Clip shows misinformation still has a home on Facebook • Hacker News Board

Re: Clip shows misinformation still has a home on Facebook

#41

Post by kadendogthing » Sat, May 25, 2019, 7:43 PM UTC

insickness wrote: post #40

kadendogthing wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When you look at the full video, it was the Native American who was confrontational. Absolutely false. This was a group of students who were using their free time to protest the reproductive rights of others, and in the midst of doing this did incredibly racist stuff to a Native American protester who was merely trying to keep balance of peace in these stressful engagements. There is direct video evidence of student…

He walked up to them. They did not walk up to him. Therefore he was being the aggressive one, end of story. > This was a group of students who were using their free time to protest Because you disagree with what they were protesting, they had no right to be there? Absolutely wrong.

>He walked up to them.

That's not aggression. Don't be stupid.

>Because you disagree with what they were protesting, they had no right to be there?

I never said they didn't have the right. Where did I say that? But allow me to help clarify whatever misconceptions you have about what I plainly stated in very few words: It's at best a fundamentally baseless position that has extremely negative consequences for society. At worst its downright an act of evil because you believe you should control other people based on faulty religious grounds.

They were using their free time to support this position. Not really a good look for them.

So I am absolutely correct in totality with my assessment of the situation. And if you think otherwise, allow me to make the claim that you need to evaluate some critical aspects of your perspective on this. If all you can say about what's being said is that it's a disagreement, then you're better of not saying anything at all. It makes you look better.

I noticed you couldn't or simply decided to not address the factual negations to your assumptions. Might want to work on that.

Re: Clip shows misinformation still has a home on Facebook

#42

Post by insickness » Sat, May 25, 2019, 8:56 PM UTC

kadendogthing wrote: post #41

insickness wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He walked up to them. They did not walk up to him. Therefore he was being the aggressive one, end of story. > This was a group of students who were using their free time to protest Because you disagree with what they were protesting, they had no right to be there? Absolutely wrong.

>He walked up to them. That's not aggression. Don't be stupid. >Because you disagree with what they were protesting, they had no right to be there? I never said they didn't have the right. Where did I say that? But allow me to help clarify whatever misconceptions you have about what I plainly stated in very few words: It's at best a fundamentally baseless position that has extremely negative consequences for society.…

>> He walked up to them.

> That's not aggression.

Getting in someone's face is an escalation of physical aggression beyond merely saying something.

> Don't be stupid.

This will be my last interaction with you because you can't discuss ideas without hostility. Try discussing things like an adult.

> [them protesting abortion is] at worst a downright act of evil

You have no tolerance of opposing opinion yet claim to be the one with critical perspective. You've just proved my point: People wanted to believe that the Covington kids were aggressive and evil and so jumped to that conclusion without seeing the totality of what actually happened.

Re: Clip shows misinformation still has a home on Facebook

#43

Post by iamnothere » Sat, May 25, 2019, 9:22 PM UTC

egman_ekki wrote: post #33

ekianjo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an insolvable problem, I think, and censorship is certainly not the right way to approach it. I may be wrong, but I believe a combination of 1) severe distrust of any form of media, 2) a healthy dose of criticism, 3) a wide range of sources of information, can somewhat help to reduce the issue. 1) and 2) require proper education, and 3) is about having a healthy journalistic landscape (i.e. lots of viewpoints an…

How do you suppose one should function, if one approaches every single sentence of every published news (which I think includes research as well) as being possibly untrue (which, I assume, is what's meant by severe distrust)? If there are no credible sources, how can you know anything about this world with any degree of certainty, then?

It is an extraordinarily difficult problem.

I have taken to reading a large number of individual sources, identifying the more trustworthy ones over time, and trusting primarily those sources. When one of them shifts to publishing propaganda (it is often a sudden unexplainable shift) then I write them off and remove them from my feed. Often I'll discover new sources through the networks of trusted sources.

This is very inefficient and I wish there were a better way to do it. It's not a perfect system, but it works well enough for me.

You used to be able to trust media institutions, as long as you knew their biases, but even basic facts are in question now and a great deal of so-called news is completely factless. (Headline: "Why politician X might be doing something illegal, maybe" with of course no facts to back up the supposition)

Media is flailing around searching for a sustainable business model, but it isn't working yet. Until they find something, I think we're stuck with bought-and-paid-for propaganda.

Re: Clip shows misinformation still has a home on Facebook

#44

Post by ajross » Sun, May 26, 2019, 2:18 AM UTC

insickness wrote: post #42

kadendogthing wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>He walked up to them. That's not aggression. Don't be stupid. >Because you disagree with what they were protesting, they had no right to be there? I never said they didn't have the right. Where did I say that? But allow me to help clarify whatever misconceptions you have about what I plainly stated in very few words: It's at best a fundamentally baseless position that has extremely negative consequences for society.…

>> He walked up to them. > That's not aggression. Getting in someone's face is an escalation of physical aggression beyond merely saying something. > Don't be stupid. This will be my last interaction with you because you can't discuss ideas without hostility. Try discussing things like an adult. > [them protesting abortion is] at worst a downright act of evil You have no tolerance of opposing opinion yet claim to be…

> Getting in someone's face is an escalation of physical aggression

It's literally not. That's not what "physical" means. It's... provoking. The guy with the drum was... I dunno, he was an asshole.

It's certainly possible that he knew the kids were loose cannons and was hoping that by "getting in someone's face" he could get one of them to throw a punch on camera. Could be. I mean, the guy clearly had an agenda, and it probably doesn't align with your politics. But that's still not "aggression" by any reasonable definition. Stop being a snowflake.

Re: Clip shows misinformation still has a home on Facebook

#45

Post by ekianjo » Sun, May 26, 2019, 12:22 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #36

ekianjo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "selectively editing" a video to make someone look drunk No, I don't have anything that specific in mind, but there's enough examples even in recent history of "selective editing" clearly aimed at taking people down, out of context. And yes, let me say it again, "on both sides". This is probably driven by the fact that outrage brings views, and views bring money + influence to such media groups, and then it's just…

So, all sides do it except only one side actually did it but you're pretty sure the other side did too because you personally believe they'd want to so therefore it must have happened ... ?

> all sides do it except only one side actually did it

Selective editing? There's abundance of videos on youtube compiling Trump being unable to pronounce things and Obama missing a few words - all compiled to make them both of them look stupid. How is that not both sides? Not sure what your point exactly is.

Re: Clip shows misinformation still has a home on Facebook

#46

Post by ekianjo » Sun, May 26, 2019, 12:25 PM UTC

egman_ekki wrote: post #33

ekianjo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an insolvable problem, I think, and censorship is certainly not the right way to approach it. I may be wrong, but I believe a combination of 1) severe distrust of any form of media, 2) a healthy dose of criticism, 3) a wide range of sources of information, can somewhat help to reduce the issue. 1) and 2) require proper education, and 3) is about having a healthy journalistic landscape (i.e. lots of viewpoints an…

How do you suppose one should function, if one approaches every single sentence of every published news (which I think includes research as well) as being possibly untrue (which, I assume, is what's meant by severe distrust)? If there are no credible sources, how can you know anything about this world with any degree of certainty, then?

> If there are no credible sources

To me the answer lies in having access to a large variety of sources. The probability of false information goes down as decentralization of information goes up. For example, if you watch 10 people doing a live streaming event of a demonstration, you are probably going to have a better understanding of the event than from a single reporter on a major TV channel.

Of course, this means you can't fact-check everything because it would be way too much time consuming. So personally I live largely by ignoring the mass media and admit that I dont really know what is going on in most places besides very basic piece of news, and I certainly dont have enough information to have an opinion either.

Re: Clip shows misinformation still has a home on Facebook

#47

Post by ajross » Sun, May 26, 2019, 2:13 PM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #45

ajross wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, all sides do it except only one side actually did it but you're pretty sure the other side did too because you personally believe they'd want to so therefore it must have happened ... ?

