this post was submitted on 27 May 2021
2 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43870 readers
1716 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't think Facebook is anything but an awful cesspool. But stating Snopes is just as bad without evidence, doesn't help the conversation.
As I stated if you have other suggestions I'm open to getting them. Just stating "Nope, bad!" Without giving evidence, outside of affiliation, doesn't help the conversation, nor does it direct folks to trustworthy sources.
Snopes got employed for Facebook fact checking. You need more evidence than that for its association with a platform like that, responsible for terrorism and horrible regimes worldwide?
Yes I do need more evidence then that. Snopes is known as a trustworthy source. So it makes sense for Facebook to hire them. Did Snopes compromise their integrity it did they try to do the job the best they can?
What you're suggesting is basically on the level of an attorney decides to defend someone in a murder, even if that person didn't commit it, that the attorney should also be charged on the murder if found guilty. That's not how it works.
You can attempt to do good, even while working with someone awful. Guilt by association is draconian.
Guilt by association is applicable in digital space, because you are not obliged to do it by anyone.
You employed reductio ad absurdum in conflating this with "reeee defendant attorney of murderer is murderer". Pretty bad argument I would say. If you are trying to tell me associating with someone voluntarily is not a problem, then you need to change some of what you learnt.
Awesome, so instead of actually giving evidence and attempting to push the conversation forward by offering better solutions, instead you just insult people got it.
Not feeding you anymore, since you know what you are doing. Have a good life.
Yes, what i'm doing is asking for actually information. If toy want to suggest alternatives, i'll check them out. Instead you just want everyone to trust you on your word. And looking at your history you just want to live in your bubble and fight anyone that doesn't agree with you.
So give us some alternatives.
Or ignore me and prove me right, and i sincerely do wish everyone, including you, a good life. And not in the sarcastic way you dismiss people.
I wish others good life and hope they gain wisdom, not sarcastically like you generalised. People have this generalisation problem.
Instead of these biased fact checkers, why do you not research yourself into any publisher or source organisation? You have the internet and search engines on your fingers, go check yourself and remove the middleman.
Why are you advocating everyone instead of being educated and independent, employ a middleman fact checker who nobody is keeping in check? Why are you claiming Snopes, MBFC or these should be an authotiry on validation of news sources?
And internet search providers aren't biased at all either, right?
There's so much false info on the internet tout can't trust any of it. None of them are regulated. in my experience at least snopes and mbfc try to back up their claims.
So you just randomly look up stuff and believe whatever hit is first?
Search engines are biased on how you phrase things.
So you have zero trustworthy sources you're saying.
I'm legitemately asking you, for the fourth time, give me some sources.
I'm attempting to educate myself more, but you give zero information to help that, outside of critizing me, but yet you insist i'm the troll.
Ok.
So do you do all your own scientific research as well? Have you confirmed gravity? Or do you just trust that it's real?
We have to assume some level of trust on some line, until proven otherwise.
That is why you have multiple internets earch engines. Snopes, MBFC and so on are not infiltrating news organisations with their own spies, they also use Google and so on. You, instead, can use Qwant, Bing, Yandex, Google, Baidu and so on. Multiple search engines. Multiple resources.
Do you know the methodology of how Snopes or MBFC work? Are they transparent? Are their financial records transparent? No, they are not. Learn to research yourself.
You are not going to deflect this conversation with "gimme sources while I keep goalshifting to distract your focus" anymore. It stops now.
You are insisting these fact checkers that take questionable sponsorships or are part of questionable organisations are unbiased and people should rely on them, instead of learning to research themselves.
I'm not insisting anything. How do you verify the website that was given to you in the search engine iz trustworthy?
By looking at its country origin, funding, associations and so on?
So for every single news article you completely research every facet of a company? You have way more patience than i do. But that probably is what it takes on the internet today.
I'd assume once you research a company though that you wouldn't research it again, you just save yourself time and go based on your original research?
Or do you check up on each and everytime?
Do you have a list of ones you trust?
I research news outlets once a year or so to keep in check. Then I cross check with Mwdia Navigator chart on SWPRS, which has zero external funding and is an independent anonymous group, and funnily, absolutely smeared up on Wikipedia in a disgusting manner. You will not see such smearing on any other fact checker.
You can learn here how to work around the bias of fact checking and learn how to do it yourself. SWPRS even reiterates your point about Google.
https://swprs.org/seven-tips-on-media-use/ https://opinionfront.com/types-reasons-of-media-bias https://fair.org/take-action-now/media-activism-kit/how-to-detect-bias-in-news-media/