YouTube is major conduit of fake news, factcheckers say

Post by marginalia_nu » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 5:15 PM UTC

YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo wrote: post #50

wanda wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh dear, don't just throw a name and a book title at me. Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Kant, Wittgenstein, Popper, Derrida... none of them got it right or else we wouldn't be having discussions like this one! But all of those philosophers got closer than anyone in the last 70 years or so because they didn't just throw names and books at each other, they thought for themselves and engaged in debate.

And they also stepped away from a discussion that has no chance to come to fruition.

Post by netizen-936824 » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 1:21 AM UTC

gruez wrote: post #39

dachryn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you are abusing the word 'fact' here. A political opinion is by definition not a fact. The whole problem is that nuance is getting lost. In the 80s, a scientist could say 'I have found some troubling signals, there is a 90% chance something bad is going to happen, can we discuss this?' and they would discuss, do risk analysis, come up with mitigating steps. But now it is 'are you sure this will happen' and of course…

>These factcheckers should try to dilute the extremes, and bring nuance in the debate. That's what they should be doing, but instead we get stuff like this[1], which poisons the well for "fact checking" as a whole. [1] https://twitter.com/msnbc/status/785299708730339328