3 ms·
Point taken, it does look like a train of thought. It does seem like I'm disagreeing with my self! Technically I probably am. Let me start over: * False capti
by dimitar 12y ago
Point taken, it does look like a train of thought. It does seem like I'm disagreeing with my self! Technically I probably am.
Let me start over:
* False captioning (FC) is easy to spot if you compare sources.
* Clumsy Photoshoping is too apparent today, at least for the internet crowd. Its plain for the eye to see, so to speak.
* While easily "debunked", for FC you have to read blogs or other media. Good photoshop jobs take a lot of effort and talent, FC is easy to do.
* Things were definitively different just 15 years ago. Viewers expected lower resolutions and photoshopping was that prevalent.
* In the end of the day FC seems to be preferred form of deception ("fakery"),
- ZoF 12y agoNice! I like that a lot better, in terms of my comprehension. I get your point, can see that you have an understanding of the subject matter as well as anecdotal evidence to support it, and understand your thought process in reaching that conclusion. It's almost a matter of empathy; when I read something online and don't immediately grok the point I tend to disregard it as invalid, when in reality I might very well be missing a well informed opinion that was simply not stated in a manner that I'm used to parsing.