Thoughts on the change in ownership?
None that comply with the various forum rules, no.
Twitter couldn't be any worse than it already was.
That served as a good source of inspirations for memes. ;)
https://knowyourmeme.com/news/elon-musk-took-another-meme-irl-by-bringing-a-sink-to-twitter-hq
https://www.opindia.com/2022/10/twitter-memes-after-elon-musk-acquires-the-social-media-platform/
https://twitter.com/NautPoso/status/1585796654875250695
https://twitter.com/VickyShegzy/status/1585884740238049280
Twitter is what you make of it. I use it more or less as a news source. 50% of what I follow is sports-related, 30% is local news/weather/traffic, the other 20% is people I actually know personally. Anybody who's posting mostly political stuff gets edited out of my feed pretty quickly. 99% of political opinions on Twitter or any other social media are pretty much boilerplate left-wing or right-wing.
Quote from: bandit957 on October 28, 2022, 04:13:24 PMTwitter couldn't be any worse than it already was.
I agree that it's a cesspool and has been for quite some time, but it could absolutely get worse.
Never used it.
Quote from: abefroman329 on October 28, 2022, 04:26:06 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on October 28, 2022, 04:13:24 PMTwitter couldn't be any worse than it already was.
I agree that it's a cesspool and has been for quite some time, but it could absolutely get worse.
Yes, it could get worse. But I honestly don't know anyone who would care. It's a self-contained bubble that is of huge importance to those in the bubble and mostly irrelevant to most everyone else. If Twitter disappeared, people would notice for about a week, then those displaced would soon find another bubble.
I rarely tweet and even less often check responses. No change for me.
Twitter is for twits, isn't it?
Tweeter, on the other hand, was a boy scout before she went to Vietnam.
I think that Twitter will become a more "Wild West"-type of website that the major social media platforms have turned away from since their inceptions. I think it's overall a good thing. Walking on egg shells while writing on public forums is lame.
Twitter has been incredibly shady with their methods of banning and the way they distribute verification. (i.e., journalists with a couple thousand followers have the blue check, while YouTubers with hundreds of thousands of subscribers don't). I hope to see Elon Musk make the platform more fun again.
I opened a twitter account more than 10 years ago. Never sent a tweet.
Social media is terrible in general, but I use Twitter as a sort of chronological recap of the day's events and reactions to it. I don't use the Twitter app but rather a client instead so it's actually chronological vs. promoted nonsense that is the normal app. Now that it's going to turn into Truth Social II presented by Ye and Blood Emeralds, I'll have to find something else I suppose.
Quote from: kphoger on October 28, 2022, 04:26:17 PM
Never used it.
Ditto, I don't understand the appeal of the platform.
Quote from: kphoger on October 28, 2022, 04:53:10 PM
Twitter is for twits, isn't it?
My take exactly. Too many twits on Twitter. I doubt that will change, except maybe some twits will leave and be replaced by new ones, since twits with no lives have to do something with their time.
I get some indirect exposure to Twitter from political websites I frequent. Otherwise, I have no interest in participating.
Twitter is fantastic for breaking news and alerts (to the point that many public institutions use it as their alerts system, since email isn't reliable and texts are annoying). I can get traffic alerts, transit alerts, notices from my power company and ISP, and just general news without having to check each website individually.
It's also great for cutting through customer service bullshit; if you have a problem, you tweet publicly at a company's support line and they'll try to move you along to the correct part of the support tree much faster than any other text-based method.
I hope it isn't destroyed under the new ownership, as there's no good alternative that offers a restrained text-focused social media experience.
Fun fact:
Muskmelon is one key away from
Musk,elon.
Quote from: abefroman329 on October 28, 2022, 04:26:06 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on October 28, 2022, 04:13:24 PMTwitter couldn't be any worse than it already was.
I agree that it's a cesspool and has been for quite some time, but it could absolutely get worse.
Would that make it a deadpool?
I made a Twitter account so I could see the Mt. Rainier road opening status... which the park posts on Twitter but not their own web page. I have yet to actually tweet anything.
Quote from: kphoger on October 28, 2022, 04:53:10 PM
Twitter is for twits, isn't it?
Tweeter, on the other hand, was a boy scout before she went to Vietnam.
For reasons unexplained she loved the Monkey Man.
I haven't seen any changes among the group I run with.
Elon Musk is a bitch.
Twitter and Elon deserve each other.
It occurred to me the other day that I had no idea what Elon Musk even sounded like when I saw him pop up in a cameo in Iron Man 2. I saw the movie when it was new, but that was back in 2010. I guess that I've never heard the guy speak in those intervening years or never noticed.
Quote from: bandit957 on October 28, 2022, 04:13:24 PM
Twitter couldn't be any worse than it already was.
True and politics escalate on Twitter.
Quote from: 1 on October 28, 2022, 08:50:11 PM
Would that make it a deadpool?
A dead pool is where people pick celebrities they think will die within the next year. Our local classic rock station used to do one around New Year's.
I made my Twitter account in early 2013 and hardly used it after 2014, mainly because everybody that I personally know ditched Twitter since then.
I finally put my account out of it's misery last year. No regrets, especially now.
Quote from: bandit957 on October 28, 2022, 04:13:24 PM
Twitter couldn't be any worse than it already was.
That really depends on whether Musk prioritizes profit over purpose. If he wants to turn the best profit, there has to be a moderate level of content moderation. The anything-goes approach that leads to no checks on unfounded conspiracy theories which leads 82 year old men suffering broken skulls is going to drive users away. Very strict scrutiny of everything is also going to drive users away. The most profitable approach is to generally allow free expression but censoring the most egregious content.
However, Musk clearly doesn't need to profit from Twitter so he could choose a path that satisfies his own personal goals.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 29, 2022, 11:02:20 AM
However, Musk clearly doesn't need to profit from Twitter so he could choose a path that satisfies his own personal goals.
Which is obviously what we're all afraid of. Amplification of Nazis leads to more Nazis.
There is hype to go to Mastadon a Twitter alternative but not sure where this is going from here.
Also there is hype at play for BeReal app. But then again once politicians start using these apps then it's all crazy from there.
Quote
Twitter is what you make of it.
True, but I'm not an island.
Like Facebook, TV news, and similar amplifiers, our way of life is affected by what other people make of it.
My thoughts on content moderation are well-known. I'm against it. People have the ability to either self-moderate by using whatever "block" or "ignore" functions are offered, or to counter speech they don't like with an alternative view.
Professionally, Twitter is an afterthought for me. The Facebook page I run has at least 10 times the traffic as the Twitter feed. I was really surprised to learn at a TransComm conference a few years ago that Twitter is the most prevalent social media tool used by DOTs. Even after the character limit was doubled from 140 to 280, I find this to be a crippling limitation and a negative for trying to use Twitter to convey information. And when the ability to automatically post Facebook page posts to a linked Twitter feed was removed, that took away even more functionality for Twitter.
