|
Kchama posted:The problem has less been that the articles are bad sources, and more that the people posting them are just taking twitter randos at their word as to what an article says. So the idea that you need multiple sources to debunk someone's idiotic take on an article is dumb, when you should just be able to point out that the article disagrees with the twitter idiot. I would much rather see people post a link to the article itself, with a bit of the relevant content from it, rather than a tweet about it. If the thread is to be news oriented, then sticking to original content rather than commentary about it would sure help. It's aggravating to have to find and click through to the article to find out what it actually says.
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2021 14:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 01:03 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:If somebody is wrong, they are going to post wrong poo poo, and you can prove them wrong, you can post correct sources. The edge case here is an unsourced article from the Washington Examiner that asserts stuff based on unnamed anonymous "insiders" which no other news source corroborates. The odds are about 99% that it's complete bullshit but there is no way to refute it directly. That sort of thing does get posted and often causes multiple page derails of endless bickering. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2021 15:48
|
|
|
Rockit posted:I understand the difference but you can't just deny the silencing effect talking about sexual assault allegations have on people who think their own abuse and/or the average abuse claim is just as credible as Tara's. Sure there's probablites some actual diffrernces between them(Even if i think those differences don't matter the way the mainstream would think they do) but they don't know that and getting people to shut up wouldn't just make them get over it like you're planning. If you want to talk about it, start a thread and go hog wild.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2021 22:03
|
|
|
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. Stenography is an important, if unfortunate, part of news reporting. "Important Person X said Y" is factual information that should be part of the public record. That thing Y was complete bullshit is a separate issue. That is what analysis and opinion writing is for.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2021 21:45
|
|
|
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. Like citing the New York Times for an article that turns out to be bogus is forgiven, but citing the Washington Times for a false news story gets you a probe. If the story is true, it doesn't matter what the source is. I'm not sure how enforceable that would be, I'm just spitballing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2021 22:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If the effect you want is "don't post sources I don't like" with the intended consequence of "posters I don't like stop posting one way or another" then offloading the risk onto the poster I don't think is a very helpful compromise. The effect I want is "don't post bullshit" so the thread stays focused on things that are factually true. For example, if you post a story from a dubious news site that claims the Democrats are secretly plotting to destroy Social Security, you had better be right that they actually are.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2021 22:22
|
|
|
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. Which is exactly the point of posting the lovely article in the first place. They're trolling, so getting a couple pages of "gently caress off" instead of meaningful discussion is what they're after.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2021 23:01
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:Is that a meaningful distinction when the desired result (prohibiting RT as a source) is the same? Is there a difference between "not trustworthy" and "is wrong"? Yes. There is a difference between fact and opinion. Using RT as a source for what is supposed to be a factual news item is a bad idea. Using RT as a source for an op-ed is not significantly different from anywhere else.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
Insanite posted:Which news sources should be outright banned? If the mods want input on such a list, I will be happy to offer my opinion. Until then, it's an off-topic derail.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 18:41
|
|
|
Insanite posted:TBH, I think a thread where some sort of mandatory source evaluation preceded discussion could be interesting, but I think that conversation would tend to flow to places where the requirements are a little more lax. I'm fine with that. People who are determined to post bullshit from bad sources should find a different forum to post in. We should hold people to a higher standard here.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 21:53
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 01:03 |
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:There's definitely cases of right-wing propaganda publishing suddenly truthful of milquetoast takes in order to get clicks and wean people onto the actual fascism. Expanding the definition of "propaganda" to include anything ever written by anyone seems a bit overly broad.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2021 17:16
|
|