Official Twitter Thread (3 Viewers)

[Joe Bryant]

I'd argue the market finds Twitter's community notes much worse based on their steep ad revenue decline following the replacement of the trust and safety team by community notes.

I've heard revenue dropped by somewhere around fifty percent. It's why Musk is desperately flailing for other revenue models.

What market are you all referring to?

I haven't said anything about X and the market. I said about Zuckerberg, "I give him credit for fixing something he (or the market) seems to see as broken."

Meaning perhaps he made this change because he thought it was best. Or maybe he made the change as he thought it was best for his business. I don't truly know.

 

[Ilov80s]

I have tried to unfollow Musk several times but his inane takes still pop up on my feed. He may have the most community notes corrections of anyone ever with all the nonsense he posts/reposts

Let me guess, you are using the For You tab rather than the Following tab?

To be fair, I don't follow Musk, but he is definitely the most quoted/RTed person in my TL. That doesn't bother me, but that's probably because I voluntarily follow people who RT Elon's greatest hits.

On the other hand, I honestly can't recall ever seeing the N-word used in anger on Twitter. I definitely know that it happens, but I don't follow those people. (In reference to @Ilov80s above).

The worst comments are usually in the replies. We don't post much/at all and don't have many followers so we don't see it but dig around the replies to see the conversations that exist and it can get very ugly sometimes.

 

[titusbramble]

In fairness, I don’t think Musk is even pretending to censor Nazis, misogynists, and racists at this point, is he? I’m no longer on Twitter but I’ve heard it’s a cesspool.

I'm not knowledgeable about what all is censored. I'm on Twitter more than any site I visit and I don't see anything like that even in the "for you" tab.

And certainly nothing close to that in the "following" tab.

Elon did a Spaces interview with a BBC hack a while back after he had acquired Twitter, and said hack repeated the sort of things that Tommy is claiming is going on. Elon asked the reporter if he uses Twitter (yes), to which he then said to name one example. He couldn't. Not one single example. If it was that prevalent, or if said hack had done a bare minimum of research, it might have been a lay up, but no.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Bigger picture thought - I can't imagine the work it takes to moderate a big platform.

Well, if you believe in the First Amendment then it only involves removing illegal content

Why would Joe, Musk, Zuck and other similarly situated business owners concern themselves with the first amendment? They have very strong incentives to moderate their platforms without regard to the US constitution whatsoever.

Because it is the right thing to do? Just let people talk and make their own minds up on stuff, if someone is that much of a snowflake that nasty words or controversial topics upset you, then maybe they need to grow up

I'm not sure about the "right thing to do" when talking about a business that is presumably run for-profit. All of these businesses are advertiser- and subscriber-driven. Meta is publicly traded and Musk also likely has fiduciary obligations to his business partners. It makes no business sense to allow unmoderated content on your platform. Joe has posted about this many times.

 

[Ilov80s]

If I was the owner of a bar and NAZIs kept coming in to mock and harass my other customers, it wouldn’t be the other customers I would expect to grow up.

Agreed. But the challenge is for most of the things, it's never quite that clear cut.

It's not nazi's harassing the customers. That one is easy. It's the guy coming in and talking a little too loud and cutting in line at the bar in front of the other customers. Or the guy who constantly complains there aren't enough televisions on the game he wants. Or the guy who curses a little too loud when there are people there that prefer not to have that. It's the gray area that gets you.

At least that's been my experience.

Devil's in the details seems like an apt line.

I don't know about that. Here's an article full of really nasty hateful things posted on X that were reported and deemed acceptable. I've reported posts of people calling Black people the n word and monkeys, reported and gotten back messages saying there was no violation. Some of the things said about women on there regularly, good lord.

I think we're sort of talking around the main issue. I just don't care if people on Twitter -- or any other platform -- say things that I consider over the line, as long as I can opt out. When I say I don't care, I mean that it truly doesn't bother me in the slightest and I never even think about it. If I don't see the Nazis and racists, they don't affect my enjoyment of the platform in any way.

This place is different. Even with the ignore feature, you can't really tune out the the discussion here. If somebody was dropping N-bombs and Joe inexplicably let it go, it would be in all of our faces all the time. But you sure can tune that out on Twitter.

Yes but it has started to hurt their business. I think this conversation was about why an owner would regulate speech. X has been losing out on users and engagement, much of this is because even if people don't see it, they don't want to be supporting or hanging around a place that allows it to exist there. Again to use the only somewhat helpful bar example. If my local bar was a Klan hangout but the owner told me not worry because the Klan members only use the back room and we'll never have to see or hear them, I am not coming back to that bar.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I have tried to unfollow Musk several times but his inane takes still pop up on my feed. He may have the most community notes corrections of anyone ever with all the nonsense he posts/reposts

Let me guess, you are using the For You tab rather than the Following tab?

To be fair, I don't follow Musk, but he is definitely the most quoted/RTed person in my TL. That doesn't bother me, but that's probably because I voluntarily follow people who RT Elon's greatest hits.

On the other hand, I honestly can't recall ever seeing the N-word used in anger on Twitter. I definitely know that it happens, but I don't follow those people. (In reference to @Ilov80s above).

The worst comments are usually in the replies. We don't post much/at all and don't have many followers so we don't see it but dig around the replies to see the conversations that exist and it can get very ugly sometimes.

I can only speak of my experience but the worst I get in the replies are people telling me I'm an idiot and any goob could do what I do. That's life. People probably think that here but just don't say it

I also find I will often have a reply that is hidden at the bottom and labeled as potential spam and it's usually a sports book ad or something. But I have to click on it to open it up. Which is a pretty good experience.

 

[titusbramble]

I have tried to unfollow Musk several times but his inane takes still pop up on my feed. He may have the most community notes corrections of anyone ever with all the nonsense he posts/reposts

Let me guess, you are using the For You tab rather than the Following tab?

To be fair, I don't follow Musk, but he is definitely the most quoted/RTed person in my TL. That doesn't bother me, but that's probably because I voluntarily follow people who RT Elon's greatest hits.

On the other hand, I honestly can't recall ever seeing the N-word used in anger on Twitter. I definitely know that it happens, but I don't follow those people. (In reference to @Ilov80s above).

The worst comments are usually in the replies. We don't post much/at all and don't have many followers so we don't see it but dig around the replies to see the conversations that exist and it can get very ugly sometimes.

People disagree with people on things. Things get escalated, things may not get pretty. This is the Internet. Godwin's Law is 35 years old now. It is much easier to say stuff you wouldn't say in real life.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Yes but it has started to hurt their business. I think this conversation was about why an owner would regulate speech. X has been losing out on users and engagement, much of this is because even if people don't see it, they don't want to be supporting or hanging around a place that allows it to exist there.

Pure speculation on my part, but I interpreted his words here to mean the old way was hurting his business.

"Fact checkers have been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they've created," Zuckerberg said in a video post on Facebook that announced the changes. "What started as a movement to be more inclusive has increasingly been used to shut down opinions and shut out people with different ideas, and it's gone too far."

