|
Over the last few years there's been increasing tension over valid news sources. As social media has warped the landscape of how we receive and interact with news, alternative news sources have developed, fake news outlets have flourished, and even mainstream sources have restructured their stories and editorials around driving engagement. While the Something Awful forums are as anachronistic as ever, we still can't entirely escape these changes, and as tweet embeds were added and posters' news sources shifted to reddit or twitter or alternative news sources, so too has the discourse around sources and their validity. As we begin the restructuring of USPol, it's important to discuss this now: what should the expectations be for posted sources? How responsible are posters for the sources they post? My hope is that, with feedback from this thread, we can develop solid guidelines for posting, discussing, and debunking sources that can be added to the rules thread and give us a solid basis for enforcing better discourse. Some topics for discussion, by no means exhaustive: ---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 Remember that the goal is to develop guidelines for how the mods and iks should respond to these issues. Obviously we would all like other uses to develop better media literacy, and I'm planning on creating a thread on that topic, but topic of this thread is 'when and how should the mods intervene?'. As with the last feedback thread, this thread will remain open for roughly two weeks.
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2021 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
For Tweets, I think the minimum requirements should be: - If the author is not a well-known figure or institution, tell us who they are and why they are qualified to comment on said subject - Quote what you think is the evidence or the lede in any linked articles In combination, these two guidelines should help both the poster and the audience better identify tweets that are misrepresentations of the underlying source. For example, if you post a tweet about a proposed tax bill, then you should say "this guy/gal is the senior fellow at such and such institute, which is a liberal/conservative think tank, and here's the bit that stood out to me from the linked article". This is not to say that the only opinions that matter in a political debate are those from experts, but in my opinion if we want to improve the quality of sources then we should try to clamp down on hot and intentionally inflammatory takes from total randos.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2021 19:12
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:- If the author is not a well-known figure or institution, tell us who they are and why they are qualified to comment on said subject Discendo Vox posted:One possible option: require that users posting tweets also take the time to identify the person posting the tweet (including any reframing or contextualization work that's being done), and actually quote the material linked in the tweet. This...this really shouldn't be a burden to people Yeah, I like everything that's said in both of these posts, particularly these suggestions. At risk of sounding like a crank (but what else is new, haw haw?!), this was sort of the expectation for posts on DnD not so long ago. You posted at least the parts of the article you were citing that you thought were important, you made it clear what argument you were making and why you thought the evidence cited supported it, etc. Obviously the advent of twitter changed those expectations somewhat, but I think we would probably do well to move back towards those older principles. e: encouraging this level of due diligence would probably minimize people using bad sources, too, since it would get them to actually read through the article they're posting more carefully to find the evidence they want. Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Jan 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2021 21:21
|
|
|
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
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2021 23:31
|
|
|
We should probably have a blacklist or whitelist of acceptable/unacceptable sources, because once in a long while some goon will drop blackcrimestatistic.jpg and wonder why they got a ban+month.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2021 23:59
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:what should the expectations be for posted sources? How responsible are posters for the sources they post? People post 'bad' sources because 'bad' sources are a core part of our current political landscape, and even a clearly false statement in a propaganda mouthpiece is worth raising as evidence of a school of thought. If they're relying on a 'bad' source on a point of fact, you can refute them with multiple 'good' sources. If you can't, then you're faced with a matter of opinion, and it's an awful, horrible, loving horrendous idea to suggest that moderators or IKs should be deciding that particular named sources are banned from threads - if someone keeps spamming Seth Abramson, there's an ignore function. None of the above applies to a literal stranger off twitter (apart from the readability issue) - I think Vox's suggestion for requiring contextualisation is bang on the money for that one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
Cefte posted:The only expectation I have of a posted source is that it's readable - people who post tweets which are then immediately deleted, leaving nothing but the gripping commentary of 'wow' by the poster should be permabanned. Pretty much this, the biggest issue is posting a tweet without any comment beyond 'yikes' or whatever, and then if that tweet is deleted or something it's just meaningless. I really hate the idea of mods deciding 'valid' sources because even really low bars like 'blue checks only' have some pretty embarrassing people included in it anyway. Like, yea if someone posts Dog Fart 69 saying without any article or source 'heard Biden's gonna nuke Iran tomorrow' people can just go 'I'm gonna wait for literally anyone with actual connections to validate that'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 00:24
