4 ms·

What does your link have to do with what you're saying?

by d3nj4l 4y ago

mypastself 4y ago
The video in question uses a different (dictionary) definition of the term from the authors of the article. This is partly the justification for them declaring the video as false, and flagging it as potentially harmful misinformation. The overreaction alone is sufficient for me to question the website’s priorities.
- mjburgess 4y ago
  The issue with the video, as explained in your article link, is its claim that the whitehouse is "changing the definition" of recession. That claim is false, and just propaganda. The WH may be using an official definition which is convenient for them, vs. some other that is also acceptable. That may be true. But they arent changing the definition of anything. Theyre actually using the standard one for the relevant area of expertise.
  - glenstein 4y ago
    >The issue with the video, as explained in your article link, is its claim that the whitehouse is "changing the definition" of recession. Thank you for taking the time to look at this, as the commenter had led me to believe PolitiFact was arguing about a totally different claim.
  - mypastself 4y ago
    I’m not defending the specific claim in question. I’m questioning why these websites tend to focus on addressing the most easily debunkable, literal aspects (or versions) of an argument, usually in favor of a particular political option. If there’s an article out there in which PolitiFact debunked (let alone flagged) claims of, say, “transitory inflation”, I’ll stand corrected.
    - glenstein 4y ago
      >I’m not defending the specific claim in question It sure as heck seemed like you were all of one comment ago. I'm pretty sure that 999 out of 1000 people reading your previous comment heard something like "PolitiFact said this claim about a possible recession was false, even though it used a dictionary definition of the term!" But now it appears that PolitiFact was not doing that at all, but was instead taking issue with the claim that the White House was "changing the definition" of recession, and now you're saying you're not defending that claim and falling back to unrelated generalities. So now I have no idea what your original point was supposed to be. Is it the White House changing definitions is false and easily debunkable but supports some broader point that you believe is more important? And is that what we were supposed to understand from your first comment? This is just checking every box for being a bad argument.
      - ThalesX 4y ago
        > I'm pretty sure that 999 out of 1000 people reading your previous comment heard something like "PolitiFact said this claim about a possible recession was false, even though it used a dictionary definition of the term!" I understood GP to mean that it's a bit strange to have random groups define fake news or not based on deviations from a specific dictionary. If my dictionary says recession is two quarters, and yours says it's three, we can't use just this to decide that something is fake news, and it's especially dangerous to make arbitrary decision on which dictionary is actually 'not fake'. I guess I'm the 1 / 1000 and actually have trouble understanding your arguments.
        notahacker 4y ago
        If a video claims that the White House "changed the definition" and in fact the White House has always used the same definition, that claim is fake news. Period. What exactly is difficult to understand about that? The fact the rest of the world has always used a different definition (and still does) is moot.
        ThalesX 4y ago
  - yonaguska 4y ago
    Politifact does this all the time. They strawman a statement by adding on a ridiculous addition, then declare the whole thing as mostly false on a specificity. In this case, the more accurate statement would be that the Whitehouse is changing the definition that they use. But they present the Twitter lowest common denominator of discourse as the "fact" to be checked.
    - mjburgess 4y ago
      The WH isnt changing the definition that "they" use, since they dont "use" a definition. I mean, is politifact misbehaving here when clearly, everyone who's not read their article has actually the same misunderstanding about the issue? That does seem to warrant their view, right? The reason we care about a recession is that it's a recession. The "2-quaters" definition isn't what we care about, right? It's extremely odd to accuse the WH of misusing definitions to defend a position both consistent with the mainstream technical definition *AND* the spirit of all possible definitions. People still clinging to this criticism of the WH seem not understand why this criticism is false. It's both false *and* its misleading. T
  - ETH_start 4y ago
    The claim being false, let alone "propaganda", is highly debatable. Facebook should not be wading into such politically contentious issues - where what's right or wrong is so subjective - to declare one position to be false.
- secondhandle 4y ago
  > The video in question uses a different (dictionary) definition of the term from the authors of the article. Both the video and authors of the article use the same definition. The article notes that the video "includes an important word that the narrator glosses over" (hint its the word 'generally'). > This is partly the justification for them declaring the video as false Using a different definition is not their justification (partly because you just made this connection up). They ruled the post as false because it stated the White House was changing the definition of 'recession' when it was not. > flagging it as potentially harmful misinformation. The intent of the video is clearly to indicate the White House is changing definitions to suit their narrative. In reality this was not the case. The effect is discrediting or undermining the trust in the white house. If you think this isn't potentially harmful, that might speak more to your political inclinations than the objective reality. > The overreaction alone is sufficient for me to question the website’s priorities. Now this is ironic.

