3 ms·

The site is definitely quite sketchy looking - but this article is fine and perfectly reasonable so I don't know if we really need to comment on the website its

by munk-a 5y ago

The site is definitely quite sketchy looking - but this article is fine and perfectly reasonable so I don't know if we really need to comment on the website itself. If the website were adding unnecessary spin then maybe it'd be of note but it didn't.

Brian_K_White 5y ago
It is always correct to consider the source of any message. The mere truth of a _statement_ is often not even 50% of the _message_ since every statement is framed and the frame is highly manipulable.
- chrisco255 5y ago
  Do you have an objective source that confirms that truth is actually a 50/50 ratio between message and framing? Where did you hear that from? The truth of a statement is somewhat subjective but it's not helpful to be pedantic. I understand that authoritative media sources often frame stories in abhorrent ways and I have tuned out the media in general as a result. However, if I hear a plausible, factual statement from even a source I abhor, I can filter through the framing to find the truth in the statement. In today's world, I think it's an essential skill. Did Facebook accidentally ban an innocuous message? Seems plausible. Is Facebook known to engage in arbitrary flagging of content? Yes. Does this speak to the problematic nature of algorithmic fact-checking and moderation, a general theme of our era? Yes. Then it's worth discussing and it doesn't matter what source brought it to our attention.
  - Brian_K_White 5y ago
    Back up and ask why do you share anything from any source? If you have something to say, then, why don't you just say it yourself, instead of referencing someone else saying it? 3rd party, perhaps even recognized or respected, corroboration. The other source somehow is more authoritative and meaningful than the same message directly from yourself. This idea matters and should be considered because X says it. But if that source says both sensible and insensible things, espouses both virtuous and venal ideals, then the source has no value as source of authority or credeance. Rig up a speak&spell to randomly spit out statements. Once in a while, it will say something truthful. Now, so what? Why would you ever cite that speak&spell, no matter what it said, ever, on anything? And that's just a random neutral source, not an opinionated one that says actively and intentionally harmful things some % of the time. Even if the speak&spell says something you agree with and want to repeat, you still go try to find some other source who says the same thing, and unlike the speak&spell, has given anyone any reason to respect. At the very very least, you acknowledge the weak argument and say "I know it's X saying this but..."

by munk-a 5y ago

Brian_K_White 5y ago

It is always correct to consider the source of any message. The mere truth of a _statement_ is often not even 50% of the _message_ since every statement is framed and the frame is highly manipulable.

chrisco255 5y ago
Do you have an objective source that confirms that truth is actually a 50/50 ratio between message and framing? Where did you hear that from? The truth of a statement is somewhat subjective but it's not helpful to be pedantic. I understand that authoritative media sources often frame stories in abhorrent ways and I have tuned out the media in general as a result. However, if I hear a plausible, factual statement from even a source I abhor, I can filter through the framing to find the truth in the statement. In today's world, I think it's an essential skill. Did Facebook accidentally ban an innocuous message? Seems plausible. Is Facebook known to engage in arbitrary flagging of content? Yes. Does this speak to the problematic nature of algorithmic fact-checking and moderation, a general theme of our era? Yes. Then it's worth discussing and it doesn't matter what source brought it to our attention.
- Brian_K_White 5y ago
  Back up and ask why do you share anything from any source? If you have something to say, then, why don't you just say it yourself, instead of referencing someone else saying it? 3rd party, perhaps even recognized or respected, corroboration. The other source somehow is more authoritative and meaningful than the same message directly from yourself. This idea matters and should be considered because X says it. But if that source says both sensible and insensible things, espouses both virtuous and venal ideals, then the source has no value as source of authority or credeance. Rig up a speak&spell to randomly spit out statements. Once in a while, it will say something truthful. Now, so what? Why would you ever cite that speak&spell, no matter what it said, ever, on anything? And that's just a random neutral source, not an opinionated one that says actively and intentionally harmful things some % of the time. Even if the speak&spell says something you agree with and want to repeat, you still go try to find some other source who says the same thing, and unlike the speak&spell, has given anyone any reason to respect. At the very very least, you acknowledge the weak argument and say "I know it's X saying this but..."