4 ms·

Correct. I'd like the example of NYT as a verifying authority better if I trusted the Times more than I trusted some of their journalists (blessed few, mind you

Correct. I'd like the example of NYT as a verifying authority better if I trusted the Times more than I trusted some of their journalists (blessed few, mind you). I think it's pretty hilarious that the Times, of all people, count as 'trusted'. It makes me automatically distrust BlueSky verification, which doesn't sound like the intention.

enneff 2y ago
It’s not that you need to trust the New York Times as a whole, it’s that you can trust that account is linked to that organisation. A verification tick does not imply endorsement, just that they are who they say they are.
- Applejinx 2y ago
  That would be nice, I guess. In normie world a blue tick is supposed to mean 'vouched for and trustworthy, also high status so you should maybe show deference'. You can say it means whatever you want, but then watch how people fight for these things and argue about/rebel against them. In practical terms, no, they are status markers.
  - azernik 1y ago
    If you're treating a "this person is who they say they are" checkmark as a status symbol, that's a you problem.
    - Robotbeat 1y ago
      That’s the problem with a lot of people, tho. They DO give deference to the checkmark.
mmooss 2y ago
> I think it's pretty hilarious that the Times, of all people, count as 'trusted'. Why? Who do you trust?
- dlivingston 1y ago
  I look at all media organizations skeptically. There are so many ways to distort the truth besides outright lying, and I notice this with the Times - both in what they choose to cover and their tone when covering. With that said, the Times is one of the better media orgs. But IMO they should very much not be trusted blindly. My media diet is a blend of various sources: The Atlantic, The Economist, The Free Press, Reason, Semaphore, Politico, New Statesman, and Axios. Even the Drudge Report sometimes. I wish I had more right-leaning sources to follow, but I often find their content inflammatory and rage-bait-ey (before anyone complains that liberal media does this too, yes, I agree. HuffPo and similar are cancer.)
  - enaaem 1y ago
    From my experience you can better spent time reading history than news.
  - mmooss 1y ago
    I agree in that it's important to take it all skeptically. Also I avoid anything that exists to further a particular cause. > I wish I had more right-leaning sources to follow, but I often find their content inflammatory and rage-bait-ey Agreed. I recommend David French, the NYT columnist; easily the best I've read.

enneff 2y ago

It’s not that you need to trust the New York Times as a whole, it’s that you can trust that account is linked to that organisation. A verification tick does not imply endorsement, just that they are who they say they are.

Applejinx 2y ago
That would be nice, I guess. In normie world a blue tick is supposed to mean 'vouched for and trustworthy, also high status so you should maybe show deference'. You can say it means whatever you want, but then watch how people fight for these things and argue about/rebel against them. In practical terms, no, they are status markers.
- azernik 1y ago
  If you're treating a "this person is who they say they are" checkmark as a status symbol, that's a you problem.
  - Robotbeat 1y ago
    That’s the problem with a lot of people, tho. They DO give deference to the checkmark.

mmooss 2y ago

> I think it's pretty hilarious that the Times, of all people, count as 'trusted'. Why? Who do you trust?

dlivingston 1y ago
I look at all media organizations skeptically. There are so many ways to distort the truth besides outright lying, and I notice this with the Times - both in what they choose to cover and their tone when covering. With that said, the Times is one of the better media orgs. But IMO they should very much not be trusted blindly. My media diet is a blend of various sources: The Atlantic, The Economist, The Free Press, Reason, Semaphore, Politico, New Statesman, and Axios. Even the Drudge Report sometimes. I wish I had more right-leaning sources to follow, but I often find their content inflammatory and rage-bait-ey (before anyone complains that liberal media does this too, yes, I agree. HuffPo and similar are cancer.)
- enaaem 1y ago
  From my experience you can better spent time reading history than news.
- mmooss 1y ago
  I agree in that it's important to take it all skeptically. Also I avoid anything that exists to further a particular cause. > I wish I had more right-leaning sources to follow, but I often find their content inflammatory and rage-bait-ey Agreed. I recommend David French, the NYT columnist; easily the best I've read.