Do we allow Twitter/X sources on the board? Poll/Discussion

[pixy0stix]

ETA: Poll will close Saturday morning. I'll post when it's closed.

Yes - continue to allow links

or

No - no links allowed

No special snowflake, because if No, I will have to moderate, and the less special exceptions, the better.


Related - Elon Musk’s X faces E.U. probe over handling of Israel-Gaza war

wapo.st/45sCd0q

[pixy0stix]

I say No - we discontinue the use of Twitter/X links. It's harder for me, as a mod, to vet the sources as posted. I've never had to moderate source links since it's always been fairly easy to sort out the ones that are not legitimate/all out fake.

[StrawberryBlondie]

In general, or specifically related to Israel/Gaza? Because I think my answer would be different depending on which.

[pixy0stix]

Oct 12, 2023 16:14:03 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

In general, or specifically related to Israel/Gaza? Because I think my answer would be different depending on which.

In general. Most verified sources have now moved off of Twitter, OR have other ways to link to the source. 

[underwaterrhymes]

A year ago my answer would have been yes. It’s not any longer. It’s too hard to sort out what’s true and what’s not.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Oct 12, 2023 16:15:40 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Oct 12, 2023 16:14:03 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

In general, or specifically related to Israel/Gaza? Because I think my answer would be different depending on which.

In general. Most verified sources have now moved off of Twitter, OR have other ways to link to the source. 

In that case, I'd say yes. I can't vote in a poll on the app though, and I don't feel super strongly about this. 😉

[jinkies]

I think we are all adults and can decide for ourselves if we feel a source is credible. Explicitly banning Twitter links but not say, fox news, seems like more effort than it's worth.

I was not inclined to blindly trust a random Twitter post even before Musk though.

[pixy0stix]

Oct 12, 2023 16:55:43 GMT -5 jinkies said:

I think we are all adults and can decide for ourselves if we feel a source is credible. Explicitly banning Twitter links but not say, fox news, seems like more effort than it's worth.

I was not inclined to blindly trust a random Twitter post even before Musk though.

I wouldn't have asked if I wasn't willing to put in the effort. We've never had anyone post a Fox link in earnest.

[pixy0stix]

Bumping

[SwimDeep]

I vote no. While there are still some reputable sources on Twitter, the disinformation, propaganda, and general bullshit spreads so much faster. It's no longer a credible source of breaking news 😕

[aurora]

I don't think x is reliable anymore (and I say that as someone who has posted links to Twitter many times in the past). I'd argue we shouldn't post links there, but am not worried about it being officially moderated if that becomes a pain. We're decent at peer pressure on most topics.

[goldengirlz]

I think the bigger problem is that even the “reputable” sources can’t be proven to be reputable since anyone can buy verification. The blue check mark used to assure you that a journalist was actually a journalist, for example. Now you have no idea.

Like who are these pundits being linked? Why should we trust them? And if you’re going to post something from X, at the very least, you should tell us why you’re quoting that random person and what makes them credible. Two of the X-es(?) in the other thread literally quoted Fox News and The Intercept as sources. Just share the Fox News link yourself at that point! Like we’re all supposed to know who Evan Hill, Ryan Grim and “FJ” are? For all we know, “Wesley Morgan” is a 16 year old who just drew a circle around Manhattan and called it #facts.

[Deleted]

Oct 12, 2023 23:11:17 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

I think the bigger problem is that even the “reputable” sources can’t be proven to be reputable since anyone can buy verification. The blue check mark used to assure you that a journalist was actually a journalist, for example. Now you have no idea.

Like who are these pundits being linked? Why should we trust them? And if you’re going to post something from X, at the very least, you should tell us why you’re quoting that random person and what makes them credible. Two of the X-es(?) in the other thread literally quoted Fox News and The Intercept as sources. Just share the Fox News link yourself at that point! Like we’re all supposed to know who Evan Hill, Ryan Grim and “FJ” are? For all we know, “Wesley Morgan” is a 16 year old who just drew a circle around Manhattan and called it #facts.

All of your references are to tweets I linked. I don’t know how you can’t understand the difference between a url link that’s just a bunch of letters and a article in a tweet with a headline showing and a picture and people are more likely to read.

Also if you’re worried about authenticity then ask?