|
|
|
It's sure as hell not going to be blue checkmarks only. More like "people with any sort of notability or indication that they are providing good information". Basically, posters should have an answer to "Why should we listen/not listen to this person?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 00:40
|
|
|
Cefte posted:If they're relying on a 'bad' source on a point of fact, you can refute them with multiple 'good' sources. No, this absolutely should not become the expectation, because it takes far more effort to refute a bad source with multiple good sources, than to post that bad source in the first place. This is such a widespread problem that there is even a name for it: Bullshit Asymmetry Principle Just like how the burden of proof lies with the person making a claim, the burden of showing that the source being posted is a good source should lie with the person posting it. Expecting others to do the harder work of refuting that source is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 03:16
|
|
|
Great example.is anyone using rt tweets or articles as a source, a propaganda arm is not something that should be considered good faith, and it be the same as someone linking breitbart articles or the daily stormer, almost certainly false or so completely out of context that the underlying quote or story is completely different from what's written.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 05:11
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Cefte posted:The only expectation I have of a posted source is that it's readable - people who post tweets which are then immediately deleted, leaving nothing but the gripping commentary of 'wow' by the poster should be permabanned. Part of the problem that caused all this to happen is that people were posting misleading bullshit and presenting it as real because they didn't bother to check the article or whatever, leaving to a pretty constant headache of people posting bullshit tweets designed to stir up outrage and then people having to go into the article to point out that the headline/tweeter is lying about what the article says and in the mean time there's several pages of people tantruming over what had been posting and also nobody saw the correction so it gets brought up later as being true. So I'd rather not go with 'post all the bullshit propaganda you like! Everyone else has to work ten times harder to refute you!' nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 11:07
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:No, this absolutely should not become the expectation, because it takes far more effort to refute a bad source with multiple good sources, than to post that bad source in the first place. This is such a widespread problem that there is even a name for it: Bullshit Asymmetry Principle This is an inherently unfeasible means of debate. How is one supposed to just know a source is bad, if the argument in the article makes sense to them? It's a matter of perspective and without the perspective of others, they will never know how to discern what a bad source is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 12:31
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:This is an inherently unfeasible means of debate. How is one supposed to just know a source is bad, if the argument in the article makes sense to them? It's a matter of perspective and without the perspective of others, they will never know how to discern what a bad source is. 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.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 13:31
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Can we have some sort of rule on a tweet that goes like this: Tweet: Nancy Pelosi completely abandons AOC, embraces fascist right, link to article: Article Reads: Nancy Pelosi has not commented on AOC's bill filed last night but talks are ongoing with her staff. Like if we can point out in all the ways the Tweet is misleading with even a cursory search and read, people should eat a probation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 18:52
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted: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. I think the main reason people post tweets is because they get automatically embedded, along with any articles linked in the tweet — it's visually pleasing and easy to parse. If SA had the ability to embed snippets from non-twitter URLs, you would see a noticeable reduction in posted tweets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 19:40
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:No, this absolutely should not become the expectation, because it takes far more effort to refute a bad source with multiple good sources, than to post that bad source in the first place. This is such a widespread problem that there is even a name for it: Bullshit Asymmetry Principle If people try a Gish Gallop, then, by all means, as has been the case (unevenly) for ten years, catch them on failure to respond to effort with effort, but handing mods & IKs the power to literally blacklist named sources entirely destroys the premise of an open debate forum. Sorry, you can't cite the IRGC in this discussion about Iran; they're not a good source. Sorry, you can't cite Krugman, he's almost heterodox! I mean, christ, after the debasement of traditional media over the last ten years and the ongoing fracture between center-liberal and left media, not to mention the ever-present accusations of ideological moderation, you really want to endorse that? UCS Hellmaker posted:Great example.is anyone using rt tweets or articles as a source, a propaganda arm is not something that should be considered good faith, and it be the same as someone linking breitbart articles or the daily