 

[titusbramble]

Bigger picture thought - I can't imagine the work it takes to moderate a big platform.

Well, if you believe in the First Amendment then it only involves removing illegal content

Why would Joe, Musk, Zuck and other similarly situated business owners concern themselves with the first amendment? They have very strong incentives to moderate their platforms without regard to the US constitution whatsoever.

Because it is the right thing to do? Just let people talk and make their own minds up on stuff, if someone is that much of a snowflake that nasty words or controversial topics upset you, then maybe they need to grow up

I'm not sure about the "right thing to do" when talking about a business that is presumably run for-profit. All of these businesses are advertiser- and subscriber-driven. Meta is publicly traded and Musk also likely has fiduciary obligations to his business partners. It makes no business sense to allow unmoderated content on your platform. Joe has posted about this many times.

I'm pretty sure Elon did not buy Twitter with even the medium term intention to get a return on investment. All the talks of advertisers leaving have been shown to either be false, or down to illegal cartel-style behaviour and have returned to normal. Twitter didn't even have a subscriber model under Dorsey. It makes no sense to allow *illegal* content, but that is wildly different to unmoderated content

 

[uwillbsoon]

I'd argue the market finds Twitter's community notes much worse based on their steep ad revenue decline following the replacement of the trust and safety team by community notes.

I've heard revenue dropped by somewhere around fifty percent. It's why Musk is desperately flailing for other revenue models.

What market are you all referring to?

I haven't said anything about X and the market. I said about Zuckerberg, "I give him credit for fixing something he (or the market) seems to see as broken."

Meaning perhaps he made this change because he thought it was best. Or maybe he made the change as he thought it was best for his business. I don't truly know.

Sorry, I probably quoted the wrong person. Though you did quote that person and thumbs up the post I assumed you agreed with him that the market has spoken in favor of community notes.

But my point still stands. The market says what he's doing is not what they want based on another company's results doing the exact same thing.

 

[Mitchie]

Bigger picture thought - I can't imagine the work it takes to moderate a big platform.

Well, if you believe in the First Amendment then it only involves removing illegal content

Why would Joe, Musk, Zuck and other similarly situated business owners concern themselves with the first amendment? They have very strong incentives to moderate their platforms without regard to the US constitution whatsoever.

Because it is the right thing to do? Just let people talk and make their own minds up on stuff, if someone is that much of a snowflake that nasty words or controversial topics upset you, then maybe they need to grow up

I'm not sure about the "right thing to do" when talking about a business that is presumably run for-profit. All of these businesses are advertiser- and subscriber-driven. Meta is publicly traded and Musk also likely has fiduciary obligations to his business partners. It makes no business sense to allow unmoderated content on your platform. Joe has posted about this many times.

I'm pretty sure Elon did not buy Twitter with even the medium term intention to get a return on investment. All the talks of advertisers leaving have been shown to either be false, or down to illegal cartel-style behaviour and have returned to normal. Twitter didn't even have a subscriber model under Dorsey. It makes no sense to allow *illegal* content, but that is wildly different to unmoderated content

I agree with you, pretty obvious he bought it for political reasons and he's already more than recouped his investment from that standpoint and will continue to do so.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I have tried to unfollow Musk several times but his inane takes still pop up on my feed. He may have the most community notes corrections of anyone ever with all the nonsense he posts/reposts

Let me guess, you are using the For You tab rather than the Following tab?

To be fair, I don't follow Musk, but he is definitely the most quoted/RTed person in my TL. That doesn't bother me, but that's probably because I voluntarily follow people who RT Elon's greatest hits.

On the other hand, I honestly can't recall ever seeing the N-word used in anger on Twitter. I definitely know that it happens, but I don't follow those people. (In reference to @Ilov80s above).

The worst comments are usually in the replies. We don't post much/at all and don't have many followers so we don't see it but dig around the replies to see the conversations that exist and it can get very ugly sometimes.

This is true.

 

[Ilov80s]

Bigger picture thought - I can't imagine the work it takes to moderate a big platform.

Well, if you believe in the First Amendment then it only involves removing illegal content

Why would Joe, Musk, Zuck and other similarly situated business owners concern themselves with the first amendment? They have very strong incentives to moderate their platforms without regard to the US constitution whatsoever.

Because it is the right thing to do? Just let people talk and make their own minds up on stuff, if someone is that much of a snowflake that nasty words or controversial topics upset you, then maybe they need to grow up

I'm not sure about the "right thing to do" when talking about a business that is presumably run for-profit. All of these businesses are advertiser- and subscriber-driven. Meta is publicly traded and Musk also likely has fiduciary obligations to his business partners. It makes no business sense to allow unmoderated content on your platform. Joe has posted about this many times.

I'm pretty sure Elon did not buy Twitter with even the medium term intention to get a return on investment. All the talks of advertisers leaving have been shown to either be false, or down to illegal cartel-style behaviour and have returned to normal. Twitter didn't even have a subscriber model under Dorsey. It makes no sense to allow *illegal* content, but that is wildly different to unmoderated content

I think he got a pretty good return on investment already that will pay off massively for his finances. The change in conversation that happened on Twitter/X was important for shifting the election and shaping the views of millions and millions of people. Twitter was maybe the one social media platform that would have been a clear leading left voice and it's been totally flipped through the sheer size of his bank account.

 

[tommyGunZ]

In fairness, I don’t think Musk is even pretending to censor Nazis, misogynists, and racists at this point, is he? I’m no longer on Twitter but I’ve heard it’s a cesspool.

I'm not knowledgeable about what all is censored. I'm on Twitter more than any site I visit and I don't see anything like that even in the "for you" tab.

And certainly nothing close to that in the "following" tab.

Perhaps there is less misogyny and racism in the comment sections of fantasy football news?

If you spend any time reading discussions/comments in news/politics, you’ll see plenty of it. That stuff, along with the ads, and lastly, the racism from Musk himself was enough to ruin my user experience and drive me from the platform. And to be clear, Twitter was far and away the app I’ve used the most in my life.

 

[Ilov80s]

The next interesting phase of social media is upcoming when the bots outnumber the actual people. Meta/FB has started using lots of fake accounts to try to generate engagement and boost numbers.

 

[Mitchie]

The next interesting phase of social media is upcoming when the bots outnumber the actual people. Meta/FB has started using lots of fake accounts to try to generate engagement and boost numbers.

pretty sure that already happened w/ Twitter.

 

[Ilov80s]

The next interesting phase of social media is upcoming when the bots outnumber the actual people. Meta/FB has started using lots of fake accounts to try to generate engagement and boost numbers.

pretty sure that already happened w/ Twitter.

Yeah, you might be right there.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Sorry, I probably quoted the wrong person. Though you did quote that person and thumbs up the post I assumed you agreed with him that the market has spoken in favor of community notes.

But my point still stands. The market says what he's doing is not what they want based on another company's results doing the exact same thing.

No worries.

Not all companies are exactly the same. What works for one won't always work for another. So for Facebook, that's the interesting thing about markets...

We'll see.

