How to think critically about what the media is telling you?

[scourge165]

3 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

so seeing a video of someone speaking is a bad way to tell how they feel about the issues?

you would rather someone tell you how to think about what they said? 

LOL...holy shit, you REALLY do struggle with reading comprehension! 

Quote

 

social media is a horrible way to get accurate news. Yes, you may get "balanced" information, but it will be all over the place and everywhere in between and really you'll end up having to arbitrarily decide what to accept as the truth unless you have hours to decide which information is false. 

You're better off getting your information from something that is truly more objective and filters out the crap ahead of time. 

 

"So seeing a video of someone speaking is a bad way to tell how they feel about the issues."

 

Jeeesus...did you read what he wrote at all? Are you just dumb or is this honestly a good faith attempt to characterize what he just said?

Something happens and social media has SO many false and misleading stories. YOU'RE pretending Social Media is ALL just videos of people sharing their policy positions. 

[BobDole]

9 hours ago, jross said:

The best thing about X.com is better access to the primary source in raw form via video.  Rather than blindly believing the media spin, you can listen and form your own opinion.  And then you have community notes.

X and other social media platforms spread way more false information than CNN and Fox combined. Add to that images are easily faked to dupe every Boomer out there that then shares the posts to everyone.

Social media platforms are notorious for promoting posts that drive engagement, good and bad. It is well known that they push the controversial political stuff over your dog's birthday pics.

[headshuck]

I’ve thought about waking to Morning Joe, going for a jog, watching The View having dinner with CNN and finishing the evening with Colbert but the schedule is so rigid and I don’t have TiVo anymore.

[Offthemat]

22 minutes ago, BobDole said:

X and other social media platforms spread way more false information than CNN and Fox combined. Add to that images are easily faked to dupe every Boomer out there that then shares the posts to everyone.

Social media platforms are notorious for promoting posts that drive engagement, good and bad. It is well known that they push the controversial political stuff over your dog's birthday pics.

There’s also better or more full context information available on X than the MSM tends to provide, but it does require critical thinking skills to evaluate. 

[jross]

“Dangerous freedom is preferred over peaceful slavery.”

It shouldn't be the responsibility of corporations or governments to control the flow of information.

It is better to let people have open access to diverse information sources, to collaborate, and to make their own choices about what to believe.

[scourge165]

44 minutes ago, BobDole said:

X and other social media platforms spread way more false information than CNN and Fox combined. Add to that images are easily faked to dupe every Boomer out there that then shares the posts to everyone.

Social media platforms are notorious for promoting posts that drive engagement, good and bad. It is well known that they push the controversial political stuff over your dog's birthday pics.

Yes. I remember seeing the Jacob Blake story, IMMEDIATE story, Jacob Blake was just a father brining his kids home and this poor man stumbled upon a fight and because he was SO law abiding, he just felt it was his duty to break that fight up and alert the Police as a GOOD citizen would do.

 

Not that it really matters. About 40% of the people who said the shooting was justified right away and 40% thought it was murder(because he was dead per the immediate reports).

Then we learned who/what he really was and...most people didn't change their minds, they just changed their arguments. 

Same thing with Arbery. He was a criminal who looked inside the building and nobody runs in clothes like that(except for him every day) and there were about 30 people who'd stopped and looked at the construction as people do with new homes being built.

X isn't some haven for truth and honesty, it's just more people posting misinformation. 

I had an uncle send me a video of the head of Pfizer saying he wanted to eliminate 50% of the population and then another where Obama is giving a speech in Germany and he's talking about doing what the Nazi's did. Both EASILY disprovable fakes(the editing didn't even match up well, but that was years ago). 

 

The fact is, most people don't go any deeper than finding the information they WANT to see and then they that becomes the truth. 

[BobDole]

30 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

There’s also better or more full context information available on X than the MSM tends to provide, but it does require critical thinking skills to evaluate. 

It's not even critical thinking, it's moreso the ability to sift through the crap to find the real stuff. Too many just share anything that fits their beliefs without doing the research to see if the post is true.

[BobDole]

55 minutes ago, jross said:

“Dangerous freedom is preferred over peaceful slavery.”

It shouldn't be the responsibility of corporations or governments to control the flow of information.

It is better to let people have open access to diverse information sources, to collaborate, and to make their own choices about what to believe.

Social media is still very new and ever evolving. 

What would Intermat's role be if someone starting falsely posting on here using your real name that you were a pedo? Would you want it censored or just let it go even though it was false information? At what point should a person be censored for spreading false information on this website? 

People who post what you said have very little comprehension of the affects of spreading false information. There always becomes a point in which the information on social media needs to be censored.

Everyone wants this fantasy of freedom of speech until it affects them personally.

[ionel]

1 hour ago, BobDole said:

X and other social media platforms spread way more false information than CNN and Fox combined. Add to that images are easily faked to dupe every Boomer out there that then shares the posts to everyone.