stormer, almost certainly false or so completely out of context that the underlying quote or story is completely different from what's written. Kchama posted:Part of the problem that caused all this to happen is that people were posting misleading bullshit and presenting it as real because they didn't bother to check the article or whatever, leaving to a pretty constant headache of people posting bullshit tweets designed to stir up outrage and then people having to go into the article to point out that the headline/tweeter is lying about what the article says and in the mean time there's several pages of people tantruming over what had been posting and also nobody saw the correction so it gets brought up later as being true. So I'd rather not go with 'post all the bullshit propaganda you like! Everyone else has to work ten times harder to refute you!' nonsense. It's not a justification for another unpolled plebiscite to further empower D&D moderation to place guiderails on organic debate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 20:10
|
|
|
I don’t really think we should prohibit certain sources but I do think if you post a tweet and your description of it is not what the actual linked article/source says you should get an automatic week probation. I’ve seen two instances of this that led to big details - the one that stands out is someone posting a tweet criticizing Biden for his proposed minimum wage increase timeline... and the actual linked article referenced a bill from 2019 and nothing from Biden. It led to three pages of back and forth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 20:27
|
|
|
I'd say the reverse as well. Not only should posts to support an idea be reputable, certain threads/posters need to stick to reputable sources for things to DISAGREE with. Some threads just fall into a toilet of being the comment section of opinions on the hot takes of 16 year olds from alabama with 3 followers and it's funny at first, but at some point in threads that want to be more serious every single thread being endless gawking at whatever random no-body that has a bad opinion gets samey.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 20:50
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:Great example.is anyone using rt tweets or articles as a source, a propaganda arm is not something that should be considered good faith, and it be the same as someone linking breitbart articles or the daily stormer, almost certainly false or so completely out of context that the underlying quote or story is completely different from what's written. the issue with this standard is it also means we can't post the NYT or WaPo or basically any major newspaper source, because it's been proven constantly that they've done active collusion with the US government to launder fake stories to absolute genocidal ends such as the Iraq war leadup being a constant cycling of 'anonymous sources' that turned out to be Rumsfeld's chosen mouthpieces supporting other 'anonymous sources' that turned out to be Cheney's all overtly working with the reports to launder a lie. How does that not make them as much a propaganda arm of the US government than RT is Russia's?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 21:03
|
|
|
In fact, we also had the same thing happen again, last night, when someone posted a link to a bill as evidence that Democrats are bad... except the bill was written by a Republican. If you're too lazy to even do the tiniest bit of research - actually reading - the content you're posting and reacting to, then you should be getting hit with much more than a 6'er. I think doing this would clear out 75% of the worst sourcing issues, and then, at a later point, we can have a larger conversation if necessary about what sources are de facto bad faith. But let's at least punish the people posting "good" sources without bothering to read what they say before slamming their hot takes into the thread that aren't even supported by the evidence they're providing. Also I firmly believe that if you're posting anything that isn't strictly informational, i.e. anyone's opinion or reaction, you should have to add your own contribution, even if its "I think this is a great point!" Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Jan 31, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 21:27
|
|
|
Cefte posted:You seem to be confusing the act of 'debate' with something that can be replaced with moderation. Yes, debate is difficult! Yes, it takes effort to nail a slippery character! That's the point! Where did you get the idea that I am calling for blacklisting sources?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 21:38
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:the issue with this standard is it also means we can't post the NYT or WaPo or basically any major newspaper source, because it's been proven constantly that they've done active collusion with the US government to launder fake stories to absolute genocidal ends such as the Iraq war leadup being a constant cycling of 'anonymous sources' that turned out to be Rumsfeld's chosen mouthpieces supporting other 'anonymous sources' that turned out to be Cheney's all overtly working with the reports to launder a lie. How does that not make them as much a propaganda arm of the US government than RT is Russia's? This is false equivalence because state propaganda is RT's sole reason for existence. NYT and WaPo do occasionally (and usually unwittingly) act as mouthpieces of bad actors, but unlike RT, their primary goal is to act as the Fourth Estate. Indeed, they do frequently hold their own government to account, and do really important investigative work to expose the dark side of both government and corporations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 21:43