> all sides do it except only one side actually did it Selective editing? There's abundance of videos on youtube compiling Trump being unable to pronounce things and Obama missing a few words - all compiled to make them both of them look stupid. How is that not both sides? Not sure what your point exactly is.

You think compiling a video of real-world malapropisms is somehow the same thing as ... fabricating evidence like this? Seriously?

I mean, Obama and Trump actually said that stuff. Yes, it's misleading, but it's "true" in some kind of abstract sense.

This video of Pelosi was a straight up lie. She didn't say that stuff that way. You get that there's a moral difference here, right?

The fact that people can be fooled with cleverly structure and possibly misleading factual argument is not a license to lie like a sumbitch whenever you want. And that you seem to think so is horrifying.

Re: Clip shows misinformation still has a home on Facebook

#48

Post by kadendogthing » Sun, May 26, 2019, 2:50 PM UTC

insickness wrote: post #42

kadendogthing wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>He walked up to them. That's not aggression. Don't be stupid. >Because you disagree with what they were protesting, they had no right to be there? I never said they didn't have the right. Where did I say that? But allow me to help clarify whatever misconceptions you have about what I plainly stated in very few words: It's at best a fundamentally baseless position that has extremely negative consequences for society.…

>> He walked up to them. > That's not aggression. Getting in someone's face is an escalation of physical aggression beyond merely saying something. > Don't be stupid. This will be my last interaction with you because you can't discuss ideas without hostility. Try discussing things like an adult. > [them protesting abortion is] at worst a downright act of evil You have no tolerance of opposing opinion yet claim to be…

I noticed you still could not address the negations to your original claims, and instead decided to call other people childish because you did not like the critique being levied at you. Definitely the sign of a mature adult.

>You have no tolerance of opposing opinion

If all you can say about what's being discussed is that it's a simple difference of opinion, you are far better off just not saying anything at all. You are effectively trying to debase constructive conversation and turn it into a meta argument, because you can't actually make a real one.

Re: Clip shows misinformation still has a home on Facebook

#49

Post by Mary-Jane » Sun, May 26, 2019, 9:02 PM UTC

asveikau wrote: post #21

umvi wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For that same 20ish years Republicans have been trying to use her as a symbol of vilification in various media or campaign material, in my opinion it's all very over the top. Both sides are guilty of smear campaigns. One little flub or gaffe and a video taking it out of context will start circulating. Just go to /r/politics if you want examples of the left smearing the right

Can you give an example that's on the scale of Pelosi? Trying to take myself away from my own biases, perhaps you can say Trump but coming from the executive branch you could say he's not that comparable, also people on both sides have called him outrageous. More direct comparisons would be Paul Ryan, Boehner, Newt Gingrich. I didn't see them getting Pelosi-scale smearing.

You mean something like "If you like your health care plan you can keep it"? ...or how about the "anti-muslim video that spurned spontaneous protests" across the middle east? In any event, by and large, most doctoring / half-truths are initiated by major news sources, and the majority of these defame Republicans and/or Republican ideals. It would be redundant for democratic politicians to get involved.

Re: Clip shows misinformation still has a home on Facebook

#50

Post by ekianjo » Tue, May 28, 2019, 11:21 AM UTC

ajross wrote: post #47

ekianjo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all sides do it except only one side actually did it Selective editing? There's abundance of videos on youtube compiling Trump being unable to pronounce things and Obama missing a few words - all compiled to make them both of them look stupid. How is that not both sides? Not sure what your point exactly is.

You think compiling a video of real-world malapropisms is somehow the same thing as ... fabricating evidence like this? Seriously? I mean, Obama and Trump actually said that stuff. Yes, it's misleading, but it's "true" in some kind of abstract sense. This video of Pelosi was a straight up lie . She didn't say that stuff that way. You get that there's a moral difference here, right? The fact that people can be fooled…

> fabricating evidence like this?

Are we talking about the same thing? Slowing down a video 25% is not fabricating anything, it's just "slowing down the actual video", and people found it very quickly so it was rather obvious. Fabrication involves changing what the person actually says in my book.