No the map wasn’t made by anyone 16 yr old on Twitter, it was from this article www.businessinsider.com/these-maps-show-what-the-gaza-invasion-would-look-like-in-major-us-cities-2014-7?amp

And the tweet was from the Israel Air Force telling everyone themselves they dropped 6000 bombs. Nothing I have posted is unverifiable.

[sonrisa]

Oct 12, 2023 15:46:54 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I say No - we discontinue the use of Twitter/X links. It's harder for me, as a mod, to vet the sources as posted. I've never had to moderate source links since it's always been fairly easy to sort out the ones that are not legitimate/all out fake.

I say we treat it like hearsay testimony. (.sort of. maybe. I don’t use twitter because of trump so I might be wrong). If it’s a known entity, being quoted because they are the one saying it, fine. Not for the truth if the matter asserted. But as evidence that Matt Gaetz really did say this or that asinine thing in public (and specifically in his twitter feed).

[basilosaurus]

I'm a reluctant yes because I think there are still legit people there. I don't want to add to the click count, so I think we self police, for now, to track down any other source wherever possible

[pixy0stix]

Oct 13, 2023 1:21:19 GMT -5 @iceblink said:

Oct 12, 2023 23:11:17 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

I think the bigger problem is that even the “reputable” sources can’t be proven to be reputable since anyone can buy verification. The blue check mark used to assure you that a journalist was actually a journalist, for example. Now you have no idea.

Like who are these pundits being linked? Why should we trust them? And if you’re going to post something from X, at the very least, you should tell us why you’re quoting that random person and what makes them credible. Two of the X-es(?) in the other thread literally quoted Fox News and The Intercept as sources. Just share the Fox News link yourself at that point! Like we’re all supposed to know who Evan Hill, Ryan Grim and “FJ” are? For all we know, “Wesley Morgan” is a 16 year old who just drew a circle around Manhattan and called it #facts.

All of your references are to tweets I linked. I don’t know how you can’t understand the difference between a url link that’s just a bunch of letters and a article in a tweet with a headline showing and a picture and people are more likely to read.

Also if you’re worried about authenticity then ask?

No the map wasn’t made by anyone 16 yr old on Twitter, it was from this article www.businessinsider.com/these-maps-show-what-the-gaza-invasion-would-look-like-in-major-us-cities-2014-7?amp

And the tweet was from the Israel Air Force telling everyone themselves they dropped 6000 bombs. Nothing I have posted is unverifiable.

Having debated online for literal decades now, I can verify probably 90% of sources just from the link on my phone. Your tweets took me pulling out my computer and spending 10 minutes poking around, and I'm still not sure they're verified correctly.

[goldengirlz]

Oct 13, 2023 1:21:19 GMT -5 @iceblink said:

Oct 12, 2023 23:11:17 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

I think the bigger problem is that even the “reputable” sources can’t be proven to be reputable since anyone can buy verification. The blue check mark used to assure you that a journalist was actually a journalist, for example. Now you have no idea.

Like who are these pundits being linked? Why should we trust them? And if you’re going to post something from X, at the very least, you should tell us why you’re quoting that random person and what makes them credible. Two of the X-es(?) in the other thread literally quoted Fox News and The Intercept as sources. Just share the Fox News link yourself at that point! Like we’re all supposed to know who Evan Hill, Ryan Grim and “FJ” are? For all we know, “Wesley Morgan” is a 16 year old who just drew a circle around Manhattan and called it #facts.

All of your references are to tweets I linked. I don’t know how you can’t understand the difference between a url link that’s just a bunch of letters and a article in a tweet with a headline showing and a picture and people are more likely to read.

Also if you’re worried about authenticity then ask?

No the map wasn’t made by anyone 16 yr old on Twitter, it was from this article www.businessinsider.com/these-maps-show-what-the-gaza-invasion-would-look-like-in-major-us-cities-2014-7?amp

And the tweet was from the Israel Air Force telling everyone themselves they dropped 6000 bombs. Nothing I have posted is unverifiable.

To your last sentence, we don’t actually know that that was the IDF X-account — that was my point. The check mark might have proven that pre-Musk, but now, anyone can buy a check mark. I don’t know (or frankly trust) how much vetting goes on behind the scenes at X. By all accounts, it’s a shitshow there now.

And great, Wesley has a source! Don’t be lazy and just provide it for us off the bat.