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Where did you get the idea that I am calling for blacklisting sources? Here's the paragraph I posted. Cefte posted:If they're relying on a 'bad' source on a point of fact, you can refute them with multiple 'good' sources. If you can't, then you're faced with a matter of opinion, and it's an awful, horrible, loving horrendous idea to suggest that moderators or IKs should be deciding that particular named sources are banned from threads - if someone keeps spamming Seth Abramson, there's an ignore function. And here's your reply. Thorn Wishes Talon posted:
Or are you asserting, in this thread about moderator regulation of sources used in debate, that your ringing rejection of the use of debate to determine points of fact in no way implied that the replacement was moderation? Because I find that difficult to follow, and in the absence of you actually enunciating your position, I suggest you expand on it. Or is there another path, that you can best bring forward in your own words? Because, again, I suggest you take the opportunity to flesh it out. Cefte fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Jan 31, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 22:02
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:This is false equivalence because state propaganda is RT's sole reason for existence. NYT and WaPo do occasionally (and usually unwittingly) act as mouthpieces of bad actors, but unlike RT, their primary goal is to act as the Fourth Estate. Indeed, they do frequently hold their own government to account, and do really important investigative work to expose the dark side of both government and corporations. Is RT really the problem? I don't follow every thread in D&D, but I haven't seen many issues with people posting "Little Green Men: What, Is Ukraine Roswell Now? -RT," "Boris Johnson: 2021's Hairstyle Icon -BBC" or "Qatar's Overseas Guest Workers: Well Treated and Loving It! -Al Jazeera." In the few cases where that's come up, it seems like posters are able to call out the media source pretty well. Instead, it seems like there's a problem with people posting tweets with links to generally uncontroversial media sources, alongside some thermonuclear-hot 280-char takes from a particular poster's Ideologically Approved Twitter feed that might or might not actually describe what the source in question is saying. It seems like that has a pretty simple solution, too: posters should describe why they've chosen to share that particular take on the news of the day. If it's just a poster laundering a take along the lines of "Biden sinks a knife between the shoulderblades of every immigrant" attached to an article that describes a one-week delay in rolling back some of Trump's worst actions, then perhaps hold that poster responsible for the take they chose to share instead of treating it like a news story. Aruan posted:In fact, we also had the same thing happen again, last night, when someone posted a link to a bill as evidence that Democrats are bad... except the bill was written by a Republican. That wasn't even the only time that particular issue cropped up last night.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 23:01
|
|
|
You sound unnecessarily combative. Maybe you didn't intend to come across that way, but you do. I stated my position in the first reply to the OP. I don't have a strong stance on whether mods should blacklist certain sources that are intended to be propaganda; I can see the arguments going both ways. I simply demonstrated why your particular argument opposing it is a deeply and fundamentally flawed one. That is why I quoted that part of your post specifically, not because I am strongly in favor of blacklisting, but because I object to the suggestion that bad sources should be refuted using multiple good ones, and that it is not a problem if this places a disproportionate burden on posters who are objecting to the bad source. Your follow-up response of "yes, debate is difficult" is not a convincing one either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 23:39
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:I stated my position in the first reply to the OP. I don't have a strong stance on whether mods should blacklist certain sources that are intended to be propaganda; I can see the arguments going both ways. I simply demonstrated why your particular argument opposing it is a deeply and fundamentally flawed one. Thorn Wishes Talon posted:I object to the suggestion that bad sources should be refuted using multiple good ones, and that it is not a problem if this places a disproportionate burden on posters who are objecting to the bad source. Your follow-up response of "yes, debate is difficult" is not a convincing one either. Cefte fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Feb 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 00:02
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:This is false equivalence because state propaganda is RT's sole reason for existence. NYT and WaPo do occasionally (and usually unwittingly) act as mouthpieces of bad actors, but unlike RT, their primary goal is to act as the Fourth Estate. Indeed, they do frequently hold their own government to account, and do really important investigative work to expose the dark side of both government and corporations. This is one of those things where you want people to be educated but just said something buck wild that even a basic amount of education on the topic would keep you from doing. You give the sources I said this weird 'well they're usually unwitting pawns' benefit when nearly every reckoning of the war leadup I was using as an example showed multiple parts of the chain of accountability, from journalists to editors to the actual head of the NYT news division were completely aware of what they were doing, so it's weird to say their 'primary goal' is to act as the fourth estate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 00:28
|
|
|
You could argue that an outlet which sometimes engages in things of seeming journalistic merit but also publishes outright propaganda is more dangerous, given that the former may have the effect of giving credence to the latter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 00:37
