3 ms·
>How do I know you're not lying? Assumption of good faith and an understanding of the obvious fact that not everything that happened on the Internet gets writt
by Karunamon 4y ago
>How do I know you're not lying?
Assumption of good faith and an understanding of the obvious fact that not everything that happened on the Internet gets written about by a "credible source" (which often is a synonym for "the media", and given your unwarranted partisan swipe there, likely a synonym for "the media that agrees with me"). At least one of the things I mentioned above, namely fruitless reporting of terrorist content (where I specifically was the person clicking on the report button) while the CEO got involved with a Hollywood star's gripes, is something I was involved in. What source would even possibly exist?
You can either take my word for it as someone that's been here for over 10 years and isn't in the habit of making shit up, or you can not.
- metadat 4y agoHaving no sources makes it difficult or impossible to move the conversation forward in a meaningful way. What is the point of sharing stories with no credible backing or linkage back to reality? "Ah, I hear what you're saying. That's interesting." It's not that I doubt your honesty, it's an issue of not enough information or context to figure out anything substantial at all.
- moistly 4y agoThe root question is “How was the moderation unfair?” Examples were provided. If you do not doubt their honesty, then you agree that unfair moderation took place.
- metadat 4y agoYes that sounds unfair. I'd like to be able to review the cases to see it with my own eyes, so we have the proof to say unequivocally "they are lying to us".
- themitigating 4y agoThey could think they are telling the truth but are being manipulayed.