5 ms·

> 3. RT is based on people's opinions, but news should be fact checked. Except when RT doesn't like to hear people's opinion when it differs from the mainstrea

> 3. RT is based on people's opinions, but news should be fact checked. Except when RT doesn't like to hear people's opinion when it differs from the mainstream. Unfortunately it's easy to box it as "trolling" and hide it under the rug.

crististm 8y ago
Apparently I'm getting myself in a SJW hive. Shame on me. s/hive/swarm
- martythemaniak 8y ago
  Did you mistake Rotten Tomatoes for Russia Today?
  - fartcannon 8y ago
    I think he's referring to when they delete reviews that are affected by cultural phenomenon.
- komali2 8y ago
  This is why my hackles are raised the instant somebody starts a "people should be exposed to various viewpoints discussion." I want to give the good faith interpretation, which would be, maybe, a healthy exposure to different economic system philosophies or something. But, nowadays, I find this argument, or people "just promoting the right to free speech," are really exactly the kind of people that casually toss around "sjw" as an accusation. Like, downvoted because HN is a hive of sjws? As if. Progressive, sure, but a hive of SJW as you undoubtedly mean by the word is a laughable accusation. Nowadays it seems when someone wants "multiple viewpoints" to be presented what they really want is the right to continue to bully people. This would have been an extremely presumptive thing to say but, crististm, you've gone and made this obvious for me by trotting out the old sjw accusation.
  - frogpelt 8y ago
    Interesting that you consider it bullying if an individual abrasively states different viewpoints from the crowd. Is it bullying if the crowd uses similar tactics to silence the individual? Perhaps it depends on whether you agree with the crowd's opinion or not.
    - komali2 8y ago
      I disagree that all instances of "silencing" are bullying. Take this journalist's recent flight experience: https://mobile.twitter.com/i/events/1110170398589480961 https://mobile.twitter.com/i/events/1110170398589480961 Some young woman was on her own on a flight and was getting creeped on by an older man. The journalist stepped in, flight attendants stepped in, the man was berated and eventually forced to move. Now those words - the man was berated and forced to move. If a group of schoolkids did that to some random nerdy kid on the playground, and we used those words to describe the situation, that's bullying. In the case of the flight, it obviously isn't. So, I don't think it's so much about whether I agree with the crowd's opinion, but a greater context. At an LGBT parade there's a fire and brimstone pastor shouting about how everyone's going to hell. The crowd is shouting back. Is that bullying? I don't really think so. I think it's the pastor that came to do the bullying.
  - crististm 8y ago
    Just to be clear, I should have said swarm. This is not about the whole HN and I've been here for a long time to see how it adjusted its directions from the top. I should probably know better than to voice my opinion to a group of strangers, but no, I will not apologize for what I think. I voiced my opinion and that part of HN crowd that heard me considered that I should shut up. Such is life
    - cazum 8y ago
      You're getting downvoted and told to "shut up" primarily because of your use of the word "sjw", because it's a dumb meaningless slur used to drag anybody with socially progressive values. It's not a criticism, it's just a petty insult. If you have a genuine problem with the social direction of HN, there's ways to raise those concerns without regurgitating offensive alt right memes
danso 8y ago
If you want to go on a rant, is it too much to ask that you list examples and how they apply, rather than assume everyone here is as on top of Internet drama like you might be? Your examples might even make it clear why a RT for news would be even more difficult than the one that exists for movies.
- Circuits 8y ago
  If you think that is a rant my sister would melt your eyes from your skull within about 10 minuets.
- crististm 8y ago
  The one that exists for movies adjusted their public mirror reflection the moment the public voiced a contrarian opinion. What would make a similar site for news safe from such trust abuse?
- SkyBelow 8y ago
  I guess it might be better to repackage this as something that isn't a rant. RT is a company that is currently owned by Warner Bros. (through a chain of ownership). This alone is enough for someone to raise the possibility they may not be completely unbiased in how they treat each movie despite having any evidence of such behavior. Conflict of interest, in my own experience, have never required evidence of any further problem outside of the conflict of interest itself. Since the end result is merely movie ratings which is a fully subjective experienced, it isn't worth time digging any further into. When it comes to a news rating site that will likely be deciding things of a more factual nature (news is true or not, or at least somewhat based on true events), I think a potential conflict of interest has larger implications. Whom ever owns the site will have a conflict of interest with regards to at least some news, and the ability of that site to be used by other groups like non-profits, NGOs, or even governments will need to be limited with respect to where the conflict of interest will occur. I don't think the difference is in the difficulty of making a RT for news, but on the downstream impacts of the conflict of interest that exists between owner and purpose.
  - Spellman 8y ago