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You could argue that an outlet which sometimes engages in things of seeming journalistic merit but also publishes outright propaganda is more dangerous, given that the former may have the effect of giving credence to the latter. I feel like we can work on stomping out people posting literally false things before having to tackle the exact biases of various major news outlets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 01:10
|
|
|
Let's talk about specifics. This was posted yesterday: quote:also, forgive me for going on a dems bad spree, but this is also really hosed up Except when you follow the actual link, the proposed bill is from a Republican. After a mod pointing this out, the OP followed up with: quote:okay in fairness i just realized Waltz is a Republican so its not necessarily "dems bad" but wasserman-schultz signing off on it is loving inexcusable The original post was never edited, and no punishment was handed out. Posting a link and then saying something completely wrong about that link needs to be a heavy probation. Read the loving poo poo you post! Can we at least make this a rule and enforce it before getting into specifics about testing sources? You should be responsible for the tweets and articles you post: both in accurately summarizing what they say, and also for checking to make sure they're not garbage. If you aren't ok with that, don't post the source. Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Feb 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 01:13
|
|
|
I don't at all see why that merits a probation. Poster said they were wrong about part of their post but follows with why they are still concerned, nobody needs to be "punished" for that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 01:23
|
|
|
Aruan posted:Let's talk about specifics. You're very angry about someone being wrong about who wrote the bill but ignoring that a greater point that's related to issues of Democratic Party values remains when you look that it's cosponsored by DWS, a major Florida Democrat, and his entire pitch is using her and a couple other dems as a way to say this ghoulish, racist, bill they support is bipartisan and good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 01:24
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:You're very angry about someone being wrong about who wrote the bill but ignoring that a greater point that's related to issues of Democratic Party values remains when you look that it's cosponsored by DWS, a major Florida Democrat, and his entire pitch is using her and a couple other dems as a way to say this ghoulish, racist, bill they support is bipartisan and good. I'm not "very angry", I'm pointing out that theres a problem in USPol where people post tweets without actually reading them or misrepresenting what a tweet says. There's a big difference between "this is a Democratic Party Bill!" and "this is a bill introduced by a Republican and co-sponsored by a Democrat" - its fine to bring up the topic and discuss he latter, accurate framing, but you should be honest about what the situation is, particularly when you're using a tweet as evidence... without seemingly bothering to read the tweet or the bill it links to. I grabbed this post because it was the latest example, but this happens all the time, and its not just about "Dems bad." There are a lot of garbage, in accurately framed tweets about Trump which are thrown into the thread. It takes literally 5 seconds to look this stuff up before slamming the "reply" button. If this isn't a rule then I don't see how D&D can be a forum that encourages effort posting. Here's the rule I'd propose: You are responsible for the tweets you post and the articles they link to. If you are going to post a tweet or an article, make sure your post - and any tweets you link - accurately summarize the content. Failure to do so will be punished harshly. Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Feb 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 01:31
|
|
|
Cefte posted:So, to clarify, you object to the assertion that the appropriate management of the use of a 'bad' source on a point of fact is counter-citation and debate. What do you propose is the appropriate management? Cefte, the entire thing that makes a source 'bad' in the context of debate and discourse is that it routinely mixes lies with facts, and truth with fiction. That is what makes propaganda effective in the first place. It is simply not reasonable to expect the other side to put in overwhelmingly more effort to pick apart and respond to each point said source presents with counter-citations. So yes, I object to the idea that that is a normal or acceptable expectation. Furthermore, this right here: Cefte posted:You seem to be confusing the act of 'debate' with something that can be replaced with moderation. Yes, debate is difficult! Yes, it takes effort to nail a slippery character! That's the point! ...is horseshit. Having to tediously refute idiotic hot takes from posters who deliberately or unwittingly spread propaganda on a constant basis is not "the point" of debate. We should strive for a higher level of discourse than that, and should expect moderators to enforce those standards. Regarding what I propose, again, I already posted it: require users to identify who the author of a source is (whether it's a tweet or an article) and what their qualifications are, as well as the important sections from the source. This addresses the problem with bad-sourcing too, albeit indirectly: doing so should reduce bad source usage noticeably, both because the poster themselves might identify the flaws with it and decide not to post it, and because it would somewhat equalize the playing field in terms of effort.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:
12 Hour Probation. Ramp if it becomes an ongoing problem for a poster.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 01:38
|
|