I'm finding this whole "if so-and-so's account is reinstated, I'm leaving" drama to be humorous and pointless. If you don't like what some person or entity says, then you have two choices. You can ignore/block or you can engage. Why want to silence them totally just because you disagree with them or don't like what they say? I actually spend most of my time on Twitter checking out what the other side is saying. Sometimes I'll even counter.
I'm reserving judgment on Musk's purchase until I see if he is really committed to an open free exchange of ideas and opinions. If he does what so many hopes he'll do, then maybe he'll buy Facebook next.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 03:18:25 PM
I'm finding this whole "if so-and-so's account is reinstated, I'm leaving" drama to be humorous and pointless. If you don't like what some person or entity says, then you have two choices. You can ignore/block or you can engage. Why want to silence them totally just because you disagree with them or don't like what they say? I actually spend most of my time on Twitter checking out what the other side is saying. Sometimes I'll even counter.
Because even if you block those accounts, news media will pick up every last one of their tweets and amplify them out to the rest of the world. Dangerous messages and all.
Maintaining our democracy is more important than some rich guy's feelings getting hurt.
Is this a common thing where people go to Twitter to get news or political messages? The way platform users talk about Twitter it seems the fate of the world hangs in the balance right now. All this over a webpage that only allows short hand message posts? Is any media/social media platform really that important?
Quote from: Bruce on October 29, 2022, 03:45:20 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 03:18:25 PM
I'm finding this whole "if so-and-so's account is reinstated, I'm leaving" drama to be humorous and pointless. If you don't like what some person or entity says, then you have two choices. You can ignore/block or you can engage. Why want to silence them totally just because you disagree with them or don't like what they say? I actually spend most of my time on Twitter checking out what the other side is saying. Sometimes I'll even counter.
Because even if you block those accounts, news media will pick up every last one of their tweets and amplify them out to the rest of the world. Dangerous messages and all.
Maintaining our democracy is more important than some rich guy's feelings getting hurt.
"Maintaining our democracy" means that all viewpoints and ideas -- no matter what one might think of them -- are aired and weighed on their merits. The way you counter a "dangerous message" is to respond to it with a non-dangerous message that can convince people not to listen to the message you think is dangerous.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 07:05:05 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 29, 2022, 03:45:20 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 03:18:25 PM
I'm finding this whole "if so-and-so's account is reinstated, I'm leaving" drama to be humorous and pointless. If you don't like what some person or entity says, then you have two choices. You can ignore/block or you can engage. Why want to silence them totally just because you disagree with them or don't like what they say? I actually spend most of my time on Twitter checking out what the other side is saying. Sometimes I'll even counter.
Because even if you block those accounts, news media will pick up every last one of their tweets and amplify them out to the rest of the world. Dangerous messages and all.
Maintaining our democracy is more important than some rich guy's feelings getting hurt.
"Maintaining our democracy" means that all viewpoints and ideas -- no matter what one might think of them -- are aired and weighed on their merits. The way you counter a "dangerous message" is to respond to it with a non-dangerous message that can convince people not to listen to the message you think is dangerous.
So an 82-year-old man just got a cracked skull from a guy who had consumed an overwhelming amount of blatantly false conspiracy theories on social media. Simply "countering" those dangerous messages isn't getting through to people.
One of our society's biggest problems is that people consider demonstrably false information to simply be a "viewpoint" or "idea."
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 29, 2022, 07:12:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 07:05:05 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 29, 2022, 03:45:20 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 03:18:25 PM
I'm finding this whole "if so-and-so's account is reinstated, I'm leaving" drama to be humorous and pointless. If you don't like what some person or entity says, then you have two choices. You can ignore/block or you can engage. Why want to silence them totally just because you disagree with them or don't like what they say? I actually spend most of my time on Twitter checking out what the other side is saying. Sometimes I'll even counter.
Because even if you block those accounts, news media will pick up every last one of their tweets and amplify them out to the rest of the world. Dangerous messages and all.
Maintaining our democracy is more important than some rich guy's feelings getting hurt.
"Maintaining our democracy" means that all viewpoints and ideas -- no matter what one might think of them -- are aired and weighed on their merits. The way you counter a "dangerous message" is to respond to it with a non-dangerous message that can convince people not to listen to the message you think is dangerous.
So an 82-year-old man just got a cracked skull from a guy who had consumed an overwhelming amount of blatantly false conspiracy theories on social media. Simply "countering" those dangerous messages isn't getting through to people.
One of our society's biggest problems is that people consider demonstrably false information to simply be a "viewpoint" or "idea."
Who said that nutjob got his ideas from Twitter?
Quote from: SectorZ on October 29, 2022, 07:21:52 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 29, 2022, 07:12:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 07:05:05 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 29, 2022, 03:45:20 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 03:18:25 PM
I'm finding this whole "if so-and-so's account is reinstated, I'm leaving" drama to be humorous and pointless. If you don't like what some person or entity says, then you have two choices. You can ignore/block or you can engage. Why want to silence them totally just because you disagree with them or don't like what they say? I actually spend most of my time on Twitter checking out what the other side is saying. Sometimes I'll even counter.
Because even if you block those accounts, news media will pick up every last one of their tweets and amplify them out to the rest of the world. Dangerous messages and all.
Maintaining our democracy is more important than some rich guy's feelings getting hurt.
"Maintaining our democracy" means that all viewpoints and ideas -- no matter what one might think of them -- are aired and weighed on their merits. The way you counter a "dangerous message" is to respond to it with a non-dangerous message that can convince people not to listen to the message you think is dangerous.
So an 82-year-old man just got a cracked skull from a guy who had consumed an overwhelming amount of blatantly false conspiracy theories on social media. Simply "countering" those dangerous messages isn't getting through to people.
One of our society's biggest problems is that people consider demonstrably false information to simply be a "viewpoint" or "idea."
Who said that nutjob got his ideas from Twitter?
I didn't hear Twitter specifically mentioned but that he did consume a large quantity of conspiracy theory material on social media.
I've never used it but these sites that ban people. I've been banned for a week on facebook for saying "I hated the Canadians" meaning the characters on king of the hill (hate speech...against cartoon characters?), for showing a picture of Hitler feeding a fawn (no caption), and other various stupid things. Anything that gets nonsense like this done away with I'm all for.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 29, 2022, 07:12:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 07:05:05 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 29, 2022, 03:45:20 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 03:18:25 PM
I'm finding this whole "if so-and-so's account is reinstated, I'm leaving" drama to be humorous and pointless. If you don't like what some person or entity says, then you have two choices. You can ignore/block or you can engage. Why want to silence them totally just because you disagree with them or don't like what they say? I actually spend most of my time on Twitter checking out what the other side is saying. Sometimes I'll even counter.
Because even if you block those accounts, news media will pick up every last one of their tweets and amplify them out to the rest of the world. Dangerous messages and all.
Maintaining our democracy is more important than some rich guy's feelings getting hurt.
"Maintaining our democracy" means that all viewpoints and ideas -- no matter what one might think of them -- are aired and weighed on their merits. The way you counter a "dangerous message" is to respond to it with a non-dangerous message that can convince people not to listen to the message you think is dangerous.
