4 ms·

The problem with "fact-checking" is that if it's done by humans at all then it will be heavily biased. With Silicon-Valley people being in charge of "fact-chec

The problem with "fact-checking" is that if it's done by humans at all then it will be heavily biased. With Silicon-Valley people being in charge of "fact-checking" for the past decade there's been countless examples of them doing mass cancellations calling things lies that we all know ended up being true.

insane_dreamer 2y ago
> countless examples of them doing mass cancellations calling things lies that we all know ended up being true really? like what, exactly? please give concrete examples or this is just hot air
- oguz-ismail 2y ago
  peaceful protests?
  - quantadev 2y ago
    [flagged]
- wyager 2y ago
  https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republican-led-us-house-panel-probes-twitter-block-hunter-biden-story-2023-02-08/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republican-led-us-house-pan... There was a long period where people were getting banned from Twitter and Meta platforms for posting (true) claims about the Hunter Biden laptop story (which was, of course, extremely politically consequential)
  - kiitos 2y ago
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/12/x-twitter-jd-vance-leaked-file https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/12/x-twitter-jd...
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    Is that your example? It's not a very good one. If you read the article you linked to, you find that 1) Twitter blocked tweets about the WP story, not banned users, and 2) they reversed that decision and unblocked the tweets 24 hours later as they realized their mistake.
    - quantadev 2y ago
      It took the corporate media (CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, PBS, etc) a full 3.5 years to admit the laptop was real. It wasn't just some little thing like you're trying to portray it as. It made the difference in the 2020 election.
      - intended 2y ago
        I don’t think anyone thought the laptop wasn’t real though. It was definitely real, it was mostly seen as a politicized fight.
        wyager 2y ago
        > I don’t think anyone thought the laptop wasn’t real though. I heard nominally credible commentators claim the laptop story was a "russian disinformation" campaign at least 50 different times.
        quantadev 2y ago
        Big Tech, Mainstream Media, FBI, the Deep State, and every Democrat politician claimed that laptop was fake for 3.5 years. Sure, lots of them knew it was a lie, but the majority of the actual public was completely hoodwinked, because they hadn't yet realized there was this big left-wing cabal of power conspiring to lie as much as it takes to push the left-wing narratives.
        intended 2y ago
        >fake for 3.5 years Didnt people dismiss it initially, then change tune once it was confirmed? All the liberal sides knew it existed, they were mostly focused on the fact that the prosecution was being incredibly focused, which was out of the norm for how cases like that are typically punished.
  - kiitos 2y ago
    The Hunter Biden laptop story had no meaningful political consequences.
    - quantadev 2y ago
      Yeah other than the minor thing of swinging an election. lol.
- quantadev 2y ago
  If you're wanting to claim that `Cancel Culture` never happened, then I'm afraid, at this point in history, the burden of proof is on you, not me. lol.
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    I made no claim. But the OP did make a claim that "calling things lies that we all know ended up being true" I challenged that with a request for actual examples. Feel free to link to them.
    - quantadev 2y ago
      No one needs proof Cancel Culture was real. Everyone knows at this point. So you can pretend you need proof if you want, but you're not fooling anyone.
      - insane_dreamer 2y ago
        Handwaving is not providing examples. Please try again.
        quantadev 2y ago
        You can go to the wikipedia page. You don't need to be spoon-fed.
        intended 2y ago
        See, thats not how it works in productive conversations. “Adult” so to speak conversations online, require the person making the claim to provide the evidence. The act of not providing the evidence, is essentially a sign of not having an argument, and resorting to bluffs in the hope that people will take the emotions as facts. But thats entirely self defeating - it reduces your argument to one about feels and vibes. I always find this to be annoying, because I dont think people are so inaccurate. You may well have evidence, and bringing it up makes the case. And if you dont find evidence, then you improve your own argument. You end up checking and figuring out what made you hold that position. It’s just a lost chance. And if people said they dont care to do this, then why the heck did they make the effort? You just lost your peace for no reason.
- emmelaich 2y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/may/27/facebook-lifts-ban-on-posts-claiming-covid-19-was-man-made https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/may/27/facebook-... "Facebook lifts ban on posts claiming Covid-19 was man-made (2021)" It is not known to be true of course, but it always obviously a possibility.
  - intended 2y ago
    I mean, we can’t be correct retroactively can we?? I dont think all the doctors that came before antibiotics should be blamed for not knowing Germ theory. IS this a reasonable expectation of fact checking? I’m very curious now, I actually would love takes on this. I feel we are implying that the standards of fact checking validity weren’t met, but the standards haven’t been stated.
    - quantadev 2y ago
      The reason censorship is generally undesirable is because it assumes the person doing the censoring is always correct, and that they're infallible perfect arbiters of truth incapable of letting their political motivations dictate their censorship decisions...which is of course false. They're very often wrong, and always make decisions based on their political leanings, even when it contradicts the evidence.
      - intended 2y ago
        Sure. But we aren’t sure of a lot of things. People regularly say “let me know the full facts, even if they aren’t confirmed.” This is a common claim from people when it comes to medicine or nutrition, for example. I think you can acknowledge that people have contradictory impulses - because you’ve experienced it. All reporting on developing situations will be inaccurate, and yet people want it. So how would you reconcile this? This need for the best effort information and the need for perfect information?
        quantadev 2y ago
- wtcactus 2y ago
  Suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop scandal by heavy censorship of any post about it on Facebook. For instance. There's a high probability that heavily influenced the presidential 2020 election outcome. https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the-news/facebook-execs-suppressed-hunter-biden-laptop-scandal-curry-favor-biden-harris https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the-news/facebook-execs...

