|
awesmoe posted:despite despising clickbait bullshit like the hill or lovely twitter idiots, i dont think people should be prevented from or punished for posting that kind of stuff. It'll just turn into endless litigating about what's good faith and whats bad faith and whats bad faith but still newsworthy (eg the tom cotton nyt op-ed) and I think its more productive to discuss the pieces rather than litigating whether discussion is allowed. the solution is media literacy and responding appropriately to bad-faith sources so lol good luck It's possible, but at least so far there's been quite a bit of agreement (both among iks and mods and among posters in general, afaict) about which sources loving suck and which sources seem to be presenting stuff earnestly or fairly and as described. Agreement that has generally transcended dnd's normal divisions.
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2021 07:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 01:00 |
|
|
That's basically the current state of the rules and coverage is quite a bit better on it now (hopefully) with a lot more eyes on the busier threads compared to a year ago.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2021 19:20
|
|
|
The status quo is that if someone earnestly links to something from a RT or VOA tier source without a fuckoff huge caveat header of 'this is how it's being spun by official sources' it's going to get roasted and treated with hella skepticism. That said, it's kind of neither here nor there because 1) people barely ever post that poo poo here anymore for the above mentioned reason and 2) I don't believe there's been any particular agitation to be more permissive towards people posting dogshit sources like that and 3) people self-policing and making a good-faith effort to put a minute or two into checking out just who they're posting is easier on everyone and is all it takes to avoid that particular embarrassment. Tweets from known unreliable people get treated similarly, eg look what happens whenever someone posts a louise mensch tweet in here or someone inadvertently reposts some qanon tweet. That aside, I'm very curious what people feel is a reasonable consequence for people misrepresenting what they post/reposting some misleading, outragey twitter bait or similar? And on that note, I'm gathering generally that most people want to return to the previous standard of articles getting posted with a short paragraph of framing and preferably also an extract of particularly relevant points? Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Feb 1, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2021 01:08
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Yeah it sucks that that's what it has come to.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2021 23:31
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Yeah that's fine, but this place is moderated by volunteers and this is more about finding a working standard that facilitates conversation generally and not about political epistemology abstracted to a completely theoretical 'what is objective political information?' extent.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2021 21:38
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:OwlFancier is 100% correct. he can be correct, but because I don't think anyone tasked with moderating here neither wants to nor feels qualified to be some absolute arbiter of political objectivity, it's a lot easier to just disallow stuff that walks and swims and quacks like a propaganda duck
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2021 21:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you don't like the predominant posting style of a thread perhaps you're just not a good fit for it? I find all of mine to be quite agreeable places. Don't do this poo poo in here.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2021 23:36
|
|
|
Gerund posted:You first buddy. Say what you really want to say about it. Don't do this poo poo in here.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 19:15
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I dunno it sounds like the issue is the endless slapfights and hot takes. We could just moderate those? Calling prager u a source is strange. What is prager U a source of, exactly?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 01:00 |
|
|
I'm inclined to agree that pretty much everything being linked must be accompanied by a brief summary and description and explanation of relevance or credibility, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2021 17:18
|
|