all 32 comments

[–]thoughtcriminal 9 insightful - 5 fun9 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 5 fun -  (9 children)

I don't think people realize how incredibly dangerous "fact checks" can be. They're easily one of the most potent propaganda tools. For starters not all issues can be condensed to true or false, or even true/false on a scale. You can fact check something with context selectively stripped or added. You can fact check a statement in full or in part. You can add or remove qualifications. You can fact check an opinion, or state an opinion as fact. You can misrepresent a claim. You can lie with statistics or draw conclusions. You can use grammatical cues to set a tone. "Fact check" inherently has an air of authority that implies an objective truth.

All of this gets condensed to a headline "Fact check: true" or "Fact check: false" and people don't read further. And even if they do they don't have the critical thinking to evaluate these issues.

[–]insta 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think people realize how incredibly dangerous "fact checks" can be.

I don't think people realize how ludicrous it is. The media are supposed to be our fact checkers. In theory there should be no snopes of politifact. But so much trust has been lost with media that nobody trusts them anymore so they have to make tertiary institutions to prop up their bullshit.

All of this gets condensed to a headline "Fact check: true" or "Fact check: false" and people don't read further.

Which is the goal. Bite sized talking points is all anybody cares about.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

But fact check sites include their source material at the bottom. They are absolutely essential for dealing with heavily funded disinformation and misinformation campaigns that influence Saidit, social media and other places. Moreover, hardly anyone at Saidit cares about the fact checkers, which is a sign that they also have no impact on most of the people influenced by disinformation and misinformation websites. This is one reason why I keep a reference list at /s/ShitpostNews, to keep track of the number of developing disinformation campaigns and their sites. They pay very well, and there is one in Canada with 3 employees that reports a 6 digit income, merely for reposting alt-right disinformation. Nothing original at that website. Disinformation is big business and one can learn about some of that here at Saidit. If there are no fact checking sites, how will curious readers who come across disinformation websites for the first time understand the contexts of what those websites traditionally post? For example - a new reader of Breitbart might want to know more about the website, and might want to check on the accuracy of their posts. Snopes also helps with this. Those in the alt-right who don't care about honesty, integrity, or facts will avoid the fact checking sites. In most cases, the disinformation campaigns are for one purpose: to brainwash many in the 99% into voting for Republicans. I've listed two extreme left wing sites at /s/ShitpostNews, but I doub't anyone on Saidit will have a clue what they are.

[–]thoughtcriminal 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Your first two arguments are self defeating. We need fact checks to deal with misinformation, but no one who reads misinformation cares about fact checks? Then we don't need them, right?

Including sources doesn't negate anything I've said. Let me give you an example: https://apnews.com/article/ap-fact-check-final-debate-trump-biden-4d304cf7ce7dee9c228f48bd9b76e8f7

The very first paragraph implies Trump is responsible for all the lies in the entire debate ("set the tone").

Next paragraph Trump "misrepresented the reality of the pandemic" and "insisting against obvious reality" whereas in the paragraph after Biden "was selective on the coronavirus and other matters." The former being a subjective opinion on Trump's part presented as obviously flawed, while the latter is an objective lie on Biden's part presented as "selective."

Coronavirus section: First statement by Trump the fact check starts "No, the coronavirus isn’t going away. It’s coming back." (condescending tone asserting No immediately). Then it says the numbers are rising and cites statistics. But the numbers rising in the short term doesn't mean the overall trend isn't down. The numbers were still below the peak and the stats cited only look at a specific arbitrarily chosen time interval. You can pick any two points on a covid chart and paint a different picture based on the interval you choose. This is an example of lying with statistics.

The next fact check in this section Trump criticizes the response of blue states and Biden says the red states are the ones having spikes in cases. The fact check states: "Neither of them is right. Coronavirus isn’t a red-state problem or a blue-state problem. It’s a public health problem that affects people no matter where they live or what their politics are." That's not a fact, it's an opinion being presented as a fact. And blue states do factually have higher death rates overall (although citing any statistic in a vacuum is misleading).

Next one, Trump states that 2.2 million were projected to die. Fact check says false because that projection was only if nothing were done. That's adding a qualification. But beyond that it's also false. There were epidemiologists who predicted 2.2 million as the "worst" case and 1.1 million as the "best" case.

You're not wrong that the people susceptible to misinformation don't trust fact checks. But people paying attention don't either, because the fact checks are often just as biased and incorrect as the blatant misinformation. They're just disguised better.

So do you really think the solution to this mistrust is to further attempt to gate keep and control information? You stated correctly that people already don't trust the fact checks. So that solution seems antithetical. Instead, there needs to be a move in the other direction. Allow the free and unadulterated exchange of ideas in the public, presented as they are and without qualification. There will still be misinformation and people who fall for it, but at least you're working to regain trust by allowing people to come to their own conclusions.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I appreciate the analysis. Perhaps another way of explaining the fact-checkers is that they offer a service that helps people who want the information. Though most people do indeed make up their own minds about what they read, some of these people will want more information on the background of a subject or its meaning. The other problem is critical thinking, which is what disinformation and misinformation website try to challenge, especially by politicizing everything, and thereby creating emotional engagement, rather than factual engagement. I think the lack of fact-checking websites are not dangerous to people who don't like them, and especially not to people who find them useful, even if - as you note - there are problems with some of their approaches.

So I plan to study at least one of the disinformation websites each day, and leave the log at /s/ShitpostsNews . I am not sure if it will return to /s/all, because it was spammed by 88 on its first day (with lots of votes for 4 MSM sites), and that seemed to annoy M7. Some of my favorites are: Breitbart, newsbusters, racewar.news, zerohedge, WSJ, bitchute, jpost, thegloriousamerican, OANN, brighteon, trunews, newspunch, newswars, notthebee, dailymail.co.uk, reclaimthenet.org, legalinsurrection, bigleaguepolitics, pjmedia, theintercept, satanslibrary.org, countere, planet-today, and fff.org.

[–]StillLessons 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Some of my favorites are: Breitbart, newsbusters, racewar.news, zerohedge, WSJ, bitchute, jpost, thegloriousamerican, OANN, brighteon, trunews, newspunch, newswars, notthebee, dailymail.co.uk, reclaimthenet.org, legalinsurrection, bigleaguepolitics, pjmedia, theintercept, satanslibrary.org, countere, planet-today, and fff.org.

This is why when I read comments, I very rarely read yours anymore. What you have just listed is basically "sites who present the opposite view to your own". Meanwhile, when you craft your responses, the sources you use to support your points are always equally predictable. You have defined "sources" as "information", which is to say that if it comes from the wrong source, it is by definition "disinformation", and vice versa. There is no value in telling people who disagree with you to read sources that will simply repeat what you are saying.

What would be more interesting and productive - and I cannot think of an example where you do this - would be if you found examples from the sources with which you disagree saying things you agree with. The way you are going about it is not going to change minds; it is simply wasting the time of any who choose to engage. Perhaps, of course, that is precisely the point, in which case I confess you have just wasted precisely the amount of my time I have spent writing this response. Congratulations.

[–]Airbus320 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I just have him blocked, he too retarded.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's not that simple. It's not about what I like or don't like. I study propaganda. At /s/ShitpostNews there are two far left propaganda sites, and a number of others. This is not about me or you. There is no need to personalize it as if we are all narcissists and want to seek only what we like. If you want to address that, then you can focus on a social psychology study. My interest is political influence, especially by the 1% against the 99%, particularly with regard to propaganda websites that spread disinformation and misinformation. Ths websites listed above are part of the study.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Perhaps, of course, that is precisely the point, in which case I confess you have just wasted precisely the amount of my time I have spent writing this response.

He's a forum sliding shill.

He mostly does it in the comments though.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

But fact check sites include their source material at the bottom. They are absolutely essential for dealing with heavily funded disinformation and misinformation campaigns that influence Saidit, social media and other places.

This is beyond farcical.

[–]screwballeclipsed 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I just tell people to do their own thinking instead of letting some website think for them.

[–]Akali 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I feel like propaganda was always the point of the news. It's just that with the internet, camera on phone and wifi everywhere, we easily see through the bullshit the news show us.

I feel like there should be a more clear distinction between editorial and reporting. Reporting is usually fine and decently done. Editorial is the disease.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

[–]Tom_Bombadil 6 insightful - 6 fun6 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 6 fun -  (18 children)

Thanks for this. I nominate The Epoch Times for /s/ShitpostNews

s/ShitpostNews is a local Propaganda tool for /u/socks the obvious shill.

The ideal place for sock's disinforamtion.

[–]RightousBob 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (13 children)

The more and more I read Ol' Cum Sock's posts and comments the less I believe they are written by an actual human. Case in point, the comment above about the loose screw.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (12 children)

Case in point, the comment above about the loose screw.

Even/u/JasonCarswell agrees that/u/socks is a pharma shill, and JC gives most the extreme-benefit of the doubt; except for /u/Airbus320...

Airbus likes to mess with Jason (Jason prolly pissed him off, but IDK), but he's not pushing any agenda. Not even the L/R divide... But I digress.
socks is pharma trash.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Yes. Airbus was being a shit disturber/asstroll - not a shill. Only last month. He was immune from M7 admonishments so far as I saw. I can only guess he's found other prey or cooled off. Maybe M7 spoke to him. Maybe he saw 3 bans. I dunno.

Yes, IMO socks is the most dangerous one on here, now an outright liar about Corbett and Dore while shilling for AOC, Bernie, and corrupt science. Perhaps even the most divisive.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Airbus just enjoys the low effort trolling. He's actually been pretty helpful in keeping the ban evasion at bay by alerting admins, and defended me a few times. Nice guy if you actually talk to him, but he's probably not on Mag7's radar because he's not actively involved in any of the chaos. He shitposts as much as or maybe even less than the rest of us.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

He had been insightful and a /s/friends, but after that shit, no more. Yes, he was involved in the chaos and instigated drama with his shit disturbing. Who do you mean by "us"? He was on my top 4 list. Bob is now gone.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

socks is the dangerous one on here

Thank you, though it's impossible for me to be 'dangerous' on Saidit

now an outright liar about Corbett and Dore

Seriously? Corbett is so famous for right-wing conspiracy nonsense that Youtube has now banned him.

And my comments on Corbet and Dore are merely comments or opinions, not lies. It's not like I say - "Corbett is a Nazi" - which might be a lie, if I state it as a fact when it's not a fact, but I can say that - "I think Corbett appeals to Nazis" - as an opinion.

while shilling for AOC, Bernie, and corrupt science

Just because I LOVE AOC and Bernie, doesn't mean I am a shill. Corrupt science? No such thing. You probably refer here to corrupt corporations that use science for their own goals. There is pseudoscience, but that's not science.

Perhaps even the most divisive

Also not true because hardly anyone on Saidit agrees with me, thus I am not forming a "for" and "against" set of camps. I also do not try to get people to agree with me.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you, though it's impossible for me to be 'dangerous' on Saidit

Not if you convince someone to buy into the ruling class' eugenics programs.

Corbett is so famous for right-wing conspiracy nonsense that Youtube has now banned him.

Nonsense. The powers that be want him silenced for spoiling their secrets. It has nothing to do with the Left-Right bullshit you swallow.

And my comments on Corbet and Dore are merely comments or opinions, not lies. It's not like I say - "Corbett is a Nazi" - which might be a lie, if I state it as a fact when it's not a fact, but I can say that - "I think Corbett appeals to Nazis" - as an opinion.

It's my opinion that you are retarded or a paid shill - or both.

Corrupt science? No such thing.

Yep, retarded.

Perhaps even the most divisive

Also not true because hardly anyone on Saidit agrees with me, thus I am not forming a "for" and "against" set of camps. I also do not try to get people to agree with me.

Confirmed retarded glutton for punishment - a masochist shilling for a paycheck.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Are you and Bob the same person?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Are you and Bob the same person?

socks, are you retarded? You certainly seem so.

Edit: Also, /u/RightousBob is awesome.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

If not, you should marry Bob. It's like you two finish each other's sentences. It's lovely. No go get a nice ring and PM him your proposal.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

If not, you should marry Bob.

Booooriiiing.

It doesn't get any more scripted than this.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I see - so it's totally normal to recommend that Saiditors marry each other. Wait until the superstraight people hear about this.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I see

Nothing could be further from the truth.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

disinforamtion

Is this a typo, or is another screw is loose?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Is this a typo, or is another screw is loose?

You tell me. It's your idiotic creation. I copied your quote.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You went to the trouble to refer to a critique in your own of a post - perhaps of mine - that hasn't existed for 16 days.

You're trying too hard. The truth is much simpler.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

disinforamtion

I love it.

You went to the trouble to refer to a critique in your own of a post

Sure did. I copied it verbatim, because you can't be trusted to leave your comment unedited.