4 ms·
"prestigious team of online disinformation experts" Not being the devil's advocate here, but "online disinformation" is not a credentialed field. That's like c
by TeeMassive 3y ago
"prestigious team of online disinformation experts"
Not being the devil's advocate here, but "online disinformation" is not a credentialed field. That's like calling yourself a "truth expert".
Also the prestigious part is bogus at best. If they are then they sure don't make the headlines often.
- tuwtuwtuwtuw 3y agoI'm not following your reasoning here. There are people working with the topic that is online disinformation. I know Swedish government have some teams who analyze disinformation campaigns, as an example. Are you saying that people who work with this area cannot be experts on the area?
- CodeWriter23 3y agoI can't speak for the OP but take into the current Media Matters "outing" of X over the ad placement next to anti-semitic content. Basically Media Matters juiced the X algorithm to give them less than 10 impressions of big ad spend clients ads next to anti-semitic comments they entered on their own sock puppet accounts (with few or little followers), then passed that contrivance off as truth, stating brand-destroying anti-semitic content is rampant on X. Where are the disinformation experts now decrying MM's bullshit? Where will they be in 30-36 months after X sues MM into oblivion? Hint: likely silent at their desks. Just as they have been over numerous lies targeting non-liberal narrative-busting realities.
- Vicinity9635 3y agoEvery time I come across a "disinformation expert" they seem to be the ones spreading disinformation.
- mrangle 3y agoBoom
- tuwtuwtuwtuw 3y agoI am not sure what point you are trying to make. It seems quite US-Politics-centric and really doesn't answer the question I asked. If you're upset about things then that's fine but please try to stay on topic.
- nvm0n2 3y agoHis point is that academic self proclaimed "misinformation experts" don't care about misinformation, only ideological warfare. They are basically just academically sponsored left wing political activists pretending to be neutral scientific researchers. This problem is not US centric. Every western country has developed these people like a rash. Universities are overflowing with left wing radicals who spend their time on activism instead of research, the only thing that's new is the tactic of claiming to be fact checkers. It's really hard to feel sorry for the firing of someone who should never have had a job in the first place.
- CodeWriter23 3y agoI am saying there is no "disinformation detection" industry, trade, field of study. It is a new name for "propaganda", and in this instance rather than simply telling lies, they are saying those telling the truth are lying, and doing so with a contrived color of authority. And it is a global problem.
- graphe 3y agoWhat makes information disinformation or fake news? Who decided it?
- tuwtuwtuwtuw 3y agoI don't understand how that is relevant to the question I asked. Are you suggesting that no one can be experts on disinformation because different people have different view on what is true? Sounds a bit silly to me. Is the earth flat or more shaped like a globe?
- graphe 3y agoWhat is "the truth" about animal fats or plant oils? What is the disinformation for it?
- tuwtuwtuwtuw 3y agoI still have no idea what point you are trying to make. I have not claimed to be an expert on the topic, I only asked why no one can be an expert. It sounds like your view is that no one can be an expert on disinformation because some topics are disputed. That's an "interesting" take. I guess that reasoning would leave pretty few experts in the world.
- graphe 3y agoSaying they are experts are like telling you who is sexy or not. It's subjective. Some people really consider Marx or Friedman as the truth for instance. Digging deeper in the weeds we can make claims either way. Experts are often self appointed as well. If I was to declare myself an expert in an obscure area you don't understand by making wild claims that sound plausible it would be hard to say I wasn't and if some peers accepted it it would be even harder to deny it. An expert shouldn't be self appointed and if nobody trustworthy calls someone an expert they shouldn't be considered one too. If you consider someone an expert on your own by their knowledge it's different.
- 3y ago
- mrangle 3y agoThey can't be publicly trusted experts unless they can demonstrate that they correct disinformation at a better rate than it is delivered by the MSM. I haven't seen that. Apart from mundane fact checking chores, my observation is that referenced fact checkers lie by ommision, and other means, as much as anyone else. And it really is late stage civ stuff. Journalists are supposed to be the "disinformation experts". This has always been a false narrative, but in recent years the public percieves enough deception from he Press that trust in their proclamations has fallen through the floor. Enter "disinformation experts" as a cheap last-ditch attempt at an appeal to authority fallacy by the same distrusted media. It will and is failing as well. As it should.
- u32480932048 3y agoShe discovered the link between support for Trump and attendance at the J6 riots. She's basically the Francis Crick of declaring Facebook memes not entirely true.
- TeeMassive 3y agoSorry but what you said doesn't mean anything. Links can be "discovered" ad infinitum.
- mrangle 3y agoThey do call themselves truth experts. Nothing prestigious about being a sad, untrusted, and failed backstop for failing trust in journalism. See the fact that media calls them "prestigious" after being forced to concede their supposed fact checking role to them. Democratic election politics being a public trust game, at their core.
- terminous 3y agoSoftware engineering is also not a credentialed field, at least in the way other engineering fields are.
- networkchad 3y ago[dead]