5 ms·

The first part of the comment is true, but then unfortunately used to prop up a false claim: >All the while we've learned that they have utterly sold the compa

The first part of the comment is true, but then unfortunately used to prop up a false claim: >All the while we've learned that they have utterly sold the company to international electioneers. This is disinformation, laundered with the trust of the first comment.

Ensorceled 7y ago
I wasn't agreeing with the original claim, though it's probably somewhat accurate, nor that this news item supports that claim. Just disputing that a citation was required for that claim in this forum.
- mistermann 7y ago
  > Just disputing that a citation was required for that claim in this forum. The ask was: "Citations to your references would be appreciated." It's true that a citation is not needed, but including one adds value, in that it increases efficiency.
  - Ensorceled 7y ago
    Curious what wording you would have liked from me here? > Just disputing that a citation was appreciated for that claim in this forum. There is no word to replace required that wouldn't be open to your complaint; e.g. needed, necessary, Yes, a citation would always be appreciated, but it's gate keeping to ask people to always provide citations when not truly necessary.
    - mistermann 7y ago
      > There is no word to replace required that wouldn't be open to your complaint; e.g. needed, necessary Appreciated is an appropriate word, you subconsciously swapped in required. A citation is required if the goal is to maximize constructive communication - if that's the goal, of course.
      - Ensorceled 7y ago
        You missed my point, I deliberately swapped so you could see how that word doesn't work. Clearly we are talking by each other on this.
        mistermann 7y ago
        I agree, we're clearly not understanding each other perfectly, I think this phenomenon is all too common and it's worth some mild effort to investigate where things have gone wrong. The original comment: > Citations to your references would be appreciated. It's the first step to overcoming the state of internet disinformation, as well as helping society overcome the fear of missing out just because someone doesn't already know your references. This request (and it's just that, nothing more) seems reasonable. This subsequent comment exchange: >> All the while we've learned that they have utterly sold the company to international electioneers. > This is disinformation, laundered with the trust of the first comment. ...specifically: "laundered with the trust of the first comment" seems like perfectly valid criticism, and arguably adds to the "onus" (or value in) for the original person to provide a proper citation, in order to minimize misunderstanding. And then here is where I see a problem arises: > Just disputing that a citation was required for that claim in this forum. You are criticizing someone for saying a citation is required, but it is you that introduced the idea of it being a requirement into the conversation - which is what I pointed out (perhaps not as eloquently as I should/could have). Your subsequent reasoning: > I deliberately swapped so you could see how that word doesn't work ...doesn't make sense to me. Replacing the original word with a new one that has a distinctly different meaning, and then criticizing OP for the new meaning of the sentence, doesn't make sense to me. Am I misunderstanding somehow?
        Ensorceled 7y ago
        Yes, you are assuming I have a much more extreme view than I actually have. When I used the word required that didn’t mean I thought the original poster was ordering/demanding there be citations. When I tried to clarify that, you again misinterpreted my intent. And again now. At three misinterpretations it’s time to let it go. L
nickbauman 7y ago
Have you read the news today, oh boy? Facebook is behind getting the highest bidders elected all around the world. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-12-21/inside-the-facebook-team-helping-regimes-that-reach-out-and-crack-down https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-12-21/inside-th...

Ensorceled 7y ago

I wasn't agreeing with the original claim, though it's probably somewhat accurate, nor that this news item supports that claim. Just disputing that a citation was required for that claim in this forum.

mistermann 7y ago
> Just disputing that a citation was required for that claim in this forum. The ask was: "Citations to your references would be appreciated." It's true that a citation is not needed, but including one adds value, in that it increases efficiency.
- Ensorceled 7y ago
  Curious what wording you would have liked from me here? > Just disputing that a citation was appreciated for that claim in this forum. There is no word to replace required that wouldn't be open to your complaint; e.g. needed, necessary, Yes, a citation would always be appreciated, but it's gate keeping to ask people to always provide citations when not truly necessary.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    > There is no word to replace required that wouldn't be open to your complaint; e.g. needed, necessary Appreciated is an appropriate word, you subconsciously swapped in required. A citation is required if the goal is to maximize constructive communication - if that's the goal, of course.
    - Ensorceled 7y ago
      You missed my point, I deliberately swapped so you could see how that word doesn't work. Clearly we are talking by each other on this.
      - mistermann 7y ago
        I agree, we're clearly not understanding each other perfectly, I think this phenomenon is all too common and it's worth some mild effort to investigate where things have gone wrong. The original comment: > Citations to your references would be appreciated. It's the first step to overcoming the state of internet disinformation, as well as helping society overcome the fear of missing out just because someone doesn't already know your references. This request (and it's just that, nothing more) seems reasonable. This subsequent comment exchange: >> All the while we've learned that they have utterly sold the company to international electioneers. > This is disinformation, laundered with the trust of the first comment. ...specifically: "laundered with the trust of the first comment" seems like perfectly valid criticism, and arguably adds to the "onus" (or value in) for the original person to provide a proper citation, in order to minimize misunderstanding. And then here is where I see a problem arises: > Just disputing that a citation was required for that claim in this forum. You are criticizing someone for saying a citation is required, but it is you that introduced the idea of it being a requirement into the conversation - which is what I pointed out (perhaps not as eloquently as I should/could have). Your subsequent reasoning: > I deliberately swapped so you could see how that word doesn't work ...doesn't make sense to me. Replacing the original word with a new one that has a distinctly different meaning, and then criticizing OP for the new meaning of the sentence, doesn't make sense to me. Am I misunderstanding somehow?
        Ensorceled 7y ago
        Yes, you are assuming I have a much more extreme view than I actually have. When I used the word required that didn’t mean I thought the original poster was ordering/demanding there be citations. When I tried to clarify that, you again misinterpreted my intent. And again now. At three misinterpretations it’s time to let it go. L

nickbauman 7y ago

Have you read the news today, oh boy? Facebook is behind getting the highest bidders elected all around the world. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-12-21/inside-the-facebook-team-helping-regimes-that-reach-out-and-crack-down https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-12-21/inside-th...