5 ms·

This is a very strange conspiratorial kind of ad hominem fallacy that makes no attack on the 'sense' of the argument nor addresses it in any way...

chatmasta 4y ago
No, the argument I was replying to was basically that the constant disparaging of Twitter in media outlets will be psychological "death by a thousand cuts" to their branding. I'm saying that the result will be the opposite of that, almost like a streisand effect, because in general, people do not trust the media. Over seventy percent of Americans do not trust the media - it's just a question of which outlet they trust the least. When some media outlet pushes a story, the natural inclination for anyone opposed to them is to dig their heels into a position contrary to the outlet's agenda, which is usually inferrable from the reporting and story selection. For example, the more CNN reported about COVID and Vaccines, the less likely the already vaccine hesitant were to get one. Obviously for contentious topics you need to modulate this based on how politicized the topic is and which media outlet is reporting (or not reporting) it. In this case, the people who are fans of Musk are almost exclusively the same people who oppose the outlets that have been posting negative stories about Twitter. If Fox News, NYPost, or CoinMarketCap were posting negative stories about Twitter, then GP may have a point - the stories would eventually inflict damage to the brand. But as it stands today, the only outlets crusading against Twitter are the same outlets to which most Twitter supporters are most fervently opposed, so the negative coverage will only make Twitter more endearing to them. Anyone more agreeable to those outlets probably already dislikes Twitter/Musk, so the negative branding effect will be mostly negligible.

5 ms·

This is a very strange conspiratorial kind of ad hominem fallacy that makes no attack on the 'sense' of the argument nor addresses it in any way...

by guerrilla 4y ago

chatmasta 4y ago
No, the argument I was replying to was basically that the constant disparaging of Twitter in media outlets will be psychological "death by a thousand cuts" to their branding. I'm saying that the result will be the opposite of that, almost like a streisand effect, because in general, people do not trust the media. Over seventy percent of Americans do not trust the media - it's just a question of which outlet they trust the least. When some media outlet pushes a story, the natural inclination for anyone opposed to them is to dig their heels into a position contrary to the outlet's agenda, which is usually inferrable from the reporting and story selection. For example, the more CNN reported about COVID and Vaccines, the less likely the already vaccine hesitant were to get one. Obviously for contentious topics you need to modulate this based on how politicized the topic is and which media outlet is reporting (or not reporting) it. In this case, the people who are fans of Musk are almost exclusively the same people who oppose the outlets that have been posting negative stories about Twitter. If Fox News, NYPost, or CoinMarketCap were posting negative stories about Twitter, then GP may have a point - the stories would eventually inflict damage to the brand. But as it stands today, the only outlets crusading against Twitter are the same outlets to which most Twitter supporters are most fervently opposed, so the negative coverage will only make Twitter more endearing to them. Anyone more agreeable to those outlets probably already dislikes Twitter/Musk, so the negative branding effect will be mostly negligible.