What does your link have to do with what you're saying?

by d3nj4l 4y ago

What does your link have to do with what you're saying?

The video in question uses a different (dictionary) definition of the term from the authors of the article. This is partly the justification for them declaring the video as false, and flagging it as potentially harmful misinformation. The overreaction alone is sufficient for me to question the website’s priorities.

mjburgess 4y ago
The issue with the video, as explained in your article link, is its claim that the whitehouse is "changing the definition" of recession. That claim is false, and just propaganda. The WH may be using an official definition which is convenient for them, vs. some other that is also acceptable. That may be true. But they arent changing the definition of anything. Theyre actually using the standard one for the relevant area of expertise.
- glenstein 4y ago
  >The issue with the video, as explained in your article link, is its claim that the whitehouse is "changing the definition" of recession. Thank you for taking the time to look at this, as the commenter had led me to believe PolitiFact was arguing about a totally different claim.
- mypastself 4y ago
  I’m not defending the specific claim in question. I’m questioning why these websites tend to focus on addressing the most easily debunkable, literal aspects (or versions) of an argument, usually in favor of a particular political option. If there’s an article out there in which PolitiFact debunked (let alone flagged) claims of, say, “transitory inflation”, I’ll stand corrected.
  - glenstein 4y ago
    >I’m not defending the specific claim in question It sure as heck seemed like you were all of one comment ago. I'm pretty sure that 999 out of 1000 people reading your previous comment heard something like "PolitiFact said this claim about a possible recession was false, even though it used a dictionary definition of the term!" But now it appears that PolitiFact was not doing that at all, but was instead taking issue with the claim that the White House was "changing the definition" of recession, and now you're saying you're not defending that claim and falling back to unrelated generalities. So now I have no idea what your original point was supposed to be. Is it the White House changing definitions is false and easily debunkable but supports some broader point that you believe is more important? And is that what we were supposed to understand from your first comment? This is just checking every box for being a bad argument.
    - ThalesX 4y ago
      > I'm pretty sure that 999 out of 1000 people reading your previous comment heard something like "PolitiFact said this claim about a possible recession was false, even though it used a dictionary definition of the term!" I understood GP to mean that it's a bit strange to have random groups define fake news or not based on deviations from a specific dictionary. If my dictionary says recession is two quarters, and yours says it's three, we can't use just this to decide that something is fake news, and it's especially dangerous to make arbitrary decision on which dictionary is actually 'not fake'. I guess I'm the 1 / 1000 and actually have trouble understanding your arguments.
      - notahacker 4y ago
        If a video claims that the White House "changed the definition" and in fact the White House has always used the same definition, that claim is fake news. Period. What exactly is difficult to understand about that? The fact the rest of the world has always used a different definition (and still does) is moot.
        ThalesX 4y ago
- yonaguska 4y ago
  Politifact does this all the time. They strawman a statement by adding on a ridiculous addition, then declare the whole thing as mostly false on a specificity. In this case, the more accurate statement would be that the Whitehouse is changing the definition that they use. But they present the Twitter lowest common denominator of discourse as the "fact" to be checked.
  - mjburgess 4y ago
    The WH isnt changing the definition that "they" use, since they dont "use" a definition. I mean, is politifact misbehaving here when clearly, everyone who's not read their article has actually the same misunderstanding about the issue? That does seem to warrant their view, right? The reason we care about a recession is that it's a recession. The "2-quaters" definition isn't what we care about, right? It's extremely odd to accuse the WH of misusing definitions to defend a position both consistent with the mainstream technical definition *AND* the spirit of all possible definitions. People still clinging to this criticism of the WH seem not understand why this criticism is false. It's both false *and* its misleading. T
- ETH_start 4y ago
  The claim being false, let alone "propaganda", is highly debatable. Facebook should not be wading into such politically contentious issues - where what's right or wrong is so subjective - to declare one position to be false.
secondhandle 4y ago
> The video in question uses a different (dictionary) definition of the term from the authors of the article. Both the video and authors of the article use the same definition. The article notes that the video "includes an important word that the narrator glosses over" (hint its the word 'generally'). > This is partly the justification for them declaring the video as false Using a different definition is not their justification (partly because you just made this connection up). They ruled the post as false because it stated the White House was changing the definition of 'recession' when it was not. > flagging it as potentially harmful misinformation. The intent of the video is clearly to indicate the White House is changing definitions to suit their narrative. In reality this was not the case. The effect is discrediting or undermining the trust in the white house. If you think this isn't potentially harmful, that might speak more to your political inclinations than the objective reality. > The overreaction alone is sufficient for me to question the website’s priorities. Now this is ironic.