|
Please illustrate the difference to me between saying that Reade cannot be trusted and that Reade is wrong or lying. Other than phraseological cowardice.
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:59 |
|
|
Kalit posted:I see posters who are saying that RT should not be considered a trustworthy news source, not 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"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Please illustrate the difference to me between saying that Reade cannot be trusted and that Reade is wrong or lying. Other than phraseological cowardice. Why are you bringing up an analogy and trying to tie this in with Reade? We're talking about you saying posters ITT are literally saying everything published in RT is wrong. Insanite posted: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. If you're talking about my post for the "source quality checklist", I meant that for all news source posts/tweets. Granted, the feasibility of that might be difficult to implement without have a different post template. Kalit fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Feb 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 18:21
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:This thread is relevant to all of D&D but is particularly important to the upcoming USNews thread. IMO whenever someone uses a well-known propaganda outlet, they should be asked to apply axeil's questions to it: quote:1. Who created this? Insanite posted:Should the Feb. 2 Tara Reade piece on RT have been banned from USPol and maybe all of D&D? Well, why don't we do this... apply the questions above to the RT column and try to answer them as honestly and dispassionately as possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Yes, directly insulting me as “trumpian” is surely the way to convince me that you’re posting in good faith. You accused me of posting in bad faith, and in return I provided evidence that that was clearly not the case, and that if anything you were posting in bad faith. Now you're crying because your original, bullshit accusation got turned around on you? Yeah, "make baseless accusations about others doing exactly what you're already doing, cry about people being mean to you when this gets pointed out" fits the mold of "Trumpian" pretty drat well. Gerund posted:If you don't want things to be reduced and generalized to absurd levels for bad-faith, self-serving ends... No, this isn't how it works, you don't get to reduce and generalize things in bad-faith because the person you're arguing with doesn't give you an argument you have a prepared response for. Speaking of bad faith: Main Paineframe posted:I don't think the Tara Reade article is super relevant here because it's an op-ed. It doesn't try to claim to be anything more than the positions of the particular person writing it, who has no particular affiliation with RT besides the fact that they let her write an op-ed. No one's looking at the Tara Reade article and saying "it must be right because it's posted on RT". They're evaluating it based on Tara Reade's credibility as a survivor, not RT's credibility, because RT doesn't have any credibility to lend to the article. This is dead-on, and the desperate attempt to link this arguement to the Tara Reade editorial despite it having ostensibly nothing to do with this thread is a transparently bad-faith attempt to conjure up an "I win" button. Bad-faith is the absolute crux of this issue, propaganda outlets put out information in bad faith, they deliberately try to muddle the waters by whatabouting authoritative sources of information and make it seem like objective facts are really just a matter of political perspective so they can sneak their lies into the public discourse on the back of partial truths just like posters are trying to do in this thread. I understand and agree with the rules in DnD about assuming others are posting in good faith, but mods/admins should not be making the same assumptions, and in a meta/feedback thread such as this where we're discussing what is essentially the problem of people posting information in bad-faith (or at least posting information that's been published in bad-faith) it's foolish to ignore. We regularly have arguments about how the dems are a waste/controlled every time one of them tells the truth instead of saying whatever lie would best advance the cause celeb. We have people who openly embrace the "posting is praxis" mindset and treat discussion as a form on information warfare. Why in the world are we listening to people who advocate the use of propaganda to advance their cause come in here and reinforce the efforts of propaganda sources like RT by playing whataboutism games using bad-faith generalizations, and then treating that like it's a good-faith objection. Why are we acting like people who advocate lying and pushing propaganda in order to achieve their ends are doing anything but exactly that? This isn't an honest attempt to discuss source-control, it's an attempt to muddle the waters through concern-trolling about individual outlets enough that the act of enforcing source-moderation becomes unworkable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 19:06
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:IMO whenever someone uses a well-known propaganda outlet, they should be asked to apply axeil's questions to it: Those are certainly valid questions to ask, but if we want to be honest and dispassionate, they need to be applied equally to all sources. What qualifies as a "well-known propaganda outlet"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 19:06
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:IMO whenever someone uses a well-known propaganda outlet, they should be asked to apply axeil's questions to it: You first buddy. Say what you really want to say about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 19:06
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:Those are certainly valid questions to ask, but if we want to be honest and dispassionate, they need to be applied equally to all sources. What qualifies as a "well-known propaganda outlet"? I already answered the question of what qualifies as propaganda outlet. As for your suggestion, sure, I'm definitely not stopping anyone from applying those questions to all sources!