 

[Max Power]

I'm sure moderation on X is extremely difficult. Same with Facebook and all other social media sites. It's hard to create the perfect user experience when there are hundreds of millions of users.

Even Bluesky has recently been called out for it lack of moderation. Its a smaller user base, but still difficult to get and stay on top of.

 

[fatness]

There were 10 companies hired by Facebook to fact-check, and they seemed to cover the spectrum in terms of political/social views. The fact checkers say that they had no ability to censor posts, only to report them to Facebook. Those fact checkers include Politifact and the Daily Signal which both are right-of-center.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meta-mark-zuckerberg-facebook-fact-checkers-censorship/

Zuckerberg's been successful at demonizing censorship done on Facebook but hasn't been honest about who did the censoring. Facebook did.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/metas-fa...back-on-censorship-accusations-205336268.html

 

[fatness]

Facebook has also loosened its standards for what users can say online. It's OK now to refer to women as appliances, and to refer to transgender people as "it" and as mentally ill.

Calling women ‘household objects’ now permitted on Facebook after Meta updated its guidelines

Meta announced sweeping changes to how it moderates content that will roll out in the coming months, including doing away with professional fact checking.

www.ctvnews.ca

" “We do allow allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality and common non-serious usage of words like ‘weird.’” In other words, it is now permitted to call gay people mentally ill on Facebook, Threads and Instagram. Other slurs and what Meta calls “harmful stereotypes historically linked to intimidation” — such as Blackface and Holocaust denial — are still prohibited.

The Menlo Park, California-based company also removed a sentence from its “policy rationale” explaining why it bans certain hateful conduct. The now-deleted sentence said that hate speech “creates an environment of intimidation and exclusion, and in some cases may promote offline violence.” "

Meta rolls back hate speech rules as Zuckerberg cites 'recent elections' as a catalyst

It wasn’t just fact-checking that Meta scrapped from its platforms as it prepares for the second Trump administration.

apnews.com

 

[Battersbox]

If I was the owner of a bar and NAZIs kept coming in to mock and harass my other customers, it wouldn’t be the other customers I would expect to grow up.

Agreed. But the challenge is for most of the things, it's never quite that clear cut.

It's not nazi's harassing the customers. That one is easy. It's the guy coming in and talking a little too loud and cutting in line at the bar in front of the other customers. Or the guy who constantly complains there aren't enough televisions on the game he wants. Or the guy who curses a little too loud when there are people there that prefer not to have that. It's the gray area that gets you.

At least that's been my experience.

Devil's in the details seems like an apt line.

This is EXACTLY it. And it’s why the “Twitter files” were more interesting for what they didn’t show than what they did, in my opinion. Weiss and Taibbi’s reporting showed exactly what I would have expected to find: a team of well meaning individuals struggling to moderate at the margins. Going back and forth about how far a post went, etc. There was debate and disagreement, and in the end sometimes they were right and sometimes they went a step too far. But again, that’s what a rational person should expect.

Despite having access to all the files, what Weiss and Taibbi DIDN’T find was some conspiracy amongst biased moderators to shut down a particular viewpoint or side. There were no emails or chat logs coordinating a conspiracy, and no smoking gun. Which would be expected if there was this grand conspiracy that many claim.

I disagree with your take about the Twitter files completely, and if there were a FBG version of 'Community Notes' I'd probably endeavor to create one on this. Taibbi found numerous examples of pressure levied upon Twitter employees to suppress various viewpoints around several topics. Shellenberger and Weiss found similar examples. This was pressure from government employees at the Federal level that was met with resistance from Twitter employees at times and with agreement at other times. Whether Twitter employees were usually just trying to do the right thing most of the time was often irrelevant when the Federal government was stepping in and applying pressure.

I agree that most content moderators just want to get it right most of the time. That doesn't change the fact that people have biases and that in Twitter's example you had a cohort of folks who were probably very like-minded who didn't necessarily reflect the perspectives of much of the country (or world for that matter). The Community Notes model is likely quite flawed, but in my experience it's still a better process than what Facebook & Twitter have done for most of the past decade+.

We can disagree about whether anything was 'found' in the Twitter files. I agree with Taibbi & Shellenberger's own words which argue that there was in fact a smoking gun, if not multiple smoking guns. The below link is a decent & quick summary of what they think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNj_asppG98

 

[uwillbsoon]

If I was the owner of a bar and NAZIs kept coming in to mock and harass my other customers, it wouldn’t be the other customers I would expect to grow up.

Agreed. But the challenge is for most of the things, it's never quite that clear cut.

It's not nazi's harassing the customers. That one is easy. It's the guy coming in and talking a little too loud and cutting in line at the bar in front of the other customers. Or the guy who constantly complains there aren't enough televisions on the game he wants. Or the guy who curses a little too loud when there are people there that prefer not to have that. It's the gray area that gets you.

At least that's been my experience.

Devil's in the details seems like an apt line.

This is EXACTLY it. And it’s why the “Twitter files” were more interesting for what they didn’t show than what they did, in my opinion. Weiss and Taibbi’s reporting showed exactly what I would have expected to find: a team of well meaning individuals struggling to moderate at the margins. Going back and forth about how far a post went, etc. There was debate and disagreement, and in the end sometimes they were right and sometimes they went a step too far. But again, that’s what a rational person should expect.

Despite having access to all the files, what Weiss and Taibbi DIDN’T find was some conspiracy amongst biased moderators to shut down a particular viewpoint or side. There were no emails or chat logs coordinating a conspiracy, and no smoking gun. Which would be expected if there was this grand conspiracy that many claim.

I disagree with your take about the Twitter files completely, and if there were a FBG version of 'Community Notes' I'd probably endeavor to create one on this. Taibbi found numerous examples of pressure levied upon Twitter employees to suppress various viewpoints around several topics. Shellenberger and Weiss found similar examples. This was pressure from government employees at the Federal level that was met with resistance from Twitter employees at times and with agreement at other times. Whether Twitter employees were usually just trying to do the right thing most of the time was often irrelevant when the Federal government was stepping in and applying pressure.

I agree that most content moderators just want to get it right most of the time. That doesn't change the fact that people have biases and that in Twitter's example you had a cohort of folks who were probably very like-minded who didn't necessarily reflect the perspectives of much of the country (or world for that matter). The Community Notes model is likely quite flawed, but in my experience it's still a better process than what Facebook & Twitter have done for most of the past decade+.

We can disagree about whether anything was 'found' in the Twitter files. I agree with Taibbi & Shellenberger's own words which argue that there was in fact a smoking gun, if not multiple smoking guns. The below link is a decent & quick summary of what they think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNj_asppG98

I read Taibbi's first release. He could have used a fact checker. I quit after that because it seemed rushed, trying to prove government intervention instead of following the evidence and unserious.

By the way, Twitter admitted as much in a court filing: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/05...ong-about-government-interference-at-twitter/

 

[Max Power]

Not an X thing, but on the subject of why legacy fact checkers are getting a bad rep...