crististm 8y ago

Apparently I'm getting myself in a SJW hive. Shame on me. s/hive/swarm

martythemaniak 8y ago
Did you mistake Rotten Tomatoes for Russia Today?
- fartcannon 8y ago
  I think he's referring to when they delete reviews that are affected by cultural phenomenon.
komali2 8y ago
This is why my hackles are raised the instant somebody starts a "people should be exposed to various viewpoints discussion." I want to give the good faith interpretation, which would be, maybe, a healthy exposure to different economic system philosophies or something. But, nowadays, I find this argument, or people "just promoting the right to free speech," are really exactly the kind of people that casually toss around "sjw" as an accusation. Like, downvoted because HN is a hive of sjws? As if. Progressive, sure, but a hive of SJW as you undoubtedly mean by the word is a laughable accusation. Nowadays it seems when someone wants "multiple viewpoints" to be presented what they really want is the right to continue to bully people. This would have been an extremely presumptive thing to say but, crististm, you've gone and made this obvious for me by trotting out the old sjw accusation.
- frogpelt 8y ago
  Interesting that you consider it bullying if an individual abrasively states different viewpoints from the crowd. Is it bullying if the crowd uses similar tactics to silence the individual? Perhaps it depends on whether you agree with the crowd's opinion or not.
  - komali2 8y ago
    I disagree that all instances of "silencing" are bullying. Take this journalist's recent flight experience: https://mobile.twitter.com/i/events/1110170398589480961 https://mobile.twitter.com/i/events/1110170398589480961 Some young woman was on her own on a flight and was getting creeped on by an older man. The journalist stepped in, flight attendants stepped in, the man was berated and eventually forced to move. Now those words - the man was berated and forced to move. If a group of schoolkids did that to some random nerdy kid on the playground, and we used those words to describe the situation, that's bullying. In the case of the flight, it obviously isn't. So, I don't think it's so much about whether I agree with the crowd's opinion, but a greater context. At an LGBT parade there's a fire and brimstone pastor shouting about how everyone's going to hell. The crowd is shouting back. Is that bullying? I don't really think so. I think it's the pastor that came to do the bullying.
- crististm 8y ago
  Just to be clear, I should have said swarm. This is not about the whole HN and I've been here for a long time to see how it adjusted its directions from the top. I should probably know better than to voice my opinion to a group of strangers, but no, I will not apologize for what I think. I voiced my opinion and that part of HN crowd that heard me considered that I should shut up. Such is life
  - cazum 8y ago
    You're getting downvoted and told to "shut up" primarily because of your use of the word "sjw", because it's a dumb meaningless slur used to drag anybody with socially progressive values. It's not a criticism, it's just a petty insult. If you have a genuine problem with the social direction of HN, there's ways to raise those concerns without regurgitating offensive alt right memes

danso 8y ago

If you want to go on a rant, is it too much to ask that you list examples and how they apply, rather than assume everyone here is as on top of Internet drama like you might be? Your examples might even make it clear why a RT for news would be even more difficult than the one that exists for movies.

Circuits 8y ago
If you think that is a rant my sister would melt your eyes from your skull within about 10 minuets.
crististm 8y ago
The one that exists for movies adjusted their public mirror reflection the moment the public voiced a contrarian opinion. What would make a similar site for news safe from such trust abuse?
SkyBelow 8y ago
I guess it might be better to repackage this as something that isn't a rant. RT is a company that is currently owned by Warner Bros. (through a chain of ownership). This alone is enough for someone to raise the possibility they may not be completely unbiased in how they treat each movie despite having any evidence of such behavior. Conflict of interest, in my own experience, have never required evidence of any further problem outside of the conflict of interest itself. Since the end result is merely movie ratings which is a fully subjective experienced, it isn't worth time digging any further into. When it comes to a news rating site that will likely be deciding things of a more factual nature (news is true or not, or at least somewhat based on true events), I think a potential conflict of interest has larger implications. Whom ever owns the site will have a conflict of interest with regards to at least some news, and the ability of that site to be used by other groups like non-profits, NGOs, or even governments will need to be limited with respect to where the conflict of interest will occur. I don't think the difference is in the difficulty of making a RT for news, but on the downstream impacts of the conflict of interest that exists between owner and purpose.
- Spellman 8y ago