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 19:13
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You accused me of posting in bad faith, and in return I provided evidence that that was clearly not the case, and that if anything you were posting in bad faith. It is "how it works". You won't show us why people should be allowed to post anything they want without bothering to show that the source has some legitimacy or disclosing the point of posting the source in the first place. This is because the only reason to defend such a position is to excuse the constant shitposting of garbage ranging from unsourced rumors to outright lies that "feel right" and get used as a cudgel against others. That's it, there's no debate to be had when this happens and the fact you couldn't address the meat of my argument and went straight to insults further proves my point. It's bad faith posting, take responsibility for what you post instead of lashing out and projecting on others.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 19:18
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:It is "how it works". You won't show us why people should be allowed to post anything they want without bothering to show that the source has some legitimacy or disclosing the point of posting the source in the first place. This is because the only reason to defend such a position is to excuse the constant shitposting of garbage ranging from unsourced rumors to outright lies that "feel right" and get used as a cudgel against others. That's it, there's no debate to be had when this happens and the fact you couldn't address the meat of my argument and went straight to insults further proves my point. I think you and Jarmak have missed that you have basically the same position, namely that people really should pay attention to from what source the news they just posted come from. Jarmak literally does not want people to post anything they want, he has been railing against RT the whole time he's been posting. I think one of you misread a post by the other, because from where I'm standing I don't think you are in disagreement? emphasis mine Jarmak posted:Bad-faith is the absolute crux of this issue, propaganda outlets put out information in bad faith, they deliberately try to muddle the waters by whatabouting authoritative sources of information and make it seem like objective facts are really just a matter of political perspective so they can sneak their lies into the public discourse on the back of partial truths just like posters are trying to do in this thread. I understand and agree with the rules in DnD about assuming others are posting in good faith, but mods/admins should not be making the same assumptions, and in a meta/feedback thread such as this where we're discussing what is essentially the problem of people posting information in bad-faith (or at least posting information that's been published in bad-faith) it's foolish to ignore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 19:51
|
|
|
SpiritOfLenin posted:I think you and Jarmak have missed that you have basically the same position, namely that people really should pay attention to from what source the news they just posted come from. Jarmak literally does not want people to post anything they want, he has been railing against RT the whole time he's been posting. I think one of you misread a post by the other, because from where I'm standing I don't think you are in disagreement? Yeah lol, I think they agree almost fully, not sure why they're railing against each other...
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Yeah lol, I think they agree almost fully, not sure why they're railing against each other... Yea, this post: Jarmak posted:Accusations of bad faith posting are god damned Trumpian levels of projection here. Was in response to this post: Roland Jones posted:... it's not like the British Broadcasting Corporation isn't effectively controlled by the party in power... And then Solkanar512 mis-interpreted who Jarmak was saying that about, since Jarmak quoted multiple posters in that post: Solkanar512 posted:Yes, directly insulting me as “trumpian” is surely the way to convince me that you’re posting in good faith. So basically, a mix up in what comments was directed at who.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 20:01
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:I already answered the question of what qualifies as propaganda outlet. As for your suggestion, sure, I'm definitely not stopping anyone from applying those questions to all sources! As an example: 1. Who posted this? Axeil, a Something Awful forums poster who accused a rape victim of having fabricated her entire story for money, was banned for doing so, and has since returned very concerned about the effects of propaganda on forums moderation. 2. Why did they post it? Because Tara Reade's op-ed was posted in USPOL, and ignited considerable discussion to which he finds himself opposed. Advocating his position directly previously got him banned, however, so it is necessary to launder his stance considerably in order to advance it now. 3. Who is the message for? Ostensibly, the general public of the forum; functionally, an appeal to the moderation staff to characterize his position of that of logic, facts, and reason, unlike the irrational people who disagree with him, regarding the desirability of ignoring Tara Reade. 4. What techniques are being used to make this message credible or believable? A heavy focus on the use of dispassionate language, in the hopes of appealing to a vision of a less emotionally-impelled debate structure. 5. What details were left out, and why? The context in which these metrics were proposed (someone posted an op-ed by Tara Reade discussing her rape, which he believed should not be permitted) and his previous stance on the issue in question (that Tara Reade is a liar who made up her story for money) were left out. This was done because Axeil understood that his appeal was contingent on appearing as dispassionate as possible. Being honest about his personal investment on the issue in question would make it clear that he is not proposing a dispassionate analysis of what is best for the forums, he is proposing a way he can rules lawyer his way into calling a rape victim a liar without consequences. This agenda would make people significantly less receptive to his proposition, and so it is obscured. 6. How did the message make you feel? Significant revulsion for the attempt at laundering rape apologia through HR-speak! Those who are unaware of the context will not agree, due to the fact they are unaware of the context in which the proposition was made- at worst, they will find the idea of having to do a book report to post a source a tremendously tedious exercise. Those who are aware of the context but agree with Axeil that the rape victim's story should be disregarded will also disagree, on the grounds that as long as moderation makes it probatable to openly call Tara Reade a liar, they will want some way to push back against the idea her words should be listened to. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 20:04