This Video was posted on X by a parody account clearly using AI showing Nancy Pelosi falling over multiple times. It's hard to imagine anyone thinking this is real. Yet an ABC affiliate and Snopes ran fact checks on it. Fact checking absurdities diminishes the "Fact Check" brand.

Fact or Fiction: Video shows Nancy Pelosi falling down while using walker on house floor?

A video seen millions of times on social media claims to show former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeatedly falling down while using a walker on the House floor.

www.10news.com

Fake Video Shared of Nancy Pelosi Falling While Using Walker on House Floor

The Associated Press reported the former U.S. House speaker had hip-replacement surgery after falling during a December 2024 trip in Luxembourg.

www.snopes.com

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Not an X thing, but on the subject of why legacy fact checkers are getting a bad rep...

This Video was posted on X by a parody account clearly using AI showing Nancy Pelosi falling over multiple times. It's hard to imagine anyone thinking this is real. Yet an ABC affiliate and Snopes ran fact checks on it. Fact checking absurdities diminishes the "Fact Check" brand.

Fact or Fiction: Video shows Nancy Pelosi falling down while using walker on house floor?

A video seen millions of times on social media claims to show former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeatedly falling down while using a walker on the House floor.

www.10news.com

Fake Video Shared of Nancy Pelosi Falling While Using Walker on House Floor

The Associated Press reported the former U.S. House speaker had hip-replacement surgery after falling during a December 2024 trip in Luxembourg.

www.snopes.com

Really?? This example is mild compared to other absurdities that have been taken as gospel in the past. The sheer volume of "fact checks" leads to what is perceived as a lot of misses.

 

[Max Power]

Not an X thing, but on the subject of why legacy fact checkers are getting a bad rep...

This Video was posted on X by a parody account clearly using AI showing Nancy Pelosi falling over multiple times. It's hard to imagine anyone thinking this is real. Yet an ABC affiliate and Snopes ran fact checks on it. Fact checking absurdities diminishes the "Fact Check" brand.

Fact or Fiction: Video shows Nancy Pelosi falling down while using walker on house floor?

A video seen millions of times on social media claims to show former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeatedly falling down while using a walker on the House floor.

www.10news.com

Fake Video Shared of Nancy Pelosi Falling While Using Walker on House Floor

The Associated Press reported the former U.S. House speaker had hip-replacement surgery after falling during a December 2024 trip in Luxembourg.

www.snopes.com

Really?? This example is mild compared to other absurdities that have been taken as gospel in the past. The sheer volume of "fact checks" leads to what is perceived as a lot of misses.

Yes, people who think that is real aren't serious people.

 

[Sammy3469]

Just two points, it's highly ironic to me that X has been far worse as a media purveyor of info than the local new orgs for the LA fires. Probably not the first time, but it's really striking this time. Second, nothing tells you the state of X better than a Community Note calling an ad on X a scam (in fancy community note words).

 

[uwillbsoon]

Just two points, it's highly ironic to me that X has been far worse as a media purveyor of info than the local new orgs for the LA fires. Probably not the first time, but it's really striking this time. Second, nothing tells you the state of X better than a Community Note calling an ad on X a scam (in fancy community note words).

Part of this is because X now deamplifies links.

So a link to an actual trained journalist's reporting is deamplified while joeschmoe with a hot take that paid for a blue check is amplified.

I know we all hate "legacy media" in here, but trained journalists are going to deliver better information on news events like this the majority of the time.

Citizen journalism - like community notes - has its place. But it's alongside trained professionals instead of replacing them.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Not an X thing, but on the subject of why legacy fact checkers are getting a bad rep...

This Video was posted on X by a parody account clearly using AI showing Nancy Pelosi falling over multiple times. It's hard to imagine anyone thinking this is real. Yet an ABC affiliate and Snopes ran fact checks on it. Fact checking absurdities diminishes the "Fact Check" brand.

Fact or Fiction: Video shows Nancy Pelosi falling down while using walker on house floor?

A video seen millions of times on social media claims to show former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeatedly falling down while using a walker on the House floor.

www.10news.com

Fake Video Shared of Nancy Pelosi Falling While Using Walker on House Floor

The Associated Press reported the former U.S. House speaker had hip-replacement surgery after falling during a December 2024 trip in Luxembourg.

www.snopes.com

Really?? This example is mild compared to other absurdities that have been taken as gospel in the past. The sheer volume of "fact checks" leads to what is perceived as a lot of misses.

Yes, people who think that is real aren't serious people.

most aren't serious, but that doesn't matter. enough people end up believing it, it becomes a reality that has to be "checked"....the more checks a group does, the more opportunity for them to get something wrong and guess what we focus on? I could get 1500 things correct in my checks, miss one and what is spread across the internet?

 

[Battersbox]

If I was the owner of a bar and NAZIs kept coming in to mock and harass my other customers, it wouldn’t be the other customers I would expect to grow up.

Agreed. But the challenge is for most of the things, it's never quite that clear cut.

It's not nazi's harassing the customers. That one is easy. It's the guy coming in and talking a little too loud and cutting in line at the bar in front of the other customers. Or the guy who constantly complains there aren't enough televisions on the game he wants. Or the guy who curses a little too loud when there are people there that prefer not to have that. It's the gray area that gets you.

At least that's been my experience.

Devil's in the details seems like an apt line.

This is EXACTLY it. And it’s why the “Twitter files” were more interesting for what they didn’t show than what they did, in my opinion. Weiss and Taibbi’s reporting showed exactly what I would have expected to find: a team of well meaning individuals struggling to moderate at the margins. Going back and forth about how far a post went, etc. There was debate and disagreement, and in the end sometimes they were right and sometimes they went a step too far. But again, that’s what a rational person should expect.

Despite having access to all the files, what Weiss and Taibbi DIDN’T find was some conspiracy amongst biased moderators to shut down a particular viewpoint or side. There were no emails or chat logs coordinating a conspiracy, and no smoking gun. Which would be expected if there was this grand conspiracy that many claim.

I disagree with your take about the Twitter files completely, and if there were a FBG version of 'Community Notes' I'd probably endeavor to create one on this. Taibbi found numerous examples of pressure levied upon Twitter employees to suppress various viewpoints around several topics. Shellenberger and Weiss found similar examples. This was pressure from government employees at the Federal level that was met with resistance from Twitter employees at times and with agreement at other times. Whether Twitter employees were usually just trying to do the right thing most of the time was often irrelevant when the Federal government was stepping in and applying pressure.

I agree that most content moderators just want to get it right most of the time. That doesn't change the fact that people have biases and that in Twitter's example you had a cohort of folks who were probably very like-minded who didn't necessarily reflect the perspectives of much of the country (or world for that matter). The Community Notes model is likely quite flawed, but in my experience it's still a better process than what Facebook & Twitter have done for most of the past decade+.

We can disagree about whether anything was 'found' in the Twitter files. I agree with Taibbi & Shellenberger's own words which argue that there was in fact a smoking gun, if not multiple smoking guns. The below link is a decent & quick summary of what they think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNj_asppG98

I read Taibbi's first release. He could have used a fact checker. I quit after that because it seemed rushed, trying to prove government intervention instead of following the evidence and unserious.