[Deleted]

Oct 13, 2023 7:57:49 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Oct 13, 2023 1:21:19 GMT -5 @iceblink said:

All of your references are to tweets I linked. I don’t know how you can’t understand the difference between a url link that’s just a bunch of letters and a article in a tweet with a headline showing and a picture and people are more likely to read.

Also if you’re worried about authenticity then ask?

No the map wasn’t made by anyone 16 yr old on Twitter, it was from this article www.businessinsider.com/these-maps-show-what-the-gaza-invasion-would-look-like-in-major-us-cities-2014-7?amp

And the tweet was from the Israel Air Force telling everyone themselves they dropped 6000 bombs. Nothing I have posted is unverifiable.

Having debated online for literal decades now, I can verify probably 90% of sources just from the link on my phone. Your tweets took me pulling out my computer and spending 10 minutes poking around, and I'm still not sure they're verified correctly.

You could have just asked me and I would have helped get them verified for you sooner! All my posts are legit, whether it comes in the form of a square with an X in the corner or if I have to type out the words. If that’s the way it has to be then fair enough.

[sofamonkey]

I. Thought the general consensus was to post valid/verified information here. I did not think that people needed to ask for that information to be provided. Lol! That’s backwards as heck!

The burden is on the poster. If people follow up or constantly have to follow up, it (and you) are annoying.

[cattledogkisses]

Thé culture of this board has always been that posts need to be backed up by legitimate verified sources.

Right now on Xwitter, where anyone can buy a blue check mark and pretend to be a verified account, it’s difficult to know what’s real and what’s misinformation.

For that reason I’m a no on allowing it as a source. Misinformation has the potential to cause too much harm.

[hermione]

I am generally against censoring or dictating what people can post. The reader is always responsible for what they believe and should go through the process of verifying information if they question a source.

[pixy0stix]

Poll is locked - Twitter/x is no longer a valid source on this board

[bronxgirl]

Oct 15, 2023 9:35:44 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Poll is locked - Twitter/x is no longer a valid source on this board

. Thanks Pixy for putting in all this work. Moderating this board can’t be easy.

[aurora]

I'm surprised there are still 91 active people here (based on the vote). Feels slower than that.

[hermione]

Oct 15, 2023 9:35:44 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Poll is locked - Twitter/x is no longer a valid source on this board

So what does this mean? Someone posts using Twitter as a source and what happens?

[mrshandy]

I missed the initial poll but generally in favor of not having twitter as a source. Over the years I've seen so many people post random people on twitter and take it as gospel. I'm not really on Twitter, the structure doesn't really work for me. I get lost amongst all the tweeting and retweeting(what do we call this now?!?)

Anything that is newsworthy should be picked up by a newspaper or other more reputable news source or even tweeted as a news source.

Does this mean that breaking news on X from reputable news sources are not allowed either?

[laladypoet]

I wonder about this because I was glued to social media all weekend and that's where the most recent and accurate updates were coming from. CNN is just today sharing information that I got from TT on Saturday or Sunday.

[gretchenindisguise]

Oct 16, 2023 9:49:55 GMT -5 mrshandy said:

I missed the initial poll but generally in favor of not having twitter as a source. Over the years I've seen so many people post random people on twitter and take it as gospel. I'm not really on Twitter, the structure doesn't really work for me. I get lost amongst all the tweeting and retweeting(what do we call this now?!?)

Anything that is newsworthy should be picked up by a newspaper or other more reputable news source or even tweeted as a news source.

Does this mean that breaking news on X from reputable news sources are not allowed either?

The issue with X and their purchasable check-marks is that we can't know that tweets actually are from reputable news sources and not imposters.

[hermione]

It’s super odd to me that this board cool with dictating what people can post regardless of the reason.

[sofamonkey]

I don’t think it is dictating what people can post so much as it is agreeing that that particular source isn’t considered verified/verifiable. No one is going to stop people from posting it. But if that’s all your arguments have as a backing, then it won’t be as well received as something that has a better source of information. i.e. multiple sources having the same info, etc.

For me, even in the before times, I don’t use Twitter and didn’t really use that as a source because it was difficult for me to follow that source. I just ignored it until a different source was provided. Idk if that’s what everyone will do, but I presume it’ll just be ignored/overlooked.