←back to thread

707 points patd | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
itchyjunk ◴[] No.23323027[source]
Hm, is fact checking solved problem? I remember someone here had their game flagged just because it referenced SARS-CoV-2. I hear almost daily horror stories of youtube algo's screwing up content creator. As a human, I still struggle a lot to read a paper and figure out what I just read. On top of that, things like the GPT2 from OpenAI might generate very human like comment.

Is there no way to consider social media as unreliable overall and not bother fact checking anything there? All this tech is relatively new but maybe we should think in longer time scale. Wikipedia is still not used as a source in school work because that's the direction educational institution moved. If we could give a status that nothing on social media is too be taken seriously, maybe it's a better approach.

Let me end this on a muddier concept. I thought masks was a good idea from the get go but there was an opposing view that existed at some point about this even from "authoritative" sources. In that case, do we just appeal to authority? Ask some oracle what "fact" is and shun every other point of view?

replies(20): >>23323084 #>>23323090 #>>23323093 #>>23323119 #>>23323156 #>>23323248 #>>23323292 #>>23323293 #>>23323501 #>>23323612 #>>23323678 #>>23324444 #>>23326834 #>>23327250 #>>23327934 #>>23328595 #>>23330609 #>>23330880 #>>23331904 #>>23333292 #
llcoolv[dead post] ◴[] No.23323292[source]
> I thought masks was a good idea from the get go but there was an opposing view that existed at some point about this even from "authoritative" sources.

This is a very valid comment, especially when the chief source on truth in this case - WHO - changed their stance on this several times. Not to mention that their director general is a "former" high-ranking communist terrorist - something that doesn't make his organization appear too credible and something I am not really OK with.

jfk13 ◴[] No.23323376[source]
> high-ranking communist terrorist

That's quite an accusation; do you have a source for it?

replies(1): >>23323596 #
llcoolv[dead post] ◴[] No.23323596[source]
Thank you for the question and starting a discussion instead of cowardly downvoting like those robots do - I would suggest to look up the wikipedia articles from three months ago on Tedros Adhanom and Tigray People's Liberation Front. Unfortunately today even the founder of Wikipedia admitted that the site neutrality is compromised by leftist activists[1].

There are also articles on The Guardian and NYT[2][3]. In the right wing and independent media it looks even more gross[4][5].

1. https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/05/26/wikipedia-co-found...

2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/22/ethiopia

3. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/health/candidate-who-dire...

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu3lm0W6saU

5. https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/was-who-director-tedr...

augustt[dead post] ◴[] No.23323866[source]
What a fucking joke that Breitbart article is. Wikipedia is biased because they state global warming as fact? Because Trump's page has more scandals (no shit) than Obama?

Linking to that article says so much about you.

llcoolv[dead post] ◴[] No.23323940[source]
@augustt Did you even read the article? Those comments are direct quotes of Wikipedia's founder and it is not Breitbart's reasoning there.[1] Your abysmal reading comprehension and the fact that you chose ad-hominem as initial approach tells everything about you.

BTW you won't get a different opinion from the other co-founder either - J Wales is an old libertarian and he also stands right where an intelligent man of integrity should be standing.

1. https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

1. augustt ◴[] No.23324148[source]
Yes I understand how quotations work. Not sure why it coming from someone who hasn't been involved in the project for 18 years is supposed to carry any more weight than usual Breitbart garbage.