By the way, Twitter admitted as much in a court filing: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/05...ong-about-government-interference-at-twitter/

That link is absurd. It's one hack's opinion, and it's from June 2023. Much, much more came out after that.

I think Taibbi is a real journalist, as is Bari Weiss. If you don't think so, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[djmich]

If I was the owner of a bar and NAZIs kept coming in to mock and harass my other customers, it wouldn’t be the other customers I would expect to grow up.

Agreed. But the challenge is for most of the things, it's never quite that clear cut.

It's not nazi's harassing the customers. That one is easy. It's the guy coming in and talking a little too loud and cutting in line at the bar in front of the other customers. Or the guy who constantly complains there aren't enough televisions on the game he wants. Or the guy who curses a little too loud when there are people there that prefer not to have that. It's the gray area that gets you.

At least that's been my experience.

Devil's in the details seems like an apt line.

This is EXACTLY it. And it’s why the “Twitter files” were more interesting for what they didn’t show than what they did, in my opinion. Weiss and Taibbi’s reporting showed exactly what I would have expected to find: a team of well meaning individuals struggling to moderate at the margins. Going back and forth about how far a post went, etc. There was debate and disagreement, and in the end sometimes they were right and sometimes they went a step too far. But again, that’s what a rational person should expect.

Despite having access to all the files, what Weiss and Taibbi DIDN’T find was some conspiracy amongst biased moderators to shut down a particular viewpoint or side. There were no emails or chat logs coordinating a conspiracy, and no smoking gun. Which would be expected if there was this grand conspiracy that many claim.

I disagree with your take about the Twitter files completely, and if there were a FBG version of 'Community Notes' I'd probably endeavor to create one on this. Taibbi found numerous examples of pressure levied upon Twitter employees to suppress various viewpoints around several topics. Shellenberger and Weiss found similar examples. This was pressure from government employees at the Federal level that was met with resistance from Twitter employees at times and with agreement at other times. Whether Twitter employees were usually just trying to do the right thing most of the time was often irrelevant when the Federal government was stepping in and applying pressure.

I agree that most content moderators just want to get it right most of the time. That doesn't change the fact that people have biases and that in Twitter's example you had a cohort of folks who were probably very like-minded who didn't necessarily reflect the perspectives of much of the country (or world for that matter). The Community Notes model is likely quite flawed, but in my experience it's still a better process than what Facebook & Twitter have done for most of the past decade+.

We can disagree about whether anything was 'found' in the Twitter files. I agree with Taibbi & Shellenberger's own words which argue that there was in fact a smoking gun, if not multiple smoking guns. The below link is a decent & quick summary of what they think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNj_asppG98

I read Taibbi's first release. He could have used a fact checker. I quit after that because it seemed rushed, trying to prove government intervention instead of following the evidence and unserious.

By the way, Twitter admitted as much in a court filing: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/05...ong-about-government-interference-at-twitter/

That link is absurd. It's one hack's opinion, and it's from June 2023. Much, much more came out after that.

I think Taibbi is a real journalist, as is Bari Weiss. If you don't think so, we'll have to agree to disagree.

There is some irony in being concerned about the legitimacy of some "journalists" on social media, many of whom worked for legacy media, but being ok with techdirt.com as a reputable reference.

 

[uwillbsoon]

If I was the owner of a bar and NAZIs kept coming in to mock and harass my other customers, it wouldn’t be the other customers I would expect to grow up.

Agreed. But the challenge is for most of the things, it's never quite that clear cut.

It's not nazi's harassing the customers. That one is easy. It's the guy coming in and talking a little too loud and cutting in line at the bar in front of the other customers. Or the guy who constantly complains there aren't enough televisions on the game he wants. Or the guy who curses a little too loud when there are people there that prefer not to have that. It's the gray area that gets you.

At least that's been my experience.

Devil's in the details seems like an apt line.

This is EXACTLY it. And it’s why the “Twitter files” were more interesting for what they didn’t show than what they did, in my opinion. Weiss and Taibbi’s reporting showed exactly what I would have expected to find: a team of well meaning individuals struggling to moderate at the margins. Going back and forth about how far a post went, etc. There was debate and disagreement, and in the end sometimes they were right and sometimes they went a step too far. But again, that’s what a rational person should expect.

Despite having access to all the files, what Weiss and Taibbi DIDN’T find was some conspiracy amongst biased moderators to shut down a particular viewpoint or side. There were no emails or chat logs coordinating a conspiracy, and no smoking gun. Which would be expected if there was this grand conspiracy that many claim.

I disagree with your take about the Twitter files completely, and if there were a FBG version of 'Community Notes' I'd probably endeavor to create one on this. Taibbi found numerous examples of pressure levied upon Twitter employees to suppress various viewpoints around several topics. Shellenberger and Weiss found similar examples. This was pressure from government employees at the Federal level that was met with resistance from Twitter employees at times and with agreement at other times. Whether Twitter employees were usually just trying to do the right thing most of the time was often irrelevant when the Federal government was stepping in and applying pressure.

I agree that most content moderators just want to get it right most of the time. That doesn't change the fact that people have biases and that in Twitter's example you had a cohort of folks who were probably very like-minded who didn't necessarily reflect the perspectives of much of the country (or world for that matter). The Community Notes model is likely quite flawed, but in my experience it's still a better process than what Facebook & Twitter have done for most of the past decade+.

We can disagree about whether anything was 'found' in the Twitter files. I agree with Taibbi & Shellenberger's own words which argue that there was in fact a smoking gun, if not multiple smoking guns. The below link is a decent & quick summary of what they think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNj_asppG98

I read Taibbi's first release. He could have used a fact checker. I quit after that because it seemed rushed, trying to prove government intervention instead of following the evidence and unserious.

By the way, Twitter admitted as much in a court filing: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/05...ong-about-government-interference-at-twitter/

That link is absurd. It's one hack's opinion, and it's from June 2023. Much, much more came out after that.

I think Taibbi is a real journalist, as is Bari Weiss. If you don't think so, we'll have to agree to disagree.

The hack is citing/quoting Twitter's legal case which contradicts what Taibbi et al are saying.

I thought the Twitter files were all released by March of 2023. I may be wrong.

 

[uwillbsoon]

If I was the owner of a bar and NAZIs kept coming in to mock and harass my other customers, it wouldn’t be the other customers I would expect to grow up.

Agreed. But the challenge is for most of the things, it's never quite that clear cut.

It's not nazi's harassing the customers. That one is easy. It's the guy coming in and talking a little too loud and cutting in line at the bar in front of the other customers. Or the guy who constantly complains there aren't enough televisions on the game he wants. Or the guy who curses a little too loud when there are people there that prefer not to have that. It's the gray area that gets you.

At least that's been my experience.

Devil's in the details seems like an apt line.

