4 ms·

[My Twitter feed gives] me all the viewpoints I need to form an opinion. Given that hubris seems to be the theme of this topic I have to say this is particular

[My Twitter feed gives] me all the viewpoints I need to form an opinion. Given that hubris seems to be the theme of this topic I have to say this is particularly appropriate.

MichaelBurge 10y ago
One advantage if Twitter is that a lot of the primary sources(the politicians, Project Veritas, Wikileaks, etc.) all communicate using it. Another one is that you only have 140 characters, so people are more likely to link directly to a primary source. I've seen too many "news articles" that spin very weak data into a big article, with too much interpretation by the editor. A third one is that you can choose who to follow, so it's possible to have items from the other side show up in your feed. You can also choose to only follow sources that you consider high-quality. I didn't use Twitter much before, but I did start using it this election just because it was a good way to get information.
- pg314 10y ago
  I hope you're not considering Project Veritas a high-quality source. Mr. O'Keefe has a track record of selectively and deceptively editing his video recordings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe It is telling that he is often not releasing the full, unedited video, which I would consider the primary source. Once the video has been edited, the meaning could have been altered (and in the case of Project Veritas, it often is).
- JamisonM 10y ago
  If you regard the Twitter feed of Wikileaks a credible source of information I can't help you. https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/794450623404113920 https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/7944506234041139...
  - MichaelBurge 10y ago
    Even if you believe the information is unreliable, surely you agree that suggesting the idea and then pointing to a particularly bad example is a dangerous confirmation bias trap? If somebody told me, "CNN is doing a segment on how Trump's rise eerily parallels Hitler's rise", it would be confirmation bias to start off assuming it's false because I like Trump, watch the segment, record all the errors in the presentation, and then use those errors to support my initial conclusion. I agree that the Spirit Cooking was better entertainment than it was credible information.
    - JamisonM 10y ago
      Sorry I do not understand what you are trying to say. Twitter is awash with garbage information and offers far more opportunities to indulge your biases than to acquire useful facts about the world. Most "primary sources" are worth less than quality analysis and most analysis of any value comes from something akin to mainstream media. They are the only actors with at least some economic interest in facts and truth, however imperfect they are.

[My Twitter feed gives] me all the viewpoints I need to form an opinion. Given that hubris seems to be the theme of this topic I have to say this is particularly appropriate.

MichaelBurge 10y ago

One advantage if Twitter is that a lot of the primary sources(the politicians, Project Veritas, Wikileaks, etc.) all communicate using it. Another one is that you only have 140 characters, so people are more likely to link directly to a primary source. I've seen too many "news articles" that spin very weak data into a big article, with too much interpretation by the editor. A third one is that you can choose who to follow, so it's possible to have items from the other side show up in your feed. You can also choose to only follow sources that you consider high-quality. I didn't use Twitter much before, but I did start using it this election just because it was a good way to get information.

pg314 10y ago
I hope you're not considering Project Veritas a high-quality source. Mr. O'Keefe has a track record of selectively and deceptively editing his video recordings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe It is telling that he is often not releasing the full, unedited video, which I would consider the primary source. Once the video has been edited, the meaning could have been altered (and in the case of Project Veritas, it often is).
JamisonM 10y ago
If you regard the Twitter feed of Wikileaks a credible source of information I can't help you. https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/794450623404113920 https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/7944506234041139...
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  Even if you believe the information is unreliable, surely you agree that suggesting the idea and then pointing to a particularly bad example is a dangerous confirmation bias trap? If somebody told me, "CNN is doing a segment on how Trump's rise eerily parallels Hitler's rise", it would be confirmation bias to start off assuming it's false because I like Trump, watch the segment, record all the errors in the presentation, and then use those errors to support my initial conclusion. I agree that the Spirit Cooking was better entertainment than it was credible information.
  - JamisonM 10y ago
    Sorry I do not understand what you are trying to say. Twitter is awash with garbage information and offers far more opportunities to indulge your biases than to acquire useful facts about the world. Most "primary sources" are worth less than quality analysis and most analysis of any value comes from something akin to mainstream media. They are the only actors with at least some economic interest in facts and truth, however imperfect they are.