Kalcifer @ Kalcifer @sh.itjust.works

All of this user's content is licensed under [CC BY 4.0](https://creativeco

---

Read more

Posts

161

Comments

1,710

Joined

2 yr. ago

Which explains a lot of how the 21st century is going, honestly.

I agree with the conclusion, but not the premise, or at least not if used as an explicit argument — I think your premise is itself an example for your conclusion. I believe your premise is more an example of why there is, arguably, such a problem with misinformation and disinformation right now: I think it serