Disinformation policy
- Thread starter Harambe
- Start date
I get the premise. Just not sure how to clearly draw that line. (Story of my life with all moderation). I think if you see these blatant examples, please report them and we'll factor that in - I agree sharing clear disinformation is not something we should promote.
carey scurry fan
Well-Known Member
So you call for censorship because you cant win any debate? If thats the case ALL your big pharm funded misinformation links would be censored.
carey scurry fan
Well-Known Member
You have been banned 100 times with all the pro establishment propaganda if that was the case
Keefe
Well-Known Member
Are you a grossly unhealthy individual or someone with underlying health issues?
JazzyFresh
Banned
Examples maybe?
Or is op just looking to get opposing views cancelled?
Or is op just looking to get opposing views cancelled?
I feel for you. And I want to help any way I can, but you do have a ton more experience than I do.
When we've run out of ideas, we don't give up. We look for ideas. Anyone that's been on Facebook has seen the often heavy handed response. And many subreddits moderator staff are demanding action be taken.
Keep your eye on them. Though not perfect, they've been on the cutting-edge on a lot of issues. It absolutely makes your job more difficult.
There's several strategies that have already emerged ranging from some quick check in(whitelist), to collaborative strategies across multiple forums to keep ******** and reality separate.
I don't think that's the case. @Jason, how many times has @LogGrad98 been banned?
You don't need a million sources when one valid, valued, peer reviewed source based in fact exists.
You're dismissed.
carey scurry fan
Well-Known Member
another braindead take
Some threads are near unreadable due to the amount of insane far right ******** posted in them. I should put more people on ignore...
csf is pretty loose rhetorically. Pretty clear he was hypothesizing that a true set of facts would make any ...... regular sort of non-Republican...... a candidate for banning on issues of fidelity to any kind of "truth" measurement. So it's stupid of you to contest his fairly clear meaning with a meaningless fact.
Your second point demonstrates the real problem here. Anyone can think of maybe at least two reason to disbelieve any fact, any peer-reviewed article, or any government official statement.
If the proponents of a better world really need to silence questioning folks, or even ignoramuses, they have the real problem. Whatever people don't understand should be addressed respectfully with some kind of line of reason and assemblage of whatever good information you have.
Not too much to ask of progressive thinkers, really,.
Even I would see some propriety to curbing flagrant insults, personal attacks, and such, which sometimes I think is true of a lot of us, but if it is j
out-of-hand or say persistent, I say a timeout is appropriate.
You're close to dismissal yourself. I keep you around because about 1 in 50 posts has a nugget of truth.
This is not one of those.
Red
Well-Known Member
“The Commission on Information Disorder is the latest (and most creepily named) addition to a new field of knowledge production that emerged during the Trump years at the juncture of media, academia, and policy research: Big Disinfo.
A kind of EPA for content, it seeks to expose the spread of various sorts of “toxicity” on social-media platforms, the downstream effects of this spread, and the platforms’ clumsy, dishonest, and half-hearted attempts to halt it. As an environmental cleanup project, it presumes a harm model of content consumption. Just as, say, smoking causes cancer, consuming bad information must cause changes in belief or behavior that are bad, by some standard. Otherwise, why care what people read and watch?”
A kind of EPA for content, it seeks to expose the spread of various sorts of “toxicity” on social-media platforms, the downstream effects of this spread, and the platforms’ clumsy, dishonest, and half-hearted attempts to halt it. As an environmental cleanup project, it presumes a harm model of content consumption. Just as, say, smoking causes cancer, consuming bad information must cause changes in belief or behavior that are bad, by some standard. Otherwise, why care what people read and watch?”
So you seem to react too much to other posters if they differ from you. I prefer a live and let live sort of idea of life.
csf seems to have a burr in his/her saddle, and in general seems to want to take on people confrontationally. I don't that in either case.
I appreciate the mods in here. I don't think I've ever had an infraction. I had a personal discussion some years ago with Jason and it sort of seemed to be his idea that if I really don't like "progress" along the current trajectory maybe I should just leave. I have no delusions about the context of our times. I don't favor abandoning good sense or reason or good principles that generally make life better. I will always be trying to divert people like you from a wrong path. I don't intend to dictate my values. Any change a person may make needs to come from some internal choice personally.
Not big on agendas or bandwagons.
The fundamental reality is that progressive notions are somewhat unrealistic and the people pushing agendas do experience turnover. There is actually no final destiny for "progress". What is real is that people are always going to challenge any status quo and try to change things for something they think is better.
Probably the largest group of people who resist that fundamental reality are the cash cow exploiters of any political movement du jour. they may not care about a final destiny or ideal at all, and people who talk change from their teat are always an annoyance.
It is a given that I will try to engage any poster whom I think might appreciate a discussion.
You have agendas in spades. Re; making it more difficult to vote. Don't pretend you don't have an agenda, and don't act like you aren't sucking the change teat yourself. You ask for change, too, but only when you're interested in it.
This isn't about you. And I'm not proposing a scenario where only progressive ideas are allowed. I'm not entirely sure what I'm proposing, outside of a little intellectual honesty. We just aren't seeing that right now.
Welcome back.
A single disinformation czar just isn't realistic. But perhaps limiting sources for hot topic issues(re; COVID) to established data shouldn't be out of the question.
How do you challenge established data? Better data. And yeah.. it's that easy.
JazzyFresh
Banned
Extremely dangerous and a flat out fear based lie meant to cause fear and hate.
From his own tweet article
The situation has complicated medical care, but doesn't mean people are being turned away at the moment.
"Fortunately, right now, we aren't at a position where we're having to triage patients or send them on their own transportation to find a bed for themselves," Webb said. "We're not and don't expect to be in a position where we turn people away. If you need care, we still recommend that you go to the nearest hospital and we have full expectation that we will be able to provide good care there."
Last edited:
carey scurry fan
Well-Known Member
established data from the ESTABLISHMENT. established data = bought and paid for garbage from the bureaucrat orthodox doctors.