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Yeah lol, I think they agree almost fully, not sure why they're railing against each other... I can read their post that way too now that you mention it. I took "people who do this are posting in bad faith" after quoting me to be referring to me, but I can see how they could be refering to the people I was talking about... but why double down when I pushed back instead of indicating that they weren't talking about me?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 20:04
|
|
|
Dett Rite posted:... And now, here we have an example of a post that is showing how to peddle misinformation. The considerable discussion didn't stem from someone posting Reade's op-ed in USPOL. It stemmed from me asking if RT was a reliable source, as a poster before that had posted tweets by an RT journalist that seemed misleading/posted without reading. The only reason why Reade's op-ed was brought up was because it was trying to be used as justification for why RT can be a trusted source (well after RT was being discussed). The start of Russia/RT chat was some random, obviously mis-leading and without additional context, anti-Duss takes from Alex Rubenstein, an RT journalist (unsure if Rubenstein is currently RT, but was as of a few years ago). I left out the tweets to keep my post shorter: Bootleg Trunks posted:Woah, Matt Duss! Then, in the following pages, I asked about the trustworthiness of RT Kalit posted:Speaking of Russiachat, is RT America a reliable news source or not? I'm just wondering if any journalist who works (or recently worked for) them should be trustworthy or not. Then a little later, when Neurolimal was defending RT, this was asked: Thom12255 posted:What should we trust that comes out of Putins mouthpiece though? Anything RT says is true can be found easily in multiple other outlets that aren't run by a mafia anti-democratic state. Which became the first time the Reade op-ed got brought up: Neurolimal posted:Without getting into the specifics because that's apparently sensitive for USPOL: how many other major outlets have let Tara Reade write an opinion piece? As you can see, this discussion of how trustworthy RT/news sources are wasn't due to Reade's op-ed being posted in USPol. This topic was already being discussed before it was even mentioned. Kalit fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Feb 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 20:31
|
|
|
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. Which is exactly what is happening in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 20:50
|
|
|
Kalit posted:And now, here we have an example of a post that is showing how to peddle misinformation. The considerable discussion didn't stem from someone posting Reade's op-ed in USPOL. It stemmed from me asking if RT was a reliable source, as a poster before that had posted tweets by an RT journalist that seemed misleading/posted without reading. The only reason why Reade's op-ed was brought up was because it was trying to be used as justification for why RT can be a trusted source well after RT was being discussed. This is a theoretically viable explanation, but it requires the explainer to cast the man on record as believing Tara Reade is claiming she was raped in exchange for a payoff as a disinterested observer, whose strongly felt beliefs on the subject did not motivate him in any way. As we have just demonstrated, Axeil's questionnaire's function is not to approach the truth. Axeil's questionnaire's function is to shift debate from the subject of an article, to the motivations a given poster believes produced a given article. Due to his past actions, I suspect this is motivated by his prior agenda. Due to the point in the timeline that the article by the woman he accused of being a paid fabricator was posted, you believe Axeil's concern was unrelated. This is an argument that cannot accomplish anything, as the second we start debating the question "why did they write this" we are retreating into the insufferable realm of competitive mind-reading, where the only argument possible is "I think they wrote this for bad reasons" vs. "I think they wrote this for good reasons." This exercise serves noone and nothing, save the people who want to talk more about how they distrust a given source's motives.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
personally i don't think we should outright ban any news sources, but it should be fine to push back when someone posts a source which you think is questionable, as long as you are doing so reasonably, i.e. with a modicum of effort. if this ends up leading to derails then we can revisit if there does need to be some sort of black list of sources, but for now i am very wary of trying to create a list of acceptable and unacceptable sources. i posted this earlier, but if the purpose of this thread is to try to cut down on derails and arguments in uspol, almost all of those (latest notwithstanding) aren't caused by someone posting RT, they're caused by someone presenting a NY times or WaPo article and posting misleadingly about what it contains. to the specific RT story being discussed here, i think its fine to both post the article and discuss the content, while also potentially having a discussion about the context. i feel right now trying to parse the value of specific sources is a solution in search of a problem. note: this does not apply to blogs or twitter posts, but rather things posted by what are ostensibly news sources. i think we should crack down harshly on people posting bad tweets from unverified randos. Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Feb 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
