5 ms·
They only do it in response to a news article, meaning that it's been vetted for credibility by a third party.
by jmcgough 6y ago
They only do it in response to a news article, meaning that it's been vetted for credibility by a third party.
- gruez 6y agoWhat counts as a "news article"? Does a blog count? Does it have to be a "traditional" media outlet (eg. tv station, newspaper)? Do op-ed/letters to the editor/"contributor" sections count? How does reporting by a third party vet anything, if they're just repeating the person's claims? eg. "Local business is racist, customer claims" provides the same information as a yelp review saying "this business is racist!".
- humanrebar 6y agoThe problem is that I'm not sure "a third party" has a great track record either. Seems like something more like a judicial system is appropriate if policing enters the picture: right to face accusers, adjudication by peers, standards for proof, right to appeal, and so on.
- ReptileMan 6y agoSorry, but a news article "Business accused of racism" is hardly vetting. Since you only need a clickbait chasing journalist and a twitter nutjob to produce one.
- raxxorrax 6y agoBut these third parties already have a bad reputation concerning these issues. Problems like sensitivity readers are an example. The issues wouldn't be racism, it would quickly extend to businesses lacking sensitivity, whatever that would entail. It would lead to insatiable demands while reducing diversity of opinion.