4 ms·

I can see both sides here but I think media matters is mostly in the wrong. All platforms can be smeared like this if you set up perfect conditions. How many ti

I can see both sides here but I think media matters is mostly in the wrong. All platforms can be smeared like this if you set up perfect conditions. How many times has this happened with Facebook?

qarl 3y ago
If you check the dictionary, the definition of "smear" requires that the accusations must be false.
- sparky_z 3y ago
  Okay, I'll bite. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smear https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smear Noun: "a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization—often used attributively" Verb: "to vilify especially by secretly and maliciously spreading grave charges and imputations" Don't see a definition that "requires" the accusations are literally false. Maybe you're using a different dictionary?
  - qarl 3y ago
    I didn't cherry-pick my dictionary; I just used plain old Google. "damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander."
    - palmfacehn 3y ago
      >>"... if you set up perfect conditions" >"I didn't cherry-pick..."
      - qarl 3y ago
        Who said "if you set up perfect conditions"? Why are you trolling me?
        palmfacehn 3y ago
        In my reading, the poster you responded to claimed that MM cherry picked their data. This is consistent with my understanding of the kerfuffle. MM deliberately sought to create situations where advertisements appeared next to objectionable content. In other words, cherry picking, which is at the heart of this dispute. From my perspective it was a bit ironic. > I can see both sides here but I think media matters is mostly in the wrong. All platforms can be smeared like this if you set up perfect conditions. How many times has this happened with Facebook?
        qarl 3y ago
        Hm. I don't see the poster claiming that MM cherry picked their data. Can you quote me the relevant section that makes that claim?
- leereeves 3y ago
  That's false. > To stain or attempt to destroy the reputation of; vilify. https://www.wordnik.com/words/smear https://www.wordnik.com/words/smear
leereeves 3y ago
To be fair, Media Matters has also gone after Facebook/Meta in their quest to suppress speech online, for example: https://www.mediamatters.org/facebook/meta-still-allowing-misinformation-and-hate-speech-proliferate-threads https://www.mediamatters.org/facebook/meta-still-allowing-mi... The fact that we've heard about X and not about Meta appears to be a choice made by the rest of the media.

I can see both sides here but I think media matters is mostly in the wrong. All platforms can be smeared like this if you set up perfect conditions. How many times has this happened with Facebook?

qarl 3y ago

If you check the dictionary, the definition of "smear" requires that the accusations must be false.

sparky_z 3y ago
Okay, I'll bite. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smear https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smear Noun: "a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization—often used attributively" Verb: "to vilify especially by secretly and maliciously spreading grave charges and imputations" Don't see a definition that "requires" the accusations are literally false. Maybe you're using a different dictionary?
- qarl 3y ago
  I didn't cherry-pick my dictionary; I just used plain old Google. "damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander."
  - palmfacehn 3y ago
    >>"... if you set up perfect conditions" >"I didn't cherry-pick..."
    - qarl 3y ago
      Who said "if you set up perfect conditions"? Why are you trolling me?
      - palmfacehn 3y ago
        In my reading, the poster you responded to claimed that MM cherry picked their data. This is consistent with my understanding of the kerfuffle. MM deliberately sought to create situations where advertisements appeared next to objectionable content. In other words, cherry picking, which is at the heart of this dispute. From my perspective it was a bit ironic. > I can see both sides here but I think media matters is mostly in the wrong. All platforms can be smeared like this if you set up perfect conditions. How many times has this happened with Facebook?
        qarl 3y ago
        Hm. I don't see the poster claiming that MM cherry picked their data. Can you quote me the relevant section that makes that claim?
leereeves 3y ago
That's false. > To stain or attempt to destroy the reputation of; vilify. https://www.wordnik.com/words/smear https://www.wordnik.com/words/smear

leereeves 3y ago

To be fair, Media Matters has also gone after Facebook/Meta in their quest to suppress speech online, for example: https://www.mediamatters.org/facebook/meta-still-allowing-misinformation-and-hate-speech-proliferate-threads https://www.mediamatters.org/facebook/meta-still-allowing-mi... The fact that we've heard about X and not about Meta appears to be a choice made by the rest of the media.