This is EXACTLY it. And it’s why the “Twitter files” were more interesting for what they didn’t show than what they did, in my opinion. Weiss and Taibbi’s reporting showed exactly what I would have expected to find: a team of well meaning individuals struggling to moderate at the margins. Going back and forth about how far a post went, etc. There was debate and disagreement, and in the end sometimes they were right and sometimes they went a step too far. But again, that’s what a rational person should expect.

Despite having access to all the files, what Weiss and Taibbi DIDN’T find was some conspiracy amongst biased moderators to shut down a particular viewpoint or side. There were no emails or chat logs coordinating a conspiracy, and no smoking gun. Which would be expected if there was this grand conspiracy that many claim.

I disagree with your take about the Twitter files completely, and if there were a FBG version of 'Community Notes' I'd probably endeavor to create one on this. Taibbi found numerous examples of pressure levied upon Twitter employees to suppress various viewpoints around several topics. Shellenberger and Weiss found similar examples. This was pressure from government employees at the Federal level that was met with resistance from Twitter employees at times and with agreement at other times. Whether Twitter employees were usually just trying to do the right thing most of the time was often irrelevant when the Federal government was stepping in and applying pressure.

I agree that most content moderators just want to get it right most of the time. That doesn't change the fact that people have biases and that in Twitter's example you had a cohort of folks who were probably very like-minded who didn't necessarily reflect the perspectives of much of the country (or world for that matter). The Community Notes model is likely quite flawed, but in my experience it's still a better process than what Facebook & Twitter have done for most of the past decade+.

We can disagree about whether anything was 'found' in the Twitter files. I agree with Taibbi & Shellenberger's own words which argue that there was in fact a smoking gun, if not multiple smoking guns. The below link is a decent & quick summary of what they think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNj_asppG98

I read Taibbi's first release. He could have used a fact checker. I quit after that because it seemed rushed, trying to prove government intervention instead of following the evidence and unserious.

By the way, Twitter admitted as much in a court filing: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/05...ong-about-government-interference-at-twitter/

That link is absurd. It's one hack's opinion, and it's from June 2023. Much, much more came out after that.

I think Taibbi is a real journalist, as is Bari Weiss. If you don't think so, we'll have to agree to disagree.

There is some irony in being concerned about the legitimacy of some "journalists" on social media, many of whom worked for legacy media, but being ok with techdirt.com as a reputable reference.

He's quoting from a legal document. Read that and ignore his analysis.

Edit: I don't actually even know what Techdirt is. First result that came up when I searched for the case I'd heard about.

I'd have linked to the case if I wasn't trying to quickly find it.

 

[tommyGunZ]

If I was the owner of a bar and NAZIs kept coming in to mock and harass my other customers, it wouldn’t be the other customers I would expect to grow up.

Agreed. But the challenge is for most of the things, it's never quite that clear cut.

It's not nazi's harassing the customers. That one is easy. It's the guy coming in and talking a little too loud and cutting in line at the bar in front of the other customers. Or the guy who constantly complains there aren't enough televisions on the game he wants. Or the guy who curses a little too loud when there are people there that prefer not to have that. It's the gray area that gets you.

At least that's been my experience.

Devil's in the details seems like an apt line.

This is EXACTLY it. And it’s why the “Twitter files” were more interesting for what they didn’t show than what they did, in my opinion. Weiss and Taibbi’s reporting showed exactly what I would have expected to find: a team of well meaning individuals struggling to moderate at the margins. Going back and forth about how far a post went, etc. There was debate and disagreement, and in the end sometimes they were right and sometimes they went a step too far. But again, that’s what a rational person should expect.

Despite having access to all the files, what Weiss and Taibbi DIDN’T find was some conspiracy amongst biased moderators to shut down a particular viewpoint or side. There were no emails or chat logs coordinating a conspiracy, and no smoking gun. Which would be expected if there was this grand conspiracy that many claim.

I disagree with your take about the Twitter files completely, and if there were a FBG version of 'Community Notes' I'd probably endeavor to create one on this. Taibbi found numerous examples of pressure levied upon Twitter employees to suppress various viewpoints around several topics. Shellenberger and Weiss found similar examples. This was pressure from government employees at the Federal level that was met with resistance from Twitter employees at times and with agreement at other times. Whether Twitter employees were usually just trying to do the right thing most of the time was often irrelevant when the Federal government was stepping in and applying pressure.

I agree that most content moderators just want to get it right most of the time. That doesn't change the fact that people have biases and that in Twitter's example you had a cohort of folks who were probably very like-minded who didn't necessarily reflect the perspectives of much of the country (or world for that matter). The Community Notes model is likely quite flawed, but in my experience it's still a better process than what Facebook & Twitter have done for most of the past decade+.

We can disagree about whether anything was 'found' in the Twitter files. I agree with Taibbi & Shellenberger's own words which argue that there was in fact a smoking gun, if not multiple smoking guns. The below link is a decent & quick summary of what they think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNj_asppG98

I read Taibbi's first release. He could have used a fact checker. I quit after that because it seemed rushed, trying to prove government intervention instead of following the evidence and unserious.

By the way, Twitter admitted as much in a court filing: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/05...ong-about-government-interference-at-twitter/

Thank you for posting this link.

Twitter’s own attorneys, working for Musk, stating in court filings that there was not govt interference. Yet to this day people still believe the conspiracy Twitter files narrative. It’s unbelievable.

To come full circle, where is the outrage over Musk’s using Twitter politically over the past year? Surely Taibbi and Weiss and Co are up in arms?

 

[uwillbsoon]

If I was the owner of a bar and NAZIs kept coming in to mock and harass my other customers, it wouldn’t be the other customers I would expect to grow up.

Agreed. But the challenge is for most of the things, it's never quite that clear cut.

It's not nazi's harassing the customers. That one is easy. It's the guy coming in and talking a little too loud and cutting in line at the bar in front of the other customers. Or the guy who constantly complains there aren't enough televisions on the game he wants. Or the guy who curses a little too loud when there are people there that prefer not to have that. It's the gray area that gets you.

At least that's been my experience.

Devil's in the details seems like an apt line.

This is EXACTLY it. And it’s why the “Twitter files” were more interesting for what they didn’t show than what they did, in my opinion. Weiss and Taibbi’s reporting showed exactly what I would have expected to find: a team of well meaning individuals struggling to moderate at the margins. Going back and forth about how far a post went, etc. There was debate and disagreement, and in the end sometimes they were right and sometimes they went a step too far. But again, that’s what a rational person should expect.

Despite having access to all the files, what Weiss and Taibbi DIDN’T find was some conspiracy amongst biased moderators to shut down a particular viewpoint or side. There were no emails or chat logs coordinating a conspiracy, and no smoking gun. Which would be expected if there was this grand conspiracy that many claim.

I disagree with your take about the Twitter files completely, and if there were a FBG version of 'Community Notes' I'd probably endeavor to create one on this. Taibbi found numerous examples of pressure levied upon Twitter employees to suppress various viewpoints around several topics. Shellenberger and Weiss found similar examples. This was pressure from government employees at the Federal level that was met with resistance from Twitter employees at times and with agreement at other times. Whether Twitter employees were usually just trying to do the right thing most of the time was often irrelevant when the Federal government was stepping in and applying pressure.

