4 ms·

> Before reposting something, ask yourself “have I heard about this website before today (or before this news event/cycle)?” Here's a better heuristic: Stop wa

by mmooss 2y ago

> Before reposting something, ask yourself “have I heard about this website before today (or before this news event/cycle)?” Here's a better heuristic: Stop wasting your precious time and mind on low-grade crap. Read/watch high-value sources only - you won't run out; there are too many to read them all.

ahartmetz 2y ago
It's not only the source, it's also the kind of content. It's of course not 100% reliable, but most bad content is pretty lurid stuff. Wedge issue content of any type can be safely ignored as well, or rather it's unsafe not to ignore.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > most bad content is pretty lurid stuff That is the badly executed bad content. Well-executed disinfo/misinfo is what gets you. Believing we can tell the difference just by looking at qualities such as luridness is the critical error. It's like people who think they can spot fake reviews - they can spot the reviews that don't fool them, not the reviews that do fool them.
  - ahartmetz 2y ago
    It's not a perfect filter, but I think it's useful.
randysalami 2y ago
Got some good aggregate tips?
- mmooss 2y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by 'aggregate', but there are still serious journalistic organizations: * NY Times: Ignore the politicization of their reputation, and the demonization. Ignore that it's the boring, status quo answer - it is for a reason. Just look at the articles, which describe their methods for that article: The research is extensive, statements are made carefully, and they offend everyone on all sides equally. Their claims tend to be born out in the long run (though nothing is perfect and certainly they've made mistakes). * Financial Times: Very expensive, but very good if you can afford it. * The Guardian: Certainly a liberal point of view, but quality research for their journalism. With the recent corruption of the Washington Post and CNN, and MSNBC (though that was always biased), we are running out of top quality, credible news.

by mmooss 2y ago

ahartmetz 2y ago

It's not only the source, it's also the kind of content. It's of course not 100% reliable, but most bad content is pretty lurid stuff. Wedge issue content of any type can be safely ignored as well, or rather it's unsafe not to ignore.

mmooss 2y ago
> most bad content is pretty lurid stuff That is the badly executed bad content. Well-executed disinfo/misinfo is what gets you. Believing we can tell the difference just by looking at qualities such as luridness is the critical error. It's like people who think they can spot fake reviews - they can spot the reviews that don't fool them, not the reviews that do fool them.
- ahartmetz 2y ago
  It's not a perfect filter, but I think it's useful.

randysalami 2y ago

Got some good aggregate tips?

mmooss 2y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by 'aggregate', but there are still serious journalistic organizations: * NY Times: Ignore the politicization of their reputation, and the demonization. Ignore that it's the boring, status quo answer - it is for a reason. Just look at the articles, which describe their methods for that article: The research is extensive, statements are made carefully, and they offend everyone on all sides equally. Their claims tend to be born out in the long run (though nothing is perfect and certainly they've made mistakes). * Financial Times: Very expensive, but very good if you can afford it. * The Guardian: Certainly a liberal point of view, but quality research for their journalism. With the recent corruption of the Washington Post and CNN, and MSNBC (though that was always biased), we are running out of top quality, credible news.