Post by laladypoet on Oct 16, 2023 12:24:19 GMT -5
"should we allow" is kinda dictating, no? I know that a goal should be to have the most accurate information but the most up-to-date information is usually on social media.
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.
pixy0stix points out that this rule will require her to moderate so it does seem that the plan is to stop people from posting even if it’s after the fact.
Twitter has become horrible, but a lot of reputable journalists and publications still use it. Some are starting to post more on the alternative sites like threads, but not enough yet.
So I guess I’m on the still use it and verify for yourself side. I don’t think we need a designated person calling balls and strikes.
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.
pixy0stix points out that this rule will require her to moderate so it does seem that the plan is to stop people from posting even if it’s after the fact.
Ah, I see. Then that was a giant misunderstanding on my part. Thank you for the clarification, I appreciate that.
It’s super odd to me that this board cool with dictating what people can post regardless of the reason.
We already have board norms around posting, like not C&Ping entire articles, and using @ to mark content. When someone goes against those norms, they are asked to edit their post. I assume this would be enforced the same way.
I don’t see this as “dictating what people can post” as much as asking participants to adhere to particular standards.
Post by goldengirlz on Oct 16, 2023 15:04:21 GMT -5
The vast majority voted “no” so maybe I’m beating a dead horse here.
But I don’t see this move as stifling conversation but about making sure this isn’t a place where rumors are allowed to flourish.
If something on X can be verified elsewhere, just post the original source link — super easy. And if it *can’t* be substantiated beyond a random X post, then maybe it’s not actually credible. The credible stuff (like from journalists on the ground) will be picked up eventually.
This is a discussion site, not a breaking news organization where speed is of the essence. Yes, it’s on the reader to decide if a source is credible — but we also have a responsibility to each other not to flood the board with rumors and misinformation. And not everyone on here even HAS an X account these days to do the proper due diligence (or wants to line Musk’s pockets with clicks and views.)
The vast majority voted “no” so maybe I’m beating a dead horse here.
But I don’t see this move as stifling conversation but about making sure this isn’t a place where rumors are allowed to flourish.
If something on X can be verified elsewhere, just post the original source link — super easy. And if it *can’t* be substantiated beyond a random X post, then maybe it’s not actually credible. The credible stuff (like from journalists on the ground) will be picked up eventually.
This is a discussion site, not a breaking news organization where speed is of the essence. Yes, it’s on the reader to decide if a source is credible — but we also have a responsibility to each other not to flood the board with rumors and misinformation. And not everyone on here even HAS an X account these days to do the proper due diligence (or wants to line Musk’s pockets with clicks and views.)
yes. this. Even before X went down the shitter we had issues with people posting rumors that ended up being false during breaking news situations just because the news sources themselves got it wrong.
Now that we can't even trust blue checks to be who they say they are, i very very much don't see the need to echo that particular website and I think it's appropriate for us to self police and ask people who forget to remove X sources and find something verifiable or for our gracious mod to remove bad links the same way she removes spam.
It's a hard adjustment that you have LITERALLY NO IDEA who anybody on X actually is anymore. Blue checks mean nothing, otherwise credible sources might not actually BE that source. So I don't care that Bob the Wonderful Journalist posted that on X, because that might actually be Ivan the Russian Bot pretending to be Bob and misinformation is harmful so this isn't just a "oh whoopsy" thing. If bob said it elsewhere which allowed you to verify it happened, share the elsewhere instead.
I’m not advocating that Twitter is reliable. I’m saying that it shouldn’t be up to anyone to say something cannot be posted here under any circumstances. Board norms of posting links instead of full articles and using @ are different than saying you cannot post something on a public message board and if you do we will get rid of it.
I think we have a duty to not spread misinformation and unfortunately Twitter/X cannot be easily verified by glance anymore. It increases the burden on each reader, thereby begging the question of whether or not they will do the work to verify the link/source/info.
My next course of action was going to ask how we wanted to enforce this, lol! If we're all assuming I'm going supreme dictator, then that's what I'll do. (AKA, wtf people.)
Also, we have ALWAYS come down hard on non-verified websites being used. This isn't new. It's happened in both Israel/Palestine threads. This just gives us more leverage to say, "We voted, and decided that twitter/x is unverifiable. Provide a credible source."
My next course of action was going to ask how we wanted to enforce this, lol! If we're all assuming I'm going supreme dictator, then that's what I'll do. (AKA, wtf people.)
Also, we have ALWAYS come down hard on non-verified websites being used. This isn't new. It's happened in both Israel/Palestine threads. This just gives us more leverage to say, "We voted, and decided that twitter/x is unverifiable. Provide a credible source."
I support your villain turn if it's finally time. INCREDIBLE COSMIC POWERS.
My next course of action was going to ask how we wanted to enforce this, lol! If we're all assuming I'm going supreme dictator, then that's what I'll do. (AKA, wtf people.)
Also, we have ALWAYS come down hard on non-verified websites being used. This isn't new. It's happened in both Israel/Palestine threads. This just gives us more leverage to say, "We voted, and decided that twitter/x is unverifiable. Provide a credible source."
I support your villain turn if it's finally time. INCREDIBLE COSMIC POWERS.
My next course of action was going to ask how we wanted to enforce this, lol! If we're all assuming I'm going supreme dictator, then that's what I'll do. (AKA, wtf people.)
Also, we have ALWAYS come down hard on non-verified websites being used. This isn't new. It's happened in both Israel/Palestine threads. This just gives us more leverage to say, "We voted, and decided that twitter/x is unverifiable. Provide a credible source."
I was more assuming the latter (peer pressure on the board with this vote as backup), mostly because I think it will be effective given past experience but also so you don't have to do everything.
