a moral freight term, like "liberal", that can be used to attack or defend without getting into the details. Is the Malheur Enterprise "mainstream"? It doesn't matter. What matters is the degree of quality in the source. When this is the case it's useful to talk about the details of the information and its elements. The problem is that some sources are propaganda. At the level of the channel of information, they operate in bad faith. When this is the case there is no utility in using the source. Good information from the source will be available elsewhere, and it exists in that bad source only to harm further or future discourse. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Feb 6, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2021 21:39
|
|
|
Aruan posted:Like, trying to curate a list of “good” sources is going to require a level of moderation effort that frankly SA isn’t equipped for, and to be honest I don’t think USPol needs that level of scrutiny when it’s ok to post mybankruptcyfraudcrimes.text. No, because those users don't gently caress off, and they bring friends. Moderation is actually required. Rules and norms actually matter.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2021 23:00
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 03:44 |
|
|
fool of sound posted:OK, so the rough draft of new rule that I'm kicking around looks like: 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.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2021 03:52
|
|