So an 82-year-old man just got a cracked skull from a guy who had consumed an overwhelming amount of blatantly false conspiracy theories on social media. Simply "countering" those dangerous messages isn't getting through to people.
One of our society's biggest problems is that people consider demonstrably false information to simply be a "viewpoint" or "idea."
One of society's biggest problems is to silence people who don't agree with you. Most of what comes from "fact checkers" is opinion or nonsense.
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 07:58:15 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 29, 2022, 07:12:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 07:05:05 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 29, 2022, 03:45:20 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 03:18:25 PM
I'm finding this whole "if so-and-so's account is reinstated, I'm leaving" drama to be humorous and pointless. If you don't like what some person or entity says, then you have two choices. You can ignore/block or you can engage. Why want to silence them totally just because you disagree with them or don't like what they say? I actually spend most of my time on Twitter checking out what the other side is saying. Sometimes I'll even counter.
Because even if you block those accounts, news media will pick up every last one of their tweets and amplify them out to the rest of the world. Dangerous messages and all.
Maintaining our democracy is more important than some rich guy's feelings getting hurt.
"Maintaining our democracy" means that all viewpoints and ideas -- no matter what one might think of them -- are aired and weighed on their merits. The way you counter a "dangerous message" is to respond to it with a non-dangerous message that can convince people not to listen to the message you think is dangerous.
So an 82-year-old man just got a cracked skull from a guy who had consumed an overwhelming amount of blatantly false conspiracy theories on social media. Simply "countering" those dangerous messages isn't getting through to people.
One of our society's biggest problems is that people consider demonstrably false information to simply be a "viewpoint" or "idea."
One of society's biggest problems is to silence people who don't agree with you. Most of what comes from "fact checkers" is opinion or nonsense.
Really?
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-michigan-furries/fact-check-michigan-school-district-did-not-place-litter-boxes-in-student-restrooms-idUSL1N2U61XU
You may have heard some candidates claiming that school students are identifying as cats and have been given litter boxes to use at school.
The claim originated from a parent at a school board meeting in Midland, MI.
The superintendent quickly refuted the claim. Hasn't stopped people from spreading the claim long after it was debunked.
This brings up another huge problem in our society--we want to believe what we believe so badly that we completely ignore credibility when evaluating conflicting statements.
Parent at school board meeting - zero accountability to anybody if making a false statement
School superintendent in official school communication - accountable to school board who is in turn accountable to voters if making false statement
Doctor who has a small private practice and has previously lost privileges at multiple hospitals and is bankrolled by PACs - not accountable to anybody other than the PAC
Board certified infectious disease specialist working for a major hospital - accountable to medical board and the employer
Okay because you can cite one example all "fact checkers" are true.
Anyway my argument was that people like the ones running twitter and facebook have bots ban people for nonsense reasons. Apparently someone even acknowledged my appeal. I don't hate Canadians I hated the characters. That was apparently hate speech that needed to be silenced. back in the day if someone was spouting nonsense they just got ignored. I hope he buys facebook next.
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 08:22:40 PM
Okay because you can cite one example all "fact checkers" are true.
Anyway my argument was that people like the ones running twitter and facebook have bots ban people for nonsense reasons. Apparently someone even acknowledged my appeal. I don't hate Canadians I hated the characters. That was apparently hate speech that needed to be silenced. back in the day if someone was spouting nonsense they just got ignored. I hope he buys facebook next.
Just happened to remember that another huge problem in our society is that people deal in absolutes. Someone finds one person/organization being untruthful one time and thinks that means that person/organization is untruthful all the time.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 29, 2022, 08:27:48 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 08:22:40 PM
Okay because you can cite one example all "fact checkers" are true.
Anyway my argument was that people like the ones running twitter and facebook have bots ban people for nonsense reasons. Apparently someone even acknowledged my appeal. I don't hate Canadians I hated the characters. That was apparently hate speech that needed to be silenced. back in the day if someone was spouting nonsense they just got ignored. I hope he buys facebook next.
Just happened to remember that another huge problem in our society is that people deal in absolutes. Someone finds one person/organization being untruthful one time and thinks that means that person/organization is untruthful all the time.
Exactly.
The political season really annoys me because our guy is great and gonna get all this stuff done, and the other candidate is the antichrist. I got something in the mail today about how horrible this judge is, but vote for me because i look good in a cowboy hat.
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 08:22:40 PM
back in the day if someone was spouting nonsense they just got ignored.
Nowadays they have rallies with similarly minded dimwits and then threaten and enact violence against whichever person or group is the target of their nonsense. That's the problem.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 29, 2022, 08:52:47 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 08:22:40 PM
back in the day if someone was spouting nonsense they just got ignored.
Nowadays they have rallies with similarly minded dimwits and then threaten and enact violence against whichever person or group is the target of their nonsense. That's the problem.
Yeah, that's the thing with social media. Used to be an idea couldn't spread far before encountering someone who would say "that's BS" and then it would die. Today it's already beamed out to the whole planet before anyone even has a chance to hear it, and thus inevitably finds the people who will believe it, no matter how BS it is.
Honestly, I'm not sure there's an answer except for society to get totally stuck in the retro zone. Sad face.
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 07:58:15 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 29, 2022, 07:12:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 07:05:05 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 29, 2022, 03:45:20 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 03:18:25 PM
I'm finding this whole "if so-and-so's account is reinstated, I'm leaving" drama to be humorous and pointless. If you don't like what some person or entity says, then you have two choices. You can ignore/block or you can engage. Why want to silence them totally just because you disagree with them or don't like what they say? I actually spend most of my time on Twitter checking out what the other side is saying. Sometimes I'll even counter.
Because even if you block those accounts, news media will pick up every last one of their tweets and amplify them out to the rest of the world. Dangerous messages and all.
Maintaining our democracy is more important than some rich guy's feelings getting hurt.
"Maintaining our democracy" means that all viewpoints and ideas -- no matter what one might think of them -- are aired and weighed on their merits. The way you counter a "dangerous message" is to respond to it with a non-dangerous message that can convince people not to listen to the message you think is dangerous.
So an 82-year-old man just got a cracked skull from a guy who had consumed an overwhelming amount of blatantly false conspiracy theories on social media. Simply "countering" those dangerous messages isn't getting through to people.
One of our society's biggest problems is that people consider demonstrably false information to simply be a "viewpoint" or "idea."
One of society's biggest problems is to silence people who don't agree with you. Most of what comes from "fact checkers" is opinion or nonsense.
That certainly is an unfounded mantra put forward usually by conservatives that refuse to judge articles by the citations they provide.
Quote from: Rothman on October 29, 2022, 09:14:37 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 07:58:15 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 29, 2022, 07:12:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 07:05:05 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 29, 2022, 03:45:20 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 03:18:25 PM
I'm finding this whole "if so-and-so's account is reinstated, I'm leaving" drama to be humorous and pointless. If you don't like what some person or entity says, then you have two choices. You can ignore/block or you can engage. Why want to silence them totally just because you disagree with them or don't like what they say? I actually spend most of my time on Twitter checking out what the other side is saying. Sometimes I'll even counter.