Post by basilosaurus on Oct 17, 2023 0:51:17 GMT -5
I had someone try to prove their point to me by showing a sweet from jasonw. Who tf is Jason and why should I care what he says?! That's easy to ignore.
But when John Bolton goes and starts saying whatever bullshit that might sway some because he's previously had inside information. But, no, not now. And that's what I think is more insidious
I’m uncomfortable saying Twitter can’t be used ever. It just goes down an uncomfortable road for me and feels like censorship.
I do get that Twitter is currently a hot mess. It’s much harder to find reputable sources but not impossible. It’s still the best way to keep up during things like weather events for example. I would prefer middle ground like this was posted by John Doe who works for X or is an expert in Y to go along with the post. That way it’s easier for us to see the credentials. Like no posts from user245568.
I’m uncomfortable saying Twitter can’t be used ever. It just goes down an uncomfortable road for me and feels like censorship.
I do get that Twitter is currently a hot mess. It’s much harder to find reputable sources but not impossible. It’s still the best way to keep up during things like weather events for example. I would prefer middle ground like this was posted by John Doe who works for X or is an expert in Y to go along with the post. That way it’s easier for us to see the credentials. Like no posts from user245568.
I'm repeating myself, but you DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW that it's John Doe. THAT's the problem. The blue check system no longer means anything like what it used to mean, and people can just hop on X, create a user name that appears to be a real expert person, pay for a blue check and post harmful bullshit. That's the issue, not people posting user24534645. (which has kinda always been called out here)
I'm sure there are exceptions. I mean...I can think of examples where a tweet IS the story where it would of course make sense to post a link to it. But what the majority of folks here seem to be in support of is that we are NOT goign to directly post tweets as sources of facts or expert analysis because you DON'T actually know who's saying that. Since nobody is suggesting setting up an automatic filter that will block X links obviously common sense exceptions will in fact be excepted.
Twitter is not an acceptable source. Except sometimes. When someone decides it is. Despite the fact that the original poll said it's yes or no with no special options.
Twitter is not an acceptable source. Except sometimes. When someone decides it is. Despite the fact that the original poll said it's yes or no with no special options.
Stupid X question. I was a rare twitter user and even rarer X user so I apologize for my ignorance.
But if someone posts something claiming to be someone say the Washington Post. Someone else could post something as the Washington Post (maybe have a slightly different name) just by paying for a check mark? Are there repercussions for the person who is being impersonated ? If so what are they?
Stupid X question. I was a rare twitter user and even rarer X user so I apologize for my ignorance.
But if someone posts something claiming to be someone say the Washington Post. Someone else could post something as the Washington Post (maybe have a slightly different name) just by paying for a check mark? Are there repercussions for the person who is being impersonated ? If so what are they?
Twitter is not an acceptable source. Except sometimes. When someone decides it is. Despite the fact that the original poll said it's yes or no with no special options.
Congratulations if this is the first time you have found this board inflexible on something that you disagree with. I promise you - doubling down will not change the new board norm. It will just lead to you being more frustrated.
Twitter is not an acceptable source. Except sometimes. When someone decides it is. Despite the fact that the original poll said it's yes or no with no special options.
Got it.
I mean. Really? Way to go the extra mile in the wrong direction.
If you find a source on Twitter/X, then find the original source, and post that. It’s not that hard.
Being deliberately obtuse isn’t a good look. Worse than white after Labor Day!!
Stupid X question. I was a rare twitter user and even rarer X user so I apologize for my ignorance.
But if someone posts something claiming to be someone say the Washington Post. Someone else could post something as the Washington Post (maybe have a slightly different name) just by paying for a check mark? Are there repercussions for the person who is being impersonated ? If so what are they?
Stupid X question. I was a rare twitter user and even rarer X user so I apologize for my ignorance.
But if someone posts something claiming to be someone say the Washington Post. Someone else could post something as the Washington Post (maybe have a slightly different name) just by paying for a check mark? Are there repercussions for the person who is being impersonated ? If so what are they?
Partly yes, partly no. Checks aren't always trustworthy (especially the blue ones) as has been mentioned and what you wrote can happen.
There are also gold checkmarks/square profiles for businesses (and their affiliates can be linked to them) and government accounts get grey checkmarks/square profile. Not every business has the gold checkmark but, in your Washington Post example, they do.
And if you wanted to post something, for example, that Biden, Harris, a senator, etc. said, they would have their grey checkmarks (and would be a verified legit source).
For anyone wanting to know more about each of the 3 types, you can read more about them and how they work under Help Center in Twitter/X.
Congratulations if this is the first time you have found this board inflexible on something that you disagree with. I promise you - doubling down will not change the new board norm. It will just lead to you being more frustrated.
I’m not even being snarky. That’s the explanation - we don’t use Twitter…except when we do. Ok, I guess.
But I am comfortable doubling down on censorship being bad.
Congratulations if this is the first time you have found this board inflexible on something that you disagree with. I promise you - doubling down will not change the new board norm. It will just lead to you being more frustrated.
I’m not even being snarky. That’s the explanation - we don’t use Twitter…except when we do. Ok, I guess.
But I am comfortable doubling down on censorship being bad.
First of all...if this is in response to my post about probable exceptions, I was speculating on how I could see this playing out. I'm not actually in charge of anything nor do I represent the will of the board en masse. It may or may not actually go that way. You remain welcome to disagree with the logic of my guesses. Obviously.
Second if you don't know the difference between censorship and an expectation that you provide credible sources when linking to supposed facts and expert analysis then I personally wouldn't miss you if you took your ball and went home.
Next someone is going to claim their First Amendment rights are being trod on.
If this happens can we start posting tweets from the First Amendment Twitter account explaining that the first amendment doesn't apply in such situations? 😉