141–150 of 247 posts
If anything, we need a new model for how news is manufactured/distributed in the age of the Internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to go on a rant, is it too much to ask that you list examples and how they apply, rather than assume everyone here is as on top of Internet drama like you might be? Your examples might even make it clear why a RT for news would be even more difficult than the one that exists for movies.
I guess it might be better to repackage this as something that isn't a rant. RT is a company that is currently owned by Warner Bros. (through a chain of ownership). This alone is enough for someone to raise the possibility they may not be completely unbiased in how they treat each movie despite having any evidence of such behavior. Conflict of interest, in my own experience, have never required evidence of any furthe…
I know a bunch of folks recently complained that they were trying to manipulate the scores for Captain Marvel, but that was also under a huge organized attack to torpedo the audience scores even before it was released for viewing. So they had a legitimate reason to go in and try to "fix" the scores. Whether the new values is "accurate" is of course up to debate (for philosophical values of "accurate") but most of the criticisms I've seen have had reasonable explanations behind them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to be clear, I should have said swarm. This is not about the whole HN and I've been here for a long time to see how it adjusted its directions from the top. I should probably know better than to voice my opinion to a group of strangers, but no, I will not apologize for what I think. I voiced my opinion and that part of HN crowd that heard me considered that I should shut up. Such is life
You're getting downvoted and told to "shut up" primarily because of your use of the word "sjw", because it's a dumb meaningless slur used to drag anybody with socially progressive values. It's not a criticism, it's just a petty insult. If you have a genuine problem with the social direction of HN, there's ways to raise those concerns without regurgitating offensive alt right memes
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why my hackles are raised the instant somebody starts a "people should be exposed to various viewpoints discussion." I want to give the good faith interpretation, which would be, maybe, a healthy exposure to different economic system philosophies or something. But, nowadays, I find this argument, or people "just promoting the right to free speech," are really exactly the kind of people that casually toss arou…
Interesting that you consider it bullying if an individual abrasively states different viewpoints from the crowd. Is it bullying if the crowd uses similar tactics to silence the individual? Perhaps it depends on whether you agree with the crowd's opinion or not.
Take this journalist's recent flight experience: https://mobile.twitter.com/i/events/1110170398589480961
Some young woman was on her own on a flight and was getting creeped on by an older man. The journalist stepped in, flight attendants stepped in, the man was berated and eventually forced to move.
Now those words - the man was berated and forced to move. If a group of schoolkids did that to some random nerdy kid on the playground, and we used those words to describe the situation, that's bullying. In the case of the flight, it obviously isn't.
So, I don't think it's so much about whether I agree with the crowd's opinion, but a greater context.
At an LGBT parade there's a fire and brimstone pastor shouting about how everyone's going to hell. The crowd is shouting back. Is that bullying? I don't really think so. I think it's the pastor that came to do the bullying.
Good luck to them if course, but I am not sure this will work. Couple of reasons come to my mind: 1. How will I know that news have been reviewed by qualified people? Technically this should be news agency/source's job. 2. By the time the score will depict the news' quality, the damage may be already done. 3. RT is based on people's opinions, but news should be fact checked. What I think it should do, is to score the…
Elon Must has a similar idea where he wanted to rate journalists but later he gave up.[1]
https://www.inc.com/brian-hart/elon-musk-wants-to-let-public...
Ultimately, you as an individual have to decide, do you trust a startup / news rating site to tell you what it is to believe ? My answer to that is absolutely not! I want to do my own research before believing anyone. (Yes I understand some people will be different than that.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to go on a rant, is it too much to ask that you list examples and how they apply, rather than assume everyone here is as on top of Internet drama like you might be? Your examples might even make it clear why a RT for news would be even more difficult than the one that exists for movies.
I guess it might be better to repackage this as something that isn't a rant. RT is a company that is currently owned by Warner Bros. (through a chain of ownership). This alone is enough for someone to raise the possibility they may not be completely unbiased in how they treat each movie despite having any evidence of such behavior. Conflict of interest, in my own experience, have never required evidence of any furthe…
This, and many other concepts based on "vetting" news assumes that the audience cares. A significant portion of the audience does not care, and is instead looking for news that validates their worldview, and furthers their (and their chosen political party's) goals. So basically these services will cannibalize the part of the audience that does care about truth, turning people against each other over marginally skewe…
It's even worse. For most people, news is just a social object. Something to talk about with family, co-workers, etc. Whether or not any particular story is true doesn't matter - what matters is that everyone in their circle is aware of the described event (whether they read the same story, or a different one). Humans are pretty good at fact-checking and critical thinking when getting it wrong means some immediate lo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess it might be better to repackage this as something that isn't a rant. RT is a company that is currently owned by Warner Bros. (through a chain of ownership). This alone is enough for someone to raise the possibility they may not be completely unbiased in how they treat each movie despite having any evidence of such behavior. Conflict of interest, in my own experience, have never required evidence of any furthe…
While that's true for the possibility of conflict of interests, do you have any proof/data showing they've actually flexed that conflict for their own gain? Undermining the trust in the authority of the aggregate values is a huge issue I'm sure they'd much rather avoid as much as possible in order to extract as much value out of the platform as possible. I know a bunch of folks recently complained that they were tryi…