Because even if you block those accounts, news media will pick up every last one of their tweets and amplify them out to the rest of the world. Dangerous messages and all.
Maintaining our democracy is more important than some rich guy's feelings getting hurt.
"Maintaining our democracy" means that all viewpoints and ideas -- no matter what one might think of them -- are aired and weighed on their merits. The way you counter a "dangerous message" is to respond to it with a non-dangerous message that can convince people not to listen to the message you think is dangerous.
So an 82-year-old man just got a cracked skull from a guy who had consumed an overwhelming amount of blatantly false conspiracy theories on social media. Simply "countering" those dangerous messages isn't getting through to people.
One of our society's biggest problems is that people consider demonstrably false information to simply be a "viewpoint" or "idea."
One of society's biggest problems is to silence people who don't agree with you. Most of what comes from "fact checkers" is opinion or nonsense.
That certainly is an unfounded mantra put forward usually by conservatives that refuse to judge articles by the citations they provide.
But a lot of what they spout are just their opinions. I remember my neighbor who laughed about atheists wanting proof of God's existance and he would always say "it's right there in the bible". A fact checker could say there is no proof of God, and actually be right.
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 09:21:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 29, 2022, 09:14:37 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 07:58:15 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 29, 2022, 07:12:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 07:05:05 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 29, 2022, 03:45:20 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 03:18:25 PM
I'm finding this whole "if so-and-so's account is reinstated, I'm leaving" drama to be humorous and pointless. If you don't like what some person or entity says, then you have two choices. You can ignore/block or you can engage. Why want to silence them totally just because you disagree with them or don't like what they say? I actually spend most of my time on Twitter checking out what the other side is saying. Sometimes I'll even counter.
Because even if you block those accounts, news media will pick up every last one of their tweets and amplify them out to the rest of the world. Dangerous messages and all.
Maintaining our democracy is more important than some rich guy's feelings getting hurt.
"Maintaining our democracy" means that all viewpoints and ideas -- no matter what one might think of them -- are aired and weighed on their merits. The way you counter a "dangerous message" is to respond to it with a non-dangerous message that can convince people not to listen to the message you think is dangerous.
So an 82-year-old man just got a cracked skull from a guy who had consumed an overwhelming amount of blatantly false conspiracy theories on social media. Simply "countering" those dangerous messages isn't getting through to people.
One of our society's biggest problems is that people consider demonstrably false information to simply be a "viewpoint" or "idea."
One of society's biggest problems is to silence people who don't agree with you. Most of what comes from "fact checkers" is opinion or nonsense.
That certainly is an unfounded mantra put forward usually by conservatives that refuse to judge articles by the citations they provide.
But a lot of what they spout are just their opinions. I remember my neighbor who laughed about atheists wanting proof of God's existance and he would always say "it's right there in the bible". A fact checker could say there is no proof of God, and actually be right.
You just explained my atheism. :)
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 09:21:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 29, 2022, 09:14:37 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 07:58:15 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 29, 2022, 07:12:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 07:05:05 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 29, 2022, 03:45:20 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 03:18:25 PM
I'm finding this whole "if so-and-so's account is reinstated, I'm leaving" drama to be humorous and pointless. If you don't like what some person or entity says, then you have two choices. You can ignore/block or you can engage. Why want to silence them totally just because you disagree with them or don't like what they say? I actually spend most of my time on Twitter checking out what the other side is saying. Sometimes I'll even counter.
Because even if you block those accounts, news media will pick up every last one of their tweets and amplify them out to the rest of the world. Dangerous messages and all.
Maintaining our democracy is more important than some rich guy's feelings getting hurt.
"Maintaining our democracy" means that all viewpoints and ideas -- no matter what one might think of them -- are aired and weighed on their merits. The way you counter a "dangerous message" is to respond to it with a non-dangerous message that can convince people not to listen to the message you think is dangerous.
So an 82-year-old man just got a cracked skull from a guy who had consumed an overwhelming amount of blatantly false conspiracy theories on social media. Simply "countering" those dangerous messages isn't getting through to people.
One of our society's biggest problems is that people consider demonstrably false information to simply be a "viewpoint" or "idea."
One of society's biggest problems is to silence people who don't agree with you. Most of what comes from "fact checkers" is opinion or nonsense.
That certainly is an unfounded mantra put forward usually by conservatives that refuse to judge articles by the citations they provide.
But a lot of what they spout are just their opinions. I remember my neighbor who laughed about atheists wanting proof of God's existance and he would always say "it's right there in the bible". A fact checker could say there is no proof of God, and actually be right.
Opinions supported by evidence/citations. And, the facts checked most of the time are much more tangible than claims of existence of deity and claims supported by data analysis.
So, when someone says taxes went up, fact checkers can easily look at whether or not that kind of fact is true or not (e.g., did tax brackets change) -- just as one example.
And then, any fact checker worth its salt will provide their sources, which most of the big ones do.
Quote from: Rothman on October 29, 2022, 09:25:59 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 09:21:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 29, 2022, 09:14:37 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 07:58:15 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 29, 2022, 07:12:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 07:05:05 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 29, 2022, 03:45:20 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 03:18:25 PM
I'm finding this whole "if so-and-so's account is reinstated, I'm leaving" drama to be humorous and pointless. If you don't like what some person or entity says, then you have two choices. You can ignore/block or you can engage. Why want to silence them totally just because you disagree with them or don't like what they say? I actually spend most of my time on Twitter checking out what the other side is saying. Sometimes I'll even counter.
Because even if you block those accounts, news media will pick up every last one of their tweets and amplify them out to the rest of the world. Dangerous messages and all.
Maintaining our democracy is more important than some rich guy's feelings getting hurt.
"Maintaining our democracy" means that all viewpoints and ideas -- no matter what one might think of them -- are aired and weighed on their merits. The way you counter a "dangerous message" is to respond to it with a non-dangerous message that can convince people not to listen to the message you think is dangerous.
So an 82-year-old man just got a cracked skull from a guy who had consumed an overwhelming amount of blatantly false conspiracy theories on social media. Simply "countering" those dangerous messages isn't getting through to people.
One of our society's biggest problems is that people consider demonstrably false information to simply be a "viewpoint" or "idea."
One of society's biggest problems is to silence people who don't agree with you. Most of what comes from "fact checkers" is opinion or nonsense.
That certainly is an unfounded mantra put forward usually by conservatives that refuse to judge articles by the citations they provide.
But a lot of what they spout are just their opinions. I remember my neighbor who laughed about atheists wanting proof of God's existance and he would always say "it's right there in the bible". A fact checker could say there is no proof of God, and actually be right.
Opinions supported by evidence/citations. And, the facts checked most of the time are much more tangible than claims of existence of deity and claims supported by data analysis.
So, when someone says taxes went up, fact checkers can easily look at whether or not that kind of fact is true or not (e.g., did tax brackets change) -- just as one example.
And then, any fact checker worth its salt will provide their sources, which most of the big ones do.
