3 ms·

> Much of the problems I see aren't advertising in the traditional sense, but viral content from sketchy sources. Define a credible source? We know for a fact

> Much of the problems I see aren't advertising in the traditional sense, but viral content from sketchy sources. Define a credible source? We know for a fact all the major news outlets edit photos, often don’t use their own reporters, write sensational articles (actively stretching facts). No, I don’t think we can say what is a “sketchy” source. Unless we start wanting Facebook to moderate truth (or just accept the current propaganda machines as truth). These statements remind me of school. I used to be told not to use Wikipedia and do all my searches in Altavista or Ask Jeeves. I was told this for years, even after Google came out. I think it’s short sighted to try and suppress. Instead we should teach or add a warning (at best) saying “unverified”.

Nursie 6y ago
> We know for a fact all the major news outlets edit photos, often don’t use their own reporters, write sensational articles (actively stretching facts). We can't, perhaps, for a definition that captures all sketchy sources, but we can come up with a reasonable definition that encapsulates some of them. > I think it’s short sighted to try and suppress. Why? Suppressing the mass, unencumbered spread of vexatious lies as "news" would seem to be beneficial to all.
mc32 6y ago
This can’t be stressed enough. It used to be footage or images were verified or were from a photo or video journalist on the ground. Now they use recycled footage and images either through laziness, incompetence or maliciousness to drive a narrative. This is from “reputable” networks. And not to lessen the complaint about excessive use of force by police, but very often the context preceding a confrontation is deliberately omitted to reframe an interaction with a suspect. This reframing has damaging consequences in many affected areas of concern.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > It used to be footage or images were verified or were from a photo or video journalist on the ground. Now they use recycled footage and images either through laziness, incompetence or maliciousness to drive a narrative. The use of undisclosed recycled footage to accompany news coverage is older than television. Its not a new phenomenon. (What's recent is the degree to which media critics have the ability to detect, identify the source of, and, through alternatives to the media that are doing it in the first place, publicize findings about such misleading use of imagery. You are experiencing it being harder to get away with, and mistaking that for it being a new thing that it is happening.)
ogre_codes 6y ago
> No, I don’t think we can say what is a “sketchy” source. Yes we can. If someone lies to me, they are a sketchy source. If someone gets caught spreading misinformation—lies repeatedly, they are a sketchy source. Or are we going to start trying to suggest we don't know what lying is now too?
lootsauce 6y ago
There is a very powerful dynamic going on between those well intentioned but perhaps too optimistic that we can or should try to protect everyone from bad ideas. That debate is nothing new and in the mean time as we wait and see how these forces play out the correct answer for any person is to stop wanting and waiting for the powers that be to save us from ourselves. It has always been the case that media serves to manipulate even if unintentionally. That includes both the "platforms" and their various participants. So we should consider our situation and duty to be like that or any intelligence analyst. Take in all the information, no matter the reputation of the source, with hefty skepticism knowing that there are various and sundry games afoot and a clear picture of reality is unlikely. Opt instead to weigh varying degrees of confidence against each other rather than seeking to sit pat on our well formed conclusions from "reliable sources". Becuase the only thing you can rely upon is that if smething is being waved in-front of your face there is a motive and it's not for your benefit. “All art is propaganda. It is universally and inescapably propaganda; sometimes unconsciously, but often deliberately, propaganda.” ― Upton Sinclair And with that I would urge people to disengage from this kind of battlefield, turn and look in the opposite direction of all these debates because there lie mountains of uncontested and ignored realities that are never spoken of and this is fully intentional.

Nursie 6y ago

> We know for a fact all the major news outlets edit photos, often don’t use their own reporters, write sensational articles (actively stretching facts). We can't, perhaps, for a definition that captures all sketchy sources, but we can come up with a reasonable definition that encapsulates some of them. > I think it’s short sighted to try and suppress. Why? Suppressing the mass, unencumbered spread of vexatious lies as "news" would seem to be beneficial to all.

mc32 6y ago

This can’t be stressed enough. It used to be footage or images were verified or were from a photo or video journalist on the ground. Now they use recycled footage and images either through laziness, incompetence or maliciousness to drive a narrative. This is from “reputable” networks. And not to lessen the complaint about excessive use of force by police, but very often the context preceding a confrontation is deliberately omitted to reframe an interaction with a suspect. This reframing has damaging consequences in many affected areas of concern.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> It used to be footage or images were verified or were from a photo or video journalist on the ground. Now they use recycled footage and images either through laziness, incompetence or maliciousness to drive a narrative. The use of undisclosed recycled footage to accompany news coverage is older than television. Its not a new phenomenon. (What's recent is the degree to which media critics have the ability to detect, identify the source of, and, through alternatives to the media that are doing it in the first place, publicize findings about such misleading use of imagery. You are experiencing it being harder to get away with, and mistaking that for it being a new thing that it is happening.)

ogre_codes 6y ago

> No, I don’t think we can say what is a “sketchy” source. Yes we can. If someone lies to me, they are a sketchy source. If someone gets caught spreading misinformation—lies repeatedly, they are a sketchy source. Or are we going to start trying to suggest we don't know what lying is now too?

lootsauce 6y ago

There is a very powerful dynamic going on between those well intentioned but perhaps too optimistic that we can or should try to protect everyone from bad ideas. That debate is nothing new and in the mean time as we wait and see how these forces play out the correct answer for any person is to stop wanting and waiting for the powers that be to save us from ourselves. It has always been the case that media serves to manipulate even if unintentionally. That includes both the "platforms" and their various participants. So we should consider our situation and duty to be like that or any intelligence analyst. Take in all the information, no matter the reputation of the source, with hefty skepticism knowing that there are various and sundry games afoot and a clear picture of reality is unlikely. Opt instead to weigh varying degrees of confidence against each other rather than seeking to sit pat on our well formed conclusions from "reliable sources". Becuase the only thing you can rely upon is that if smething is being waved in-front of your face there is a motive and it's not for your benefit. “All art is propaganda. It is universally and inescapably propaganda; sometimes unconsciously, but often deliberately, propaganda.” ― Upton Sinclair And with that I would urge people to disengage from this kind of battlefield, turn and look in the opposite direction of all these debates because there lie mountains of uncontested and ignored realities that are never spoken of and this is fully intentional.