Social media platforms are notorious for promoting posts that drive engagement, good and bad. It is well known that they push the controversial political stuff over your dog's birthday pics.

The people who create these social forums/platforms should be locked up.  Cage em in the Zoo I say! 

[jross]

1 hour ago, BobDole said:

What would Intermat's role be if someone starting falsely posting on here using your real name that you were a pedo? Would you want it censored or just let it go even though it was false information? At what point should a person be censored for spreading false information on this website? 

People who post what you said have very little comprehension of the affects of spreading false information. There always becomes a point in which the information on social media needs to be censored.

Who decides what constitutes false information?  Who decides what information needs to be censored?

In response to your question, I have legal options if I am defamed or falsely accused.

To protect itself, Intermat could establish and share transparent guidelines on acceptable behavior and content moderation. If Intermat’s guidelines emphasize respecting privacy, avoiding defamation, and upholding the platform’s reputation, then Intermat should actively monitor and address content that violates these standards.

If Intermat fails to address malicious defamation, it will lose members.

[WrestlingRasta]

Best thread yet 

[BobDole]

5 hours ago, jross said:

Who decides what constitutes false information?  Who decides what information needs to be censored?

In response to your question, I have legal options if I am defamed or falsely accused.

To protect itself, Intermat could establish and share transparent guidelines on acceptable behavior and content moderation. If Intermat’s guidelines emphasize respecting privacy, avoiding defamation, and upholding the platform’s reputation, then Intermat should actively monitor and address content that violates these standards.

If Intermat fails to address malicious defamation, it will lose members.

There are lots of questions presented, however I do not see an answer the simple question of should it be censored?

You have legal options against whom? An anonymous internet troll using a VPN in China or InterMat? How does the InterMat staff not know it's true, we certainly can't vet everything posted on here.

It sounds as if you want some standards of decency and not to have false information posted on here, but doesn't that create less freedom by restricting your speech? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Here is another example that might affect multiple people on here. Say there is a health emergency and a respected poster claims his cousin who is a doctor told him to drink 8oz of bleach and it will cure it. He even claims he did it. Then you suggest it to your spouse and they die. Would you want that censored or are we just going to weed out the idiots who believe that stuff? 

Everyone of these examples can be extrapolated to X, Facebook, and any other way bigger platform. 

In summary, as I stated earlier, everyone wants Freedom of Speech until it affects them personally.

 

[WrestlingRasta]

5 hours ago, jross said:

Who decides what constitutes false information? 

Ummmmm, Facts???  This statement reminds me of a leadership conference I went to, and walked out of when the following statement was made:   Facts are not real, feelings are real.

[BobDole]

6 hours ago, jross said:

To protect itself, Intermat could establish and share transparent guidelines on acceptable behavior and content moderation. If Intermat’s guidelines emphasize respecting privacy, avoiding defamation, and upholding the platform’s reputation, then Intermat should actively monitor and address content that violates these standards.

 

I'll go into more details. This is great, you can make all the guidelines in the world, but you can't fit everything into the square hole. Who decides if someone has went against these guidelines? Maybe I feel someone went over them, while Willie says no that's fine. This isn't a 55mph speed limit, this is "reasonable speeds should be taken at all times." We aren't always going to agree on what a reasonable speed is.

The people who have been banished from the website usually haven't posted anything against the guidelines per se, however they have been increasingly annoying and making this place less enticing to frequent. How do we make guidelines to not be annoying? Should we censor annoying people who are intolerable to visit?

Tending to social media is not an easy job and I can't even imagine what goes on an the big dawgs. Do we let people be idiots and potentially ruin our product or do we censor people?

[jross]

2 hours ago, BobDole said:

There are lots of questions presented, however I do not see an answer the simple question of should it be censored?

You have legal options against whom? An anonymous internet troll using a VPN in China or InterMat? How does the InterMat staff not know it's true, we certainly can't vet everything posted on here.

It sounds as if you want some standards of decency and not to have false information posted on here, but doesn't that create less freedom by restricting your speech? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Here is another example that might affect multiple people on here. Say there is a health emergency and a respected poster claims his cousin who is a doctor told him to drink 8oz of bleach and it will cure it. He even claims he did it. Then you suggest it to your spouse and they die. Would you want that censored or are we just going to weed out the idiots who believe that stuff? 

Everyone of these examples can be extrapolated to X, Facebook, and any other way bigger platform. 

In summary, as I stated earlier, everyone wants Freedom of Speech until it affects them personally.

Censorship should be a last resort, reserved for situations where there's a clear and present danger.

Feeling offended and being dumb (drink bleach) are not reason enough for censorship.

Censoring respected medical experts providing alternatives to Covid vaccinations was over censorship and caused harm.