Big difference between numbers you can look up and opinions
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/26/eight-examples-where-fact-checking-became-opinion-/#:~:text=Eight%20examples%20where%20%E2%80%98fact-checking%E2%80%99%20became%20opinion%20journalism%20Republican,Clinton%20in%20the%20first%20of%20three%20debates%20Monday.
Snopes is pretty good for apolitical things. Politics, not so much....
https://nypost.com/2022/02/16/snopes-latest-example-of-fact-checking-the-truth-away/
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 09:37:31 PM
Big difference between numbers you can look up and opinions
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/26/eight-examples-where-fact-checking-became-opinion-/#:~:text=Eight%20examples%20where%20%E2%80%98fact-checking%E2%80%99%20became%20opinion%20journalism%20Republican,Clinton%20in%20the%20first%20of%20three%20debates%20Monday.
Can't read the article because of paywall, but I can guess the gist. I think there will always be bias wherever someone is judging a statement, but there is a very large difference between judging "this politician's policies did x, y, or z" and "there is a cabal of pedophilic lizard people running the country". Occam's razor and all.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 29, 2022, 09:45:38 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 09:37:31 PM
Big difference between numbers you can look up and opinions
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/26/eight-examples-where-fact-checking-became-opinion-/#:~:text=Eight%20examples%20where%20%E2%80%98fact-checking%E2%80%99%20became%20opinion%20journalism%20Republican,Clinton%20in%20the%20first%20of%20three%20debates%20Monday.
Can't read the article because of paywall, but I can guess the gist. I think there will always be bias wherever someone is judging a statement, but there is a very large difference between judging "this politician's policies did x, y, or z" and "there is a cabal of pedophilic lizard people running the country". Occam's razor and all.
Okay now we're debating Alex Jones.
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 09:46:21 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 29, 2022, 09:45:38 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 09:37:31 PM
Big difference between numbers you can look up and opinions
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/26/eight-examples-where-fact-checking-became-opinion-/#:~:text=Eight%20examples%20where%20%E2%80%98fact-checking%E2%80%99%20became%20opinion%20journalism%20Republican,Clinton%20in%20the%20first%20of%20three%20debates%20Monday.
Can't read the article because of paywall, but I can guess the gist. I think there will always be bias wherever someone is judging a statement, but there is a very large difference between judging "this politician's policies did x, y, or z" and "there is a cabal of pedophilic lizard people running the country". Occam's razor and all.
Okay now we're debating Alex Jones.
I mean, yeah, he sucks. But there are way more people that have somewhat similar ideas to Jones because of social media. Content moderation wouldn't fix it all certainly (see 4chan, etc.), but it'd be better than just letting this truthless phlegm spew across all of society.
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 09:37:31 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 29, 2022, 09:25:59 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 09:21:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 29, 2022, 09:14:37 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 07:58:15 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 29, 2022, 07:12:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 07:05:05 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 29, 2022, 03:45:20 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 03:18:25 PM
I'm finding this whole "if so-and-so's account is reinstated, I'm leaving" drama to be humorous and pointless. If you don't like what some person or entity says, then you have two choices. You can ignore/block or you can engage. Why want to silence them totally just because you disagree with them or don't like what they say? I actually spend most of my time on Twitter checking out what the other side is saying. Sometimes I'll even counter.
Because even if you block those accounts, news media will pick up every last one of their tweets and amplify them out to the rest of the world. Dangerous messages and all.
Maintaining our democracy is more important than some rich guy's feelings getting hurt.
"Maintaining our democracy" means that all viewpoints and ideas -- no matter what one might think of them -- are aired and weighed on their merits. The way you counter a "dangerous message" is to respond to it with a non-dangerous message that can convince people not to listen to the message you think is dangerous.
So an 82-year-old man just got a cracked skull from a guy who had consumed an overwhelming amount of blatantly false conspiracy theories on social media. Simply "countering" those dangerous messages isn't getting through to people.
One of our society's biggest problems is that people consider demonstrably false information to simply be a "viewpoint" or "idea."
One of society's biggest problems is to silence people who don't agree with you. Most of what comes from "fact checkers" is opinion or nonsense.
That certainly is an unfounded mantra put forward usually by conservatives that refuse to judge articles by the citations they provide.
But a lot of what they spout are just their opinions. I remember my neighbor who laughed about atheists wanting proof of God's existance and he would always say "it's right there in the bible". A fact checker could say there is no proof of God, and actually be right.
Opinions supported by evidence/citations. And, the facts checked most of the time are much more tangible than claims of existence of deity and claims supported by data analysis.
So, when someone says taxes went up, fact checkers can easily look at whether or not that kind of fact is true or not (e.g., did tax brackets change) -- just as one example.
And then, any fact checker worth its salt will provide their sources, which most of the big ones do.
Big difference between numbers you can look up and opinions
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/26/eight-examples-where-fact-checking-became-opinion-/#:~:text=Eight%20examples%20where%20%E2%80%98fact-checking%E2%80%99%20became%20opinion%20journalism%20Republican,Clinton%20in%20the%20first%20of%20three%20debates%20Monday.
Snopes is pretty good for apolitical things. Politics, not so much....
https://nypost.com/2022/02/16/snopes-latest-example-of-fact-checking-the-truth-away/
Egads. Well, if those opinion pieces are the ones you are going to use to criticize fact checking, I think their quality speaks for themselves, especially when you read the actual Snopes article on the crack pipes sillyness.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/17/kanye-west-is-buying-conservative-social-media-platform-parler-company-says.html
There was talks for Kanye West to get Parler app until Kanye West's politics got exposed and made him a target for boycott. Also the content of Parler made Kanye West a target of a boycott.
https://news.yahoo.com/adidas-cuts-ties-kanye-west-112916554.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/questions-swirl-kanye-west-twitter-account-elon-musk/
The role of the internet in today's world is both a blessing and a curse. On the upside, the world is connected in a groundbreaking and expansive way never seen before in history, and the capabilities are endless. On the downside, our society now has problems unique to our era, the era of the internet. Some of these problems are very serious. Needless to say, the happenings of the dark web is the worst of it, but even within things that are actually legal, we have come across some very serious problems. Chief among these is the amplification and rapid distribution of misinformation and messages that might even be dangerous, as we have seen. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but false and harmful "information" spreading unchecked is harmful and affects everybody. Every once in a while there will be censorship of a very stupid kind, such as the anecdotes texaskdog had described. I agree there's no reason to get banned over critiquing cartoon characters. But a lot of the "censorship" in the recent online political climate is the best solution we have at the moment to curb misinformation and conspiracy theories, since going too much farther would run counter to the democracy we are desperately trying to save (although I would love to see Alex Jones have tape over his mouth for the rest of eternity). I hate to get political, but this thread never could have avoided politics since the person who bought the platform has gone off the rails recently, guided by political delusions at the very core. I never really had Twitter until a couple of months ago (may have casually made an account in 2014 but can't remember), due to a marketing assignment at college, but as of yesterday the app is deleted off my phone. I don't need it anymore now, that's for sure. :-/
Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 29, 2022, 09:52:32 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 09:46:21 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 29, 2022, 09:45:38 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 09:37:31 PM
Big difference between numbers you can look up and opinions
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/26/eight-examples-where-fact-checking-became-opinion-/#:~:text=Eight%20examples%20where%20%E2%80%98fact-checking%E2%80%99%20became%20opinion%20journalism%20Republican,Clinton%20in%20the%20first%20of%20three%20debates%20Monday.
