|
Should the Feb. 2 Tara Reade piece on RT have been banned from USPol and maybe all of D&D? Also, if this thread is not about all of D&D, the title needs a change.
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 15:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 09:57 |
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Was anyone banned for posting that article? Does the existence of that one article allow full out trust of RT without question or further explanation? Not talking about posters. Should the source itself be okay to post or not? If the answer is "yes, but it should be accompanied by discussion," how is that different from how things should work right now, anyway? And to that bolded part, I'd really hope that posters don't treat any source with "full out trust... without question."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 16:00
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:"should the person posting the column be asked to defend it up front because it's published by a questionable outlet" Given the nature of the column--it's Tara Reade herself talking about Dems' reception of her story compared to their reception of AOC's story--I think that it would be strange to demand that posters "defend" RT up front. Attack Reade's arguments, maybe, but her opinion seems newsworthy and is directly relevant to US politics. We can surmise why she could not publish it elsewhere. It's likely that RT obliged because the story is damaging to Joe Biden, but that's a totally different branch of discussion, and it's one that can displace legitimate discussion about the column's content. And, to be frank, in situations where subjects are ignored in mainstream media--whether it be because they're contentious, damaging to those in power, or just extremely niche--making it tough to share them without getting bogged down in sourcechat seems like a good way to muzzle discussion. fool of sound posted:"to what degree is it appropriate to criticize the outlet rather than the content of the article" I think that being critical of outlets' bents and biases is good and interesting! There's just a load of difference between going to war about original RT reporting on Hunter Biden's laptop vs. Tara Reade's op-ed that asks, "Why did AOC get support from the party when I received hostility?" This feels like a matter where hard and fast rules about source/outlet quality might not work, but I'm just a guy.  That said, if there's a desire to have a USNews thread that is NYT story after NYT story because people miss Google Reader, well, that's its own thing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:There literally are people ITT arguing that anything published by RT is wrong because it is foreign russian propaganda. This. What about if I'd like to discuss a Chris Hedges interview with Cornel West on On Contact? https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/511893-west-america-existential-crisis/ Now we're talking about someone who draws a paycheck from RT, but has a sizable presence on the American Left talking to Cornel West, one of the more mainstream socialists we have.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 17:54
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 18:16
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Yes. There is a difference between fact and opinion. Which news sources should be outright banned? Which news sources should be accepted at face value?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 18:27
|
|
|
Doesn't seem at all off-topic, given the last several pages of discussion. You've already proposed blacklist or graylist items ITT: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. Deteriorata posted: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 9, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:As stated above, Tara Reade's editorial was not the instigating event for questioning RT as a source. Tara Reade's editorial was brought up apropos of nothing in order to slam someone as a rape apologist for questioning RT as a reputable source on an unrelated matter. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
Kalit posted:"This is an op-ed written in the state-run news outlet of Russia" 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. "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.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 21:24
|
|
|
What constitutes looking into a source? If it's filling out a pre-posting checklist, that's a chilling effect and also seems 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. Kalit posted:But the biggest problem, IMO, is tweets being posted and not looking up who is tweeting it and where those are sourced. Yeah, this is dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 21:30
|
|
|
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. Most people are not going to fill out a form every time they want to post. I don't think there is a solution to "sometimes people see lies on the internet" without a whitelist, and even a whitelist is going to be vulnerable to the biases of whoever creates it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 21:49
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Then maybe do more discussing and less slamming people: It was flippant, but reading a propaganda outlet was the only way to see her editorial. It was not published elsewhere. If you're refusing to expose yourself to "propaganda," as was urged in the post I replied to, you would, by definition, never see Reade's op-ed. I really don't think I've been slamming anyone in this thread. I've had two probes in 16 years. I don't think I'm a bombthrower. Insanite fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Feb 9, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 22:04
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted: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. Are you not interested in responding to this? https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3957474&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=6#post512380825 I'm essentially arguing for the status quo, although I agree that random Twitter posts from nobodies are stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 22:16
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Do you not have any reservations whatsoever about using a source that is obviously trying to weaponize what Reade went through to further their own nefarious agenda and goals, which almost certainly does not align with yours? Not really, no. The op-ed is only in one place. I would prefer that it have a larger, more mainstream American platform, but here we are. quote:Is making sure Reade's voice gets heard the only thing you care about? No. I think that it's very important, but it's also an exemplar of how things like outlet blacklists can potentially suppress discussion about sensitive, unpopular, or niche issues. quote:If you do care about Reade at all, then seeing her exploited like this by a mouthpiece of a monstrous totalitarian regime should make you disgusted. There is literally no reason to do a "gotta hand it to them" with regards to RT, ET or any similar outlet. They don't care about Reade, they don't care about you. By acting as a vector to spread their reporting, you're helping launder their image into a more legitimate one — and that is one of their goals for having given her a platform. It's not ideal, no. Reade has agency, though, and probably had to make a difficult call about this, herself. This is a thread about posting and discussing sources, though. What would you like to do regarding D&D rules and content that lives on rt.com? I think that sharing it while being able to discuss RT's biases is good, as is discussing what drove Reade to publish there rather than in another outlet, too. e: If something is obviously horseshit, it should be roasted and possibly probed, but that is nothing new. Deteriorata posted: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. I'm attempting to have a discussion in Debate & Discussion. I think that source blacklists are a dumb idea, and I'm saying as much. The topic is obviously relevant to this thread, given the many posters within it--including you--who are talking about source blacklists, probes that are directly related to source trustworthiness, and pre-posting homework. Herstory Begins Now posted: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. Would this apply to Reade's op-ed, or just news stories? That you should have to PM a mod to clear an opinion piece like that would be a departure from the status quo. Insanite fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Feb 9, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 09:57 |
|
|
I do agree that lazy pseudo-retweeting is a drag. Unless it’s notable or at least a good springboard for a discussion, it’s just using SA like a janky Twitter client of sorts.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 23:11
|
|