I agree that most content moderators just want to get it right most of the time. That doesn't change the fact that people have biases and that in Twitter's example you had a cohort of folks who were probably very like-minded who didn't necessarily reflect the perspectives of much of the country (or world for that matter). The Community Notes model is likely quite flawed, but in my experience it's still a better process than what Facebook & Twitter have done for most of the past decade+.

We can disagree about whether anything was 'found' in the Twitter files. I agree with Taibbi & Shellenberger's own words which argue that there was in fact a smoking gun, if not multiple smoking guns. The below link is a decent & quick summary of what they think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNj_asppG98

I read Taibbi's first release. He could have used a fact checker. I quit after that because it seemed rushed, trying to prove government intervention instead of following the evidence and unserious.

By the way, Twitter admitted as much in a court filing: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/05...ong-about-government-interference-at-twitter/

Thank you for posting this link.

Twitter’s own attorneys, working for Musk, stating in court filings that there was not govt interference. Yet to this day people still believe the conspiracy Twitter files narrative. It’s unbelievable.

To come full circle, where is the outrage over Musk’s using Twitter politically over the past year? Surely Taibbi and Weiss and Co are up in arms?

I believe Taibbi and Musk had a falling out after Musk disallowed links to Substack where Taibbi makes his money. Musk sent him some obscene texts I think.

So he's disappointed in Musk not being a free speech absolutist.

I thought Weiss spoke out against him when he banned journalists. So I don't think they're friendly anymore, either.

 

[McBokonon]

If I was the owner of a bar and NAZIs kept coming in to mock and harass my other customers, it wouldn’t be the other customers I would expect to grow up.

Agreed. But the challenge is for most of the things, it's never quite that clear cut.

It's not nazi's harassing the customers. That one is easy. It's the guy coming in and talking a little too loud and cutting in line at the bar in front of the other customers. Or the guy who constantly complains there aren't enough televisions on the game he wants. Or the guy who curses a little too loud when there are people there that prefer not to have that. It's the gray area that gets you.

At least that's been my experience.

Devil's in the details seems like an apt line.

This is EXACTLY it. And it’s why the “Twitter files” were more interesting for what they didn’t show than what they did, in my opinion. Weiss and Taibbi’s reporting showed exactly what I would have expected to find: a team of well meaning individuals struggling to moderate at the margins. Going back and forth about how far a post went, etc. There was debate and disagreement, and in the end sometimes they were right and sometimes they went a step too far. But again, that’s what a rational person should expect.

Despite having access to all the files, what Weiss and Taibbi DIDN’T find was some conspiracy amongst biased moderators to shut down a particular viewpoint or side. There were no emails or chat logs coordinating a conspiracy, and no smoking gun. Which would be expected if there was this grand conspiracy that many claim.

I disagree with your take about the Twitter files completely, and if there were a FBG version of 'Community Notes' I'd probably endeavor to create one on this. Taibbi found numerous examples of pressure levied upon Twitter employees to suppress various viewpoints around several topics. Shellenberger and Weiss found similar examples. This was pressure from government employees at the Federal level that was met with resistance from Twitter employees at times and with agreement at other times. Whether Twitter employees were usually just trying to do the right thing most of the time was often irrelevant when the Federal government was stepping in and applying pressure.

I agree that most content moderators just want to get it right most of the time. That doesn't change the fact that people have biases and that in Twitter's example you had a cohort of folks who were probably very like-minded who didn't necessarily reflect the perspectives of much of the country (or world for that matter). The Community Notes model is likely quite flawed, but in my experience it's still a better process than what Facebook & Twitter have done for most of the past decade+.

We can disagree about whether anything was 'found' in the Twitter files. I agree with Taibbi & Shellenberger's own words which argue that there was in fact a smoking gun, if not multiple smoking guns. The below link is a decent & quick summary of what they think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNj_asppG98

I read Taibbi's first release. He could have used a fact checker. I quit after that because it seemed rushed, trying to prove government intervention instead of following the evidence and unserious.

By the way, Twitter admitted as much in a court filing: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/05...ong-about-government-interference-at-twitter/

Thank you for posting this link.

Twitter’s own attorneys, working for Musk, stating in court filings that there was not govt interference. Yet to this day people still believe the conspiracy Twitter files narrative. It’s unbelievable.

To come full circle, where is the outrage over Musk’s using Twitter politically over the past year? Surely Taibbi and Weiss and Co are up in arms?

I believe Taibbi and Musk had a falling out after Musk disallowed links to Substack where Taibbi makes his money. Musk sent him some obscene texts I think.

So he's disappointed in Musk not being a free speech absolutist.

I thought Weiss spoke out against him when he banned journalists. So I don't think they're friendly anymore, either.

I never thought leopards would eat MY face!

 

[Sparky Polastri]

It's always wise to read the facts the opinion pieces are written about instead of the opinions. Otherwise you end up in a deflection like dishonest back and forth about sources.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It's always wise to read the facts the opinion pieces are written about instead of the opinions. Otherwise you end up in a deflection like dishonest back and forth about sources.

This is one that everyone should take to heart. It comes up all the time and applies to everybody.

 

[djmich]

It's always wise to read the facts the opinion pieces are written about instead of the opinions. Otherwise you end up in a deflection like dishonest back and forth about sources.

Of course, that's whether you get your information from X or techgossip.com.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

It's always wise to read the facts the opinion pieces are written about instead of the opinions. Otherwise you end up in a deflection like dishonest back and forth about sources.

This is one that everyone should take to heart. It comes up all the time and applies to everybody.

Drives me crazy. There are few threads here (or anywhere I've been) that this doesn't happen. It's almost like they don't want to have real discussion and yes I am fully aware of how much extra work is involved. It's worth it for good discussion IMO.

 

[uwillbsoon]

It's always wise to read the facts the opinion pieces are written about instead of the opinions. Otherwise you end up in a deflection like dishonest back and forth about sources.

Of course, that's whether you get your information from X or techgossip.com.

Here's a direct link to the case file (which I got from the Techdirt opinion piece which is why I included that link):


https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.387133/gov.uscourts.cand.387133.195.0.pdf
It will download the document, be aware.

Hopefully that addresses your source concern.

 

[djmich]

It's always wise to read the facts the opinion pieces are written about instead of the opinions. Otherwise you end up in a deflection like dishonest back and forth about sources.

Of course, that's whether you get your information from X or techgossip.com.

Here's a direct link to the case file (which I got from the Techdirt opinion piece which is why I included that link):


https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.387133/gov.uscourts.cand.387133.195.0.pdf
It will download the document, be aware.

Hopefully that addresses your source concern.

I think the point I was making went completely over both of your heads.

If sources like techdirt are capable of posting factual information then certainly the folks I follow on X can do the same. Neither should be dismissed simply because they comment with opinion or aren’t “mainstream”.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

It's always wise to read the facts the opinion pieces are written about instead of the opinions. Otherwise you end up in a deflection like dishonest back and forth about sources.

