3 ms·
The hard part is the "when their stories are found to be factually incorrect". If you have that solved that then you don't need the rest. Otherwise you would ju
by aqsheehy 10y ago
The hard part is the "when their stories are found to be factually incorrect". If you have that solved that then you don't need the rest. Otherwise you would just game the system by retracting posts irregularly.
- hn_throwaway_99 10y ago> Otherwise you would just game the system by retracting posts irregularly. But that's the point. There seems to be a large number of people and organizations (including the US President) who are NEVER interested in issuing retractions or admitting fault - when something is pointed out as factually false, they just repeat the falsehood louder even when there is stuff like audio or video evidence that directly refutes it.
- Larrikin 10y agoBelieving that since nothing can be 100% true everything is completely false paralyzes society. The temperature that's reported by your thermometer may be off by a degree or so but if you take that to mean it can't be trusted at all you have no basis to trust anything. Sources should be critically evaluated constantly, but sources that are usually more off should be treated differently than sources that are usually more on.
- sanderjd 10y agoYou're right, but honestly even just "issues retractions or corrections ever" weeds out huge swaths of "news".