News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

New ownership for Twitter

Started by hbelkins, October 28, 2022, 04:00:25 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

JayhawkCO

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.


texaskdog

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.

JayhawkCO

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.

Rothman

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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

bing101


adventurernumber1

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.  :-/
Now alternating between different highway shields for my avatar - my previous highway shield avatar for the last few years was US 76.

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/127322363@N08/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-vJ3qa8R-cc44Cv6ohio1g

texaskdog

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.

texaskdog

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". 

Rothman



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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

JayhawkCO

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?

hotdogPi

#60
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.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

nexus73

"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.
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

seicer

And already, Elon is pushing conspiracy theories about Nancy Pelosi's husband.

ZLoth

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.
I'm an Engineer. That means I solve problems. Not problems like "What is beauty?", because that would fall within the purview of your conundrums of philosophy. I solve practical problems and call them "paychecks".

bing101

#64
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.


texaskdog

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.

texaskdog

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.....

JayhawkCO

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.

bing101

#68
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.


















texaskdog

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.

kkt

A fool and his $44 billion are soon parted.

texaskdog

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.

Scott5114

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.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

kkt

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.

Rothman

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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.