Can't read the article because of paywall, but I can guess the gist. I think there will always be bias wherever someone is judging a statement, but there is a very large difference between judging "this politician's policies did x, y, or z" and "there is a cabal of pedophilic lizard people running the country". Occam's razor and all.
Okay now we're debating Alex Jones.
I mean, yeah, he sucks. But there are way more people that have somewhat similar ideas to Jones because of social media. Content moderation wouldn't fix it all certainly (see 4chan, etc.), but it'd be better than just letting this truthless phlegm spew across all of society.
But you realize they have bots censoring people and the bots don't know what they are doing, and no actual human looks at the appeal. Censorship at its finest. I'm betting Twitter was no different than Facebook in that regard. I've never been banned for anything normal. Once I was banned because I posted Tom (from Tom & Jerry) looking angry and it said "what every short woman looks like angry". My 5'0" friend thought it was hilarious yet I got a hate speech ban. Ridiculous.
Quote from: Rothman on October 29, 2022, 10:21:55 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 09:37:31 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 29, 2022, 09:25:59 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 09:21:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 29, 2022, 09:14:37 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 07:58:15 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 29, 2022, 07:12:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 07:05:05 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 29, 2022, 03:45:20 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 03:18:25 PM
I'm finding this whole "if so-and-so's account is reinstated, I'm leaving" drama to be humorous and pointless. If you don't like what some person or entity says, then you have two choices. You can ignore/block or you can engage. Why want to silence them totally just because you disagree with them or don't like what they say? I actually spend most of my time on Twitter checking out what the other side is saying. Sometimes I'll even counter.
Because even if you block those accounts, news media will pick up every last one of their tweets and amplify them out to the rest of the world. Dangerous messages and all.
Maintaining our democracy is more important than some rich guy's feelings getting hurt.
"Maintaining our democracy" means that all viewpoints and ideas -- no matter what one might think of them -- are aired and weighed on their merits. The way you counter a "dangerous message" is to respond to it with a non-dangerous message that can convince people not to listen to the message you think is dangerous.
So an 82-year-old man just got a cracked skull from a guy who had consumed an overwhelming amount of blatantly false conspiracy theories on social media. Simply "countering" those dangerous messages isn't getting through to people.
One of our society's biggest problems is that people consider demonstrably false information to simply be a "viewpoint" or "idea."
One of society's biggest problems is to silence people who don't agree with you. Most of what comes from "fact checkers" is opinion or nonsense.
That certainly is an unfounded mantra put forward usually by conservatives that refuse to judge articles by the citations they provide.
But a lot of what they spout are just their opinions. I remember my neighbor who laughed about atheists wanting proof of God's existance and he would always say "it's right there in the bible". A fact checker could say there is no proof of God, and actually be right.
Opinions supported by evidence/citations. And, the facts checked most of the time are much more tangible than claims of existence of deity and claims supported by data analysis.
So, when someone says taxes went up, fact checkers can easily look at whether or not that kind of fact is true or not (e.g., did tax brackets change) -- just as one example.
And then, any fact checker worth its salt will provide their sources, which most of the big ones do.
Big difference between numbers you can look up and opinions
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/26/eight-examples-where-fact-checking-became-opinion-/#:~:text=Eight%20examples%20where%20%E2%80%98fact-checking%E2%80%99%20became%20opinion%20journalism%20Republican,Clinton%20in%20the%20first%20of%20three%20debates%20Monday.
Snopes is pretty good for apolitical things. Politics, not so much....
https://nypost.com/2022/02/16/snopes-latest-example-of-fact-checking-the-truth-away/
Egads. Well, if those opinion pieces are the ones you are going to use to criticize fact checking, I think their quality speaks for themselves, especially when you read the actual Snopes article on the crack pipes sillyness.
Snopes is pretty good when they stay out of politics but I've had a lot of people say they "factchecked politics on snopes".
Quote from: texaskdog on October 30, 2022, 03:21:22 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 29, 2022, 10:21:55 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 09:37:31 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 29, 2022, 09:25:59 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 09:21:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 29, 2022, 09:14:37 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 07:58:15 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 29, 2022, 07:12:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 07:05:05 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 29, 2022, 03:45:20 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 03:18:25 PM
I'm finding this whole "if so-and-so's account is reinstated, I'm leaving" drama to be humorous and pointless. If you don't like what some person or entity says, then you have two choices. You can ignore/block or you can engage. Why want to silence them totally just because you disagree with them or don't like what they say? I actually spend most of my time on Twitter checking out what the other side is saying. Sometimes I'll even counter.
Because even if you block those accounts, news media will pick up every last one of their tweets and amplify them out to the rest of the world. Dangerous messages and all.
Maintaining our democracy is more important than some rich guy's feelings getting hurt.
"Maintaining our democracy" means that all viewpoints and ideas -- no matter what one might think of them -- are aired and weighed on their merits. The way you counter a "dangerous message" is to respond to it with a non-dangerous message that can convince people not to listen to the message you think is dangerous.
So an 82-year-old man just got a cracked skull from a guy who had consumed an overwhelming amount of blatantly false conspiracy theories on social media. Simply "countering" those dangerous messages isn't getting through to people.
One of our society's biggest problems is that people consider demonstrably false information to simply be a "viewpoint" or "idea."
One of society's biggest problems is to silence people who don't agree with you. Most of what comes from "fact checkers" is opinion or nonsense.
That certainly is an unfounded mantra put forward usually by conservatives that refuse to judge articles by the citations they provide.
But a lot of what they spout are just their opinions. I remember my neighbor who laughed about atheists wanting proof of God's existance and he would always say "it's right there in the bible". A fact checker could say there is no proof of God, and actually be right.
Opinions supported by evidence/citations. And, the facts checked most of the time are much more tangible than claims of existence of deity and claims supported by data analysis.
So, when someone says taxes went up, fact checkers can easily look at whether or not that kind of fact is true or not (e.g., did tax brackets change) -- just as one example.
And then, any fact checker worth its salt will provide their sources, which most of the big ones do.
Big difference between numbers you can look up and opinions
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/26/eight-examples-where-fact-checking-became-opinion-/#:~:text=Eight%20examples%20where%20%E2%80%98fact-checking%E2%80%99%20became%20opinion%20journalism%20Republican,Clinton%20in%20the%20first%20of%20three%20debates%20Monday.
Snopes is pretty good for apolitical things. Politics, not so much....
https://nypost.com/2022/02/16/snopes-latest-example-of-fact-checking-the-truth-away/
Egads. Well, if those opinion pieces are the ones you are going to use to criticize fact checking, I think their quality speaks for themselves, especially when you read the actual Snopes article on the crack pipes sillyness.
Snopes is pretty good when they stay out of politics but I've had a lot of people say they "factchecked politics on snopes".
