←back to thread

707 points patd | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.529s | 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 #
gjulianm ◴[] No.23323090[source]
> Is there no way to consider social media as unreliable overall and not bother fact checking anything there?

The issue is that this is not just a random social media post, it's coming from the President of the US, and most people expect that someone in that position will not post clearly false messages, specially when those messages affect something as fundamental as the election process.

replies(6): >>23323228 #>>23323291 #>>23323520 #>>23324113 #>>23324608 #>>23333106 #
supportlocal4h ◴[] No.23324113[source]
Imagine if a U.S. president were to flagrantly make up a claim that some other country was developing weapons of mass destruction. Imagine that there was no way to verify this claim. Imagine that the president insisted on invading said country on the basis of the unsupported claim.

Do most people still expect that someone in that position will not post clearly false messages, specially when those messages affect something as fundamental as the death of thousands of people and the overthrow of a government?

Iran contra, Watergate, Vietnam, ...

Is there any trust left?

It's bewildering that the answer is, "Yes". It's discouraging that so many presidents have so often deceived the people so horribly. It's much much more discouraging that the people don't learn.

replies(5): >>23324197 #>>23324343 #>>23328412 #>>23329752 #>>23331167 #
czzr ◴[] No.23324343[source]
What exactly is your position? That no one should believe any statement from any politician ever and so there is no reason to demand that politicians live up to any standards?

How exactly is a society with those principles supposed to function?

replies(3): >>23324522 #>>23324846 #>>23329628 #
1. supportlocal4h ◴[] No.23324846[source]
A: no one should believe any statement from any politician ever

B: don't demand that politicians meet standards

Your argument (not mine): A -> B

Then you argue that B is dysfunctional so A leads to dysfunction.

Can you not imagine some C such as

C: demand that politicians live up to some standard

Wherein A->C makes everything better?

The fact that you concocted B to discredit A is a logical fallacy called "strawman".

Either you already understood this, but hoped for an audience that did not, or you didn't even realize what you had done. I point it out here for your possible benefit and for the possible benefit of anyone else who doesn't understand this flawed reasoning. I apologize to everyone who recognized it immediately and has then suffered through this response.

replies(2): >>23327142 #>>23330655 #
2. LordDragonfang ◴[] No.23327142[source]
You seemed to have missed the context that you're arguing the "against" position in a thread about social media fact-checking, i.e. a "demand that politicians live up to some standard [of truth]"

Language has implied meaning, it's one of the maxims of conversation in the field of linguistics, of the Cooperative principle [1].

If you're going to immediately jump to technical dissection of a conversation, you should probably consider the relevant field first.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle#Maxim_of...

3. bananabreakfast ◴[] No.23330655[source]
Your "strawman" was very clearly directly implied by what you said. And the fact that you just attacked the argument instead of just responding like a normal person does not help your case.