insane_dreamer 2y ago

> countless examples of them doing mass cancellations calling things lies that we all know ended up being true really? like what, exactly? please give concrete examples or this is just hot air

oguz-ismail 2y ago
peaceful protests?
- quantadev 2y ago
  [flagged]
wyager 2y ago
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republican-led-us-house-panel-probes-twitter-block-hunter-biden-story-2023-02-08/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republican-led-us-house-pan... There was a long period where people were getting banned from Twitter and Meta platforms for posting (true) claims about the Hunter Biden laptop story (which was, of course, extremely politically consequential)
- kiitos 2y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/12/x-twitter-jd-vance-leaked-file https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/12/x-twitter-jd...
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  Is that your example? It's not a very good one. If you read the article you linked to, you find that 1) Twitter blocked tweets about the WP story, not banned users, and 2) they reversed that decision and unblocked the tweets 24 hours later as they realized their mistake.
  - quantadev 2y ago
    It took the corporate media (CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, PBS, etc) a full 3.5 years to admit the laptop was real. It wasn't just some little thing like you're trying to portray it as. It made the difference in the 2020 election.
    - intended 2y ago
      I don’t think anyone thought the laptop wasn’t real though. It was definitely real, it was mostly seen as a politicized fight.
      - wyager 2y ago
        > I don’t think anyone thought the laptop wasn’t real though. I heard nominally credible commentators claim the laptop story was a "russian disinformation" campaign at least 50 different times.
      - quantadev 2y ago
        Big Tech, Mainstream Media, FBI, the Deep State, and every Democrat politician claimed that laptop was fake for 3.5 years. Sure, lots of them knew it was a lie, but the majority of the actual public was completely hoodwinked, because they hadn't yet realized there was this big left-wing cabal of power conspiring to lie as much as it takes to push the left-wing narratives.
        intended 2y ago
        >fake for 3.5 years Didnt people dismiss it initially, then change tune once it was confirmed? All the liberal sides knew it existed, they were mostly focused on the fact that the prosecution was being incredibly focused, which was out of the norm for how cases like that are typically punished.
- kiitos 2y ago
  The Hunter Biden laptop story had no meaningful political consequences.
  - quantadev 2y ago
    Yeah other than the minor thing of swinging an election. lol.
quantadev 2y ago
If you're wanting to claim that `Cancel Culture` never happened, then I'm afraid, at this point in history, the burden of proof is on you, not me. lol.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  I made no claim. But the OP did make a claim that "calling things lies that we all know ended up being true" I challenged that with a request for actual examples. Feel free to link to them.
  - quantadev 2y ago
    No one needs proof Cancel Culture was real. Everyone knows at this point. So you can pretend you need proof if you want, but you're not fooling anyone.
    - insane_dreamer 2y ago
      Handwaving is not providing examples. Please try again.
      - quantadev 2y ago
        You can go to the wikipedia page. You don't need to be spoon-fed.
        intended 2y ago
        See, thats not how it works in productive conversations. “Adult” so to speak conversations online, require the person making the claim to provide the evidence. The act of not providing the evidence, is essentially a sign of not having an argument, and resorting to bluffs in the hope that people will take the emotions as facts. But thats entirely self defeating - it reduces your argument to one about feels and vibes. I always find this to be annoying, because I dont think people are so inaccurate. You may well have evidence, and bringing it up makes the case. And if you dont find evidence, then you improve your own argument. You end up checking and figuring out what made you hold that position. It’s just a lost chance. And if people said they dont care to do this, then why the heck did they make the effort? You just lost your peace for no reason.
emmelaich 2y ago
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/may/27/facebook-lifts-ban-on-posts-claiming-covid-19-was-man-made https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/may/27/facebook-... "Facebook lifts ban on posts claiming Covid-19 was man-made (2021)" It is not known to be true of course, but it always obviously a possibility.
- intended 2y ago
  I mean, we can’t be correct retroactively can we?? I dont think all the doctors that came before antibiotics should be blamed for not knowing Germ theory. IS this a reasonable expectation of fact checking? I’m very curious now, I actually would love takes on this. I feel we are implying that the standards of fact checking validity weren’t met, but the standards haven’t been stated.
  - quantadev 2y ago
    The reason censorship is generally undesirable is because it assumes the person doing the censoring is always correct, and that they're infallible perfect arbiters of truth incapable of letting their political motivations dictate their censorship decisions...which is of course false. They're very often wrong, and always make decisions based on their political leanings, even when it contradicts the evidence.
    - intended 2y ago
      Sure. But we aren’t sure of a lot of things. People regularly say “let me know the full facts, even if they aren’t confirmed.” This is a common claim from people when it comes to medicine or nutrition, for example. I think you can acknowledge that people have contradictory impulses - because you’ve experienced it. All reporting on developing situations will be inaccurate, and yet people want it. So how would you reconcile this? This need for the best effort information and the need for perfect information?
      - quantadev 2y ago
wtcactus 2y ago
Suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop scandal by heavy censorship of any post about it on Facebook. For instance. There's a high probability that heavily influenced the presidential 2020 election outcome. https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the-news/facebook-execs-suppressed-hunter-biden-laptop-scandal-curry-favor-biden-harris https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the-news/facebook-execs...