I have no problem with people fact checking the fact checkers, as long as the criticism gets at the sources Snopes uses or if their statements go beyond what their sources state.
Too often, a fact checker will appropriately and accurately discuss the state of the art of research on a topic, say climate change, and someone will come at them with a single study or YouTube lecture to attack it. That doesn't cut it.
Quote from: texaskdog on October 30, 2022, 03:20:16 AM
But you realize they have bots censoring people and the bots don't know what they are doing, and no actual human looks at the appeal. Censorship at its finest. I'm betting Twitter was no different than Facebook in that regard. I've never been banned for anything normal. Once I was banned because I posted Tom (from Tom & Jerry) looking angry and it said "what every short woman looks like angry". My 5'0" friend thought it was hilarious yet I got a hate speech ban. Ridiculous.
To my knowledge, social media companies don't use "bots" to ban people. I'm sure there is some auto detect software that finds certain text strings or images, but they're all reviewed by humans. Do you have a citation showing that it's an automatic process?
Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 30, 2022, 09:44:51 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 30, 2022, 03:20:16 AM
But you realize they have bots censoring people and the bots don't know what they are doing, and no actual human looks at the appeal. Censorship at its finest. I'm betting Twitter was no different than Facebook in that regard. I've never been banned for anything normal. Once I was banned because I posted Tom (from Tom & Jerry) looking angry and it said "what every short woman looks like angry". My 5'0" friend thought it was hilarious yet I got a hate speech ban. Ridiculous.
To my knowledge, social media companies don't use "bots" to ban people. I'm sure there is some auto detect software that finds certain text strings or images, but they're all reviewed by humans. Do you have a citation showing that it's an automatic process?
While it's none of the companies mentioned so far, a few years back, YouTube tried to demonetize (i.e. creators don't get money from ads) anti-LGBTQ videos using an algorithm and hit some pro-LGBTQ ones by accident.
And there are some text strings that should result in a ban, such as the hashtag #WWG1WGA or having "ZOG" and "Soros" in the same tweet, although not on a first offense (e.g. for the latter example, someone could be explaining how ridiculous it is for people to associate the two rather than promoting the conspiracy theory, and also an exact copy of my post here would trigger it under what I described). I don't know if either of these is actually checked.
"The first casualty in war is the truth". Dealing with misinformation and lack of information has a long past. The medium for moving messages changes but the ability to sort through what is out there in any era remains as a constant.
And already, Elon is pushing conspiracy theories about Nancy Pelosi's husband.
Unfortunately, the past few years have result in the "social media" being less "social", with some of my friends who used to be active going "radio silent" meaning their account is active, but they aren't posting or even visiting the site. A few months ago, I deleted out my Twitter and Facebook accounts. Facebook was a bit more painful since it was a way to keep up with my California friends, but again, too many have gone radio silent.
Quote from: ZLoth on October 30, 2022, 12:48:58 PM
Unfortunately, the past few years have result in the "social media" being less "social", with some of my friends who used to be active going "radio silent" meaning their account is active, but they aren't posting or even visiting the site. A few months ago, I deleted out my Twitter and Facebook accounts. Facebook was a bit more painful since it was a way to keep up with my California friends, but again, too many have gone radio silent.
Check Tik Tok, Instagram and Discord to see if your former friends in California went there. I left and deleted Facebook 3 years ago and saw how politically loaded the place became in the past few years. Yes the internet is gentrified like cities are gentrified in general. In my family I seen some of my nieces and nephews go on Tik Tok, Discord and Instagram because it's where their friends are at type situation.
America, where you can do your research on all candidates and make the best choice and your vote counts the same as your idiot friend who votes based on the sound of the name.
Quote from: seicer on October 30, 2022, 12:43:53 PM
And already, Elon is pushing conspiracy theories about Nancy Pelosi's husband.
Well if I had a hammer, I'd hammer in the morning.....
Quote from: texaskdog on October 30, 2022, 01:36:51 PM
America, where you can do your research on all candidates and make the best choice and your vote counts the same as your idiot friend who votes based on the sound of the name.
Or it counts less if you're Californian and your friend is from Wyoming.
https://www.pbs.org/video/tiktok-boom-dqyfou/?utm_medium=pbs_org&utm_source=preroll&utm_campaign=tiktokboom_2022 (https://www.pbs.org/video/tiktok-boom-dqyfou/?utm_medium=pbs_org&utm_source=preroll&utm_campaign=tiktokboom_2022)
All We got to do is look back at how social media has been for some time here and we are reaping from the effects of it.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 30, 2022, 01:48:20 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 30, 2022, 01:36:51 PM
America, where you can do your research on all candidates and make the best choice and your vote counts the same as your idiot friend who votes based on the sound of the name.
Or it counts less if you're Californian and your friend is from Wyoming.
I used to live in Wyoming!
Really though e.g. a Presidential election if you don't live in Ohio, Florida, states like that your vote does not mean much.
A fool and his $44 billion are soon parted.
Quote from: kkt on October 30, 2022, 02:25:25 PM
A fool and his $44 billion are soon parted.
Sad part about politics is how much is wasted on elections in American politics.
Quote from: texaskdog on October 30, 2022, 02:54:37 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 30, 2022, 02:25:25 PM
A fool and his $44 billion are soon parted.
Sad part about politics is how much is wasted on elections in American politics.
The only feasible way to prevent this is to require all campaign funds to be limited to a pre-ordained amount drawn from tax money. (Anything else runs into a problem of "okay, well who is paying that money, and does it infringe their free speech rights to limit how much they can pay?") But suggesting campaigns be solely funded by tax dollars is probably unthinkable in the United States.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 30, 2022, 03:18:04 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 30, 2022, 02:54:37 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 30, 2022, 02:25:25 PM
A fool and his $44 billion are soon parted.
Sad part about politics is how much is wasted on elections in American politics.
The only feasible way to prevent this is to require all campaign funds to be limited to a pre-ordained amount drawn from tax money. (Anything else runs into a problem of "okay, well who is paying that money, and does it infringe their free speech rights to limit how much they can pay?") But suggesting campaigns be solely funded by tax dollars is probably unthinkable in the United States.
My reading of the Supreme Court's tea leaves is that they would throw out any restrictions on anyone's right to spend as much of their own money on political campaigns as they wanted.
Quote from: kkt on October 30, 2022, 03:27:26 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 30, 2022, 03:18:04 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 30, 2022, 02:54:37 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 30, 2022, 02:25:25 PM
A fool and his $44 billion are soon parted.
Sad part about politics is how much is wasted on elections in American politics.
The only feasible way to prevent this is to require all campaign funds to be limited to a pre-ordained amount drawn from tax money. (Anything else runs into a problem of "okay, well who is paying that money, and does it infringe their free speech rights to limit how much they can pay?") But suggesting campaigns be solely funded by tax dollars is probably unthinkable in the United States.
My reading of the Supreme Court's tea leaves is that they would throw out any restrictions on anyone's right to spend as much of their own money on political campaigns as they wanted.