Dett Rite posted:As we have just demonstrated, Axeil's questionnaire's function is not to approach the truth. Axeil's questionnaire's function is to shift debate from the subject of an article, to the motivations a given poster believes produced a given article. That is literally the explicitly stated purpose for that questionnaire, the questions were intended to interrogate a questionable source of a story, not the substance of the story. That was the loving point. But now you're trying to make a bad-faith equivalence between questioning RT and questioning Tara Reade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Insanite posted:I know that I mentioned Reade's editorial because banning RT in this forum would mean banning the sharing of her editorial. "This is an op-ed written in the state-run news outlet of Russia"  Also, I didn't see anyone running into the USPOL thread and sharing it anyways. It was only brought up as a defense of RT a couple of days after it was written.To be clear, I don't think we should outright ban news outlets. 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. Also, does anyone actually knowingly* use RT as a source (beyond the reference to that Reade op-ed)? I honestly don't think I have seen it used (or at least not on a regular basis). *I assume the poster who posted those anti-Duss tweets didn't even bother to see the the twitter account belonged to an RT journalist. Kalit fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Feb 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 21:16
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Insanite posted: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. Why do you think needing to look into a source you're using is a bad thing? If someone is too lazy to do that, I would rather them not be posting information. E: Insanite posted:"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." Yes, with regards to RT, it's not a big problem. Which is why I'm so confused on why there's numerous posters that seems to be defending them. But the biggest problem, IMO, is tweets being posted and not looking up who is tweeting it and where those are sourced. Kalit fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Feb 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 21:26
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Insanite posted:What constitutes looking into a source? That's what this thread is for. I honestly don't know what the best option is. The pre-posting checklist would be a nice uniform way of enforcing people to think about what they're posting instead of  But it becomes more onerous for IKs/mods to enforce and would lead to a lot of upset people if they didn't know to do that.On the other hand, people keep posting misleading/incorrect/badly sourced tweets (and occasional articles). Even if they get probed for it, it's still occurring on a regular basis and it still leads to spreading misinformation to other posters, especially if they are lurkers that only look for tweets/news clips. For example, a poster was convinced that the US was going to start interfering in Russia's domestic policy because Duss, a "Russia hawk" (their words), was hired. After they engaged with other posters, they admitted it was because they saw those anti-Duss tweets of an RT journalist that were posted pages prior calling Duss a "Russia hawk" and took it at face value. So what's the best way to prevent misinformation being posted while also making the thread manageable to moderate? I would lean towards heavier requirements to posting sources/tweets
Kalit fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Feb 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 21:40
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Insanite posted:I don't appreciate being told that I'm discussing it just to slam people. Then maybe do more discussing and less slamming people: Insanite posted:That's one way to never expose yourself to Tara Reade's opinion piece, yes. edit: To be clear on context, that one-liner off the top rope was the first time Tara Reade was mentioned in the discussion. edit: correction, missed a post just before it that brought it up, my original point about slamming people with one-liners instead of discussing it was independent of this fact though Jarmak fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Feb 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 21:49
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:edit: To be clear on context, that one-liner off the top rope was the first time Tara Reade was mentioned in the discussion. Look up 3 posts from that one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 21:57
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Look up 3 posts from that one. touche, missed that one edit: or more accurately, was bouncing around and got the order mixed up
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 22:01
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Making posters go through a checklist just seems condescending. It is always a good idea to interrogate where your media is coming from, but we're all adults here, and anyone posting in D&D is familiar enough with NPR, WaPo, Fox, BBC, RT, CGTN, etc to understand their inherent biases, where they get their money, why they cover or don't cover certain stories and so on. I don't see a lot of posters barging in with "Hillary Eats Babies" stories sourced from patriotguneagle.biz.cx or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 22:11
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:Making posters go through a checklist just seems condescending. It is always a good idea to interrogate where your media is coming from, but we're all adults here, and anyone posting in D&D is familiar enough with NPR, WaPo, Fox, BBC, RT, CGTN, etc to understand their inherent biases, where they get their money, why they cover or don't cover certain stories and so on. I don't see a lot of posters barging in with "Hillary Eats Babies" stories sourced from patriotguneagle.biz.cx or whatever. This is why I'm more worried about news-related tweets. But if there's a checklist type thing for news-related tweets, I think it's better to just make it consistent across any news-related source that's being posted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:59 |
|
|
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
|
|