Of course, that's whether you get your information from X or techgossip.com.

Here's a direct link to the case file (which I got from the Techdirt opinion piece which is why I included that link):


https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.387133/gov.uscourts.cand.387133.195.0.pdf
It will download the document, be aware.

Hopefully that addresses your source concern.

I think the point I was making went completely over both of your heads.

If sources like techdirt are capable of posting factual information then certainly the folks I follow on X can do the same. Neither should be dismissed simply because they comment with opinion or aren’t “mainstream”.

Not sure why you thought that went over my head. When it comes to SM, my comments above sum up my views on approach. Personally, I think we'd all be much better off if we ignored opinion pieces and just stuck to the facts and I don't care who the source is of the opinion pieces.

 

[Don Quixote]

I have tried to unfollow Musk several times but his inane takes still pop up on my feed. He may have the most community notes corrections of anyone ever with all the nonsense he posts/reposts

I blocked his account on Twitter and muted the words “Elon” and “Musk.” Seems to work as I rarely see anything related to him on there.

 

[uwillbsoon]

It's always wise to read the facts the opinion pieces are written about instead of the opinions. Otherwise you end up in a deflection like dishonest back and forth about sources.

Of course, that's whether you get your information from X or techgossip.com.

Here's a direct link to the case file (which I got from the Techdirt opinion piece which is why I included that link):


https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.387133/gov.uscourts.cand.387133.195.0.pdf
It will download the document, be aware.

Hopefully that addresses your source concern.

I think the point I was making went completely over both of your heads.

If sources like techdirt are capable of posting factual information then certainly the folks I follow on X can do the same. Neither should be dismissed simply because they comment with opinion or aren’t “mainstream”.

Here's what I said, if this is what you mean. I think we agree?

"Citizen journalism - like community notes - has its place. But it's alongside trained professionals instead of replacing them."

I'm not dismissing Twitter sources. I'm dismissing people who want to dismiss trained journalists.

Twitter, generally, has dismissed trained journalists by banning some and deamplifying links to reporting.

 

[djmich]

It's always wise to read the facts the opinion pieces are written about instead of the opinions. Otherwise you end up in a deflection like dishonest back and forth about sources.

Of course, that's whether you get your information from X or techgossip.com.

Here's a direct link to the case file (which I got from the Techdirt opinion piece which is why I included that link):


https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.387133/gov.uscourts.cand.387133.195.0.pdf
It will download the document, be aware.

Hopefully that addresses your source concern.

I think the point I was making went completely over both of your heads.

If sources like techdirt are capable of posting factual information then certainly the folks I follow on X can do the same. Neither should be dismissed simply because they comment with opinion or aren’t “mainstream”.

Here's what I said, if this is what you mean. I think we agree?

"Citizen journalism - like community notes - has its place. But it's alongside trained professionals instead of replacing them."

I'm not dismissing Twitter sources. I'm dismissing people who want to dismiss trained journalists.

Twitter, generally, has dismissed trained journalists by banning some and deamplifying links to reporting.

Yes. I don’t dismiss anything, and everything I look at with a healthy dose of skepticism…X or MSM.

I’m not familiar with the banning and deploying of trained journalists. By this you mean ones still employed by a MSM outlet or some other definition of training? I follow a number of accounts that are former major outlet employees. Will have to look into this.

 

[uwillbsoon]

It's always wise to read the facts the opinion pieces are written about instead of the opinions. Otherwise you end up in a deflection like dishonest back and forth about sources.

Of course, that's whether you get your information from X or techgossip.com.

Here's a direct link to the case file (which I got from the Techdirt opinion piece which is why I included that link):


https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.387133/gov.uscourts.cand.387133.195.0.pdf
It will download the document, be aware.

Hopefully that addresses your source concern.

I think the point I was making went completely over both of your heads.

If sources like techdirt are capable of posting factual information then certainly the folks I follow on X can do the same. Neither should be dismissed simply because they comment with opinion or aren’t “mainstream”.

Here's what I said, if this is what you mean. I think we agree?

"Citizen journalism - like community notes - has its place. But it's alongside trained professionals instead of replacing them."

I'm not dismissing Twitter sources. I'm dismissing people who want to dismiss trained journalists.

Twitter, generally, has dismissed trained journalists by banning some and deamplifying links to reporting.

Yes. I don’t dismiss anything, and everything I look at with a healthy dose of skepticism…X or MSM.

I’m not familiar with the banning and deploying of trained journalists. By this you mean ones still employed by a MSM outlet or some other definition of training? I follow a number of accounts that are former major outlet employees. Will have to look into this.

They deamplify links for business reasons. Didn't want people leaving Twitter.

https://www.axios.com/2023/10/03/musk-x-links-long-form

Which is why Musk and Taibbi had a falling out, although I think that was different. I think they actually disallowed or actively removed links to Substack. Lots of independent journalists built a following on Twitter and then use Substack to monetize that following. So it hurt them.

Weiss objected to his banning of specific journalists. There was this: https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-technology-business-dac21de7abb6167bb604f5317aeda10a
.M

I think they were eventually reinstated, but I could be wrong.

I don't actually have an issue with this, by the way. His business, his rules. I just think it makes Twitter worse for users by arbitrarily banning people because of a personal vendetta and surfacing fewer links to informative outside resources.

 

[Max Power]

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

Zuckerberg on Rogan talking about the government pressure to censor facebook content.

He also talks about what went wrong with the "fact checkers".

 

[uwillbsoon]

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

Zuckerberg on Rogan talking about the government pressure to censor facebook content.

He also talks about what went wrong with the "fact checkers".

Thanks for posting.

Not that I don't believe Zuck, but anyone have a link to this information he claims is publicly available where they were asked to not state the vaccine side effects?

I mean, they were everywhere. Including on the CDC's website. Methinks he's exaggerating (and of course, he "wasn't part of those conversations.") so I'd like to see the specifics. My guess is this request isn't so black and white.

Also: Rogan claimed "they" were suppressing information about high dose Vitamin C. Any evidence for that?

I did a Google search and the first thing that came up was a government site expressing the value of it in cancer treatment.

I have one other point: Zuck laments the decline of what I'll call "legacy media" because it's the term thrown around here. For being slanted.

He's one of the major reasons that happened.

A. Facebook and others took away a lot of their ad revenue and they had to change their entire revenue model quickly.
B. Feeds went from reverse chrono to algorithmic. Facebook and others discovered people want things that reinforce their worldview or elicit an emotional response. So their algorithms were tuned to do that. Which meant in order to get attention and generate revenue, legacy media needed to adopt the same model. Not that they didn't before, it's always been a thing. But algorithms and an explosion of user generated content meant you had to go to greater extremes to get attention.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I have yet to run into a particular COVID topic where the trial/study data was not publicly available. There were some that you had to pay for, but they are mostly (all?) out there. There is nothing being "hidden" when it comes to the vaccines or their contents that I am aware of. People want to piss and moan that their third party sources or SOME third party source isn't giving them complete information. Here's a thought, stop using those sources and go directly to the people doing the work next time?