There is some old quote about not being surprised that government is bought, but for how little it is bought for.
Quote from: bing101 on October 30, 2022, 01:01:04 PM
Quote from: ZLoth on October 30, 2022, 12:48:58 PM
Unfortunately, the past few years have result in the "social media" being less "social", with some of my friends who used to be active going "radio silent" meaning their account is active, but they aren't posting or even visiting the site. A few months ago, I deleted out my Twitter and Facebook accounts. Facebook was a bit more painful since it was a way to keep up with my California friends, but again, too many have gone radio silent.
Check Tik Tok, Instagram and Discord to see if your former friends in California went there.
Not really interested in joining a new social network. Instagram is associated with Facebook, so that got deleted also.
Quote from: ZLoth on October 30, 2022, 04:35:24 PM
Quote from: bing101 on October 30, 2022, 01:01:04 PM
Quote from: ZLoth on October 30, 2022, 12:48:58 PM
Unfortunately, the past few years have result in the "social media" being less "social", with some of my friends who used to be active going "radio silent" meaning their account is active, but they aren't posting or even visiting the site. A few months ago, I deleted out my Twitter and Facebook accounts. Facebook was a bit more painful since it was a way to keep up with my California friends, but again, too many have gone radio silent.
Check Tik Tok, Instagram and Discord to see if your former friends in California went there.
Not really interested in joining a new social network. Instagram is associated with Facebook, so that got deleted also.
I've found that if you have a Facebook account you cannot have a separate Instagram account. You have to log in with Facebook.
Yuk.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 28, 2022, 04:00:25 PM
Thoughts on the change in ownership?
Yes. It's for the better.
Quote from: Brandon on October 30, 2022, 05:28:20 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 28, 2022, 04:00:25 PM
Thoughts on the change in ownership?
Yes. It's for the better.
I would have to agree. Elon is more likely to run the thing straight into the ground, which is a better outcome for humanity than if it were a going concern.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 29, 2022, 07:12:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 07:05:05 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 29, 2022, 03:45:20 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 03:18:25 PM
I'm finding this whole "if so-and-so's account is reinstated, I'm leaving" drama to be humorous and pointless. If you don't like what some person or entity says, then you have two choices. You can ignore/block or you can engage. Why want to silence them totally just because you disagree with them or don't like what they say? I actually spend most of my time on Twitter checking out what the other side is saying. Sometimes I'll even counter.
Because even if you block those accounts, news media will pick up every last one of their tweets and amplify them out to the rest of the world. Dangerous messages and all.
Maintaining our democracy is more important than some rich guy's feelings getting hurt.
"Maintaining our democracy" means that all viewpoints and ideas -- no matter what one might think of them -- are aired and weighed on their merits. The way you counter a "dangerous message" is to respond to it with a non-dangerous message that can convince people not to listen to the message you think is dangerous.
So an 82-year-old man just got a cracked skull from a guy who had consumed an overwhelming amount of blatantly false conspiracy theories on social media. Simply "countering" those dangerous messages isn't getting through to people.
One of our society's biggest problems is that people consider demonstrably false information to simply be a "viewpoint" or "idea."
Um, according to the local news and reporters, this guy who cracked his skull was suffering from addiction and was quite paranoid. He also lived at a house in Berkeley. The police were let in at 2 am by a third party (neither him nor the house owner), and apparently most of the men inside were in their underwear. The window that was broken was broken from the inside with glass on the patio. I sincerely doubt social media made him do what he did.
Quote from: Rothman on October 29, 2022, 09:14:37 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 07:58:15 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 29, 2022, 07:12:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 07:05:05 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 29, 2022, 03:45:20 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 03:18:25 PM
I'm finding this whole "if so-and-so's account is reinstated, I'm leaving" drama to be humorous and pointless. If you don't like what some person or entity says, then you have two choices. You can ignore/block or you can engage. Why want to silence them totally just because you disagree with them or don't like what they say? I actually spend most of my time on Twitter checking out what the other side is saying. Sometimes I'll even counter.
Because even if you block those accounts, news media will pick up every last one of their tweets and amplify them out to the rest of the world. Dangerous messages and all.
Maintaining our democracy is more important than some rich guy's feelings getting hurt.
"Maintaining our democracy" means that all viewpoints and ideas -- no matter what one might think of them -- are aired and weighed on their merits. The way you counter a "dangerous message" is to respond to it with a non-dangerous message that can convince people not to listen to the message you think is dangerous.
So an 82-year-old man just got a cracked skull from a guy who had consumed an overwhelming amount of blatantly false conspiracy theories on social media. Simply "countering" those dangerous messages isn't getting through to people.
One of our society's biggest problems is that people consider demonstrably false information to simply be a "viewpoint" or "idea."
One of society's biggest problems is to silence people who don't agree with you. Most of what comes from "fact checkers" is opinion or nonsense.
That certainly is an unfounded mantra put forward usually by conservatives that refuse to judge articles by the citations they provide.
I stopped taking the so-called fact-checkers seriously when they attempt to fact-check satire. It's called satire for a reason.
Quote from: seicer on October 30, 2022, 12:43:53 PM
And already, Elon is pushing conspiracy theories about Nancy Pelosi's husband.
Well, what do you call two men in their underwear in a room at 2 am? In the 911 call, Paul Pelosi calls the attacker his "friend". It's certainly odd.
Quote from: Brandon on October 30, 2022, 05:36:59 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 29, 2022, 09:14:37 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 29, 2022, 07:58:15 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 29, 2022, 07:12:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 07:05:05 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 29, 2022, 03:45:20 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2022, 03:18:25 PM
I'm finding this whole "if so-and-so's account is reinstated, I'm leaving" drama to be humorous and pointless. If you don't like what some person or entity says, then you have two choices. You can ignore/block or you can engage. Why want to silence them totally just because you disagree with them or don't like what they say? I actually spend most of my time on Twitter checking out what the other side is saying. Sometimes I'll even counter.
Because even if you block those accounts, news media will pick up every last one of their tweets and amplify them out to the rest of the world. Dangerous messages and all.
Maintaining our democracy is more important than some rich guy's feelings getting hurt.
"Maintaining our democracy" means that all viewpoints and ideas -- no matter what one might think of them -- are aired and weighed on their merits. The way you counter a "dangerous message" is to respond to it with a non-dangerous message that can convince people not to listen to the message you think is dangerous.
So an 82-year-old man just got a cracked skull from a guy who had consumed an overwhelming amount of blatantly false conspiracy theories on social media. Simply "countering" those dangerous messages isn't getting through to people.
One of our society's biggest problems is that people consider demonstrably false information to simply be a "viewpoint" or "idea."
One of society's biggest problems is to silence people who don't agree with you. Most of what comes from "fact checkers" is opinion or nonsense.
That certainly is an unfounded mantra put forward usually by conservatives that refuse to judge articles by the citations they provide.
I stopped taking the so-called fact-checkers seriously when they attempt to fact-check satire. It's called satire for a reason.
Oh yeah, I've had lot of those!!!!
I would say that the nonsense has hit an all time high here, but Alanland has that spot locked up.