Edited August 14 by jross

[Danny Deck]

11 hours ago, jross said:

“Dangerous freedom is preferred over peaceful slavery.”

It shouldn't be the responsibility of corporations or governments to control the flow of information.

It is better to let people have open access to diverse information sources, to collaborate, and to make their own choices about what to believe.

What liberal sources do you follow on Twitter?

[ionel]

2 minutes ago, Danny Deck said:

What liberal sources do you follow on Twitter?

Twitter ... is that still a thing?  

[Danny Deck]

1 minute ago, ionel said:

Twitter ... is that still a thing?  

Elon says deadnaming is good, so I'm just following his lead.

[wrestlingguy]

10 minutes ago, Danny Deck said:

Elon says deadnaming is good, so I'm just following his lead.

Let me guess you play the pronoun game too? 

[jross]

1 hour ago, Danny Deck said:

What liberal sources do you follow on Twitter?

Liberal sources (less aligned personally)
Barack Obama
Robert Reich (nuts)
Bill Maher
Jason Kander

Liberal views..
Emmanuel Acho (like...)
Matt Tiabbi (like...)
Tim O'Reilly

Stopped following some wackos with too much TDS.  

Libertarian (better aligned personally)
Ron Paul...

Edited August 14 by jross

[Bigbrog]

I feel like everyone is saying the same things.  Vet your sources, use critical thinking, don't stick to only one source for information, seek out different opinions on things. Seems like there is argument over which ones to do and which ones not to do...I like to think I do all of those, but I am sure I get lazy and don't dig hard enough on some things.

[BobDole]

2 hours ago, jross said:

Censorship should be a last resort, reserved for situations where there's a clear and present danger.

Feeling offended and being dumb (drink bleach) are not reason enough for censorship.

Censoring respected medical experts providing alternatives to Covid vaccinations was over censorship and caused harm.

Again all this sounds fine and dandy unless you need to enforce it. Where is the line drawn to censor something?

Do we censor aka ban the annoying person who makes this place intolerable to read? Just like in your house, are you going to let me in if I just scream at your spouse and cuss at your kids? I'm not breaking any laws, but sure am making your house pretty miserable to be at.

Do we censor aka delete posts telling people a great weight loss technique is to drink bleach? Does Intermat have a right to protect it's users from doing harmful things and thinking that since it is posted here that it is a verifiable way of losing weight?

Do we censor posts accusing someone of inappropriate relations with athletes? This was something that came up a year ago when some people were saying a coach was doing some bad things. There was no evidence, but at what point do we stop the accusations?

It boils down simply, how much garbage will you dig through to find what you want? Are you will to sift through accusations of bad behavior, annoying posters trying to start fights, and topics about cats to find what you want to read?

If you want what you believe is truly freedom of speech, this place would be intolerable to come and discuss topics at. Drawing the line is easy to say, but the act of doing it makes it a squiggly line and nothing like you believe in your head.

[Bigbrog]

8 minutes ago, BobDole said:

 

Do we censor aka ban the annoying person who makes this place intolerable to read?

Could we do like X and do a poll, and the poster voted most annoying person gets banned??  

I kid...I kid...sort of

[ionel]

13 minutes ago, BobDole said:

Again all this sounds fine and dandy unless you need to enforce it. Where is the line drawn to censor something?

Do we censor aka ban the annoying person who makes this place intolerable to read? Just like in your house, are you going to let me in if I just scream at your spouse and cuss at your kids? I'm not breaking any laws, but sure am making your house pretty miserable to be at.

Do we censor aka delete posts telling people a great weight loss technique is to drink bleach? Does Intermat have a right to protect it's users from doing harmful things and thinking that since it is posted here that it is a verifiable way of losing weight?

Do we censor posts accusing someone of inappropriate relations with athletes? This was something that came up a year ago when some people were saying a coach was doing some bad things. There was no evidence, but at what point do we stop the accusations?

It boils down simply, how much garbage will you dig through to find what you want? Are you will to sift through accusations of bad behavior, annoying posters trying to start fights, and topics about cats to find what you want to read?

If you want what you believe is truly freedom of speech, this place would be intolerable to come and discuss topics at. Drawing the line is easy to say, but the act of doing it makes it a squiggly line and nothing like you believe in your head.

But what if some random anonymous poster starts calling you Jim Bob or CinnaDole?    Asking for my friend @PortaJohn

[red viking]

51 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

I feel like everyone is saying the same things.  Vet your sources, use critical thinking, don't stick to only one source for information, seek out different opinions on things. Seems like there is argument over which ones to do and which ones not to do...I like to think I do all of those, but I am sure I get lazy and don't dig hard enough on some things.

Problem is that 99% of us don't have time to truly and objectdively vet out what is accurate vs inaccurate. So, it's a nice concept, but in reality it doesn't get done and most of these people just believe what they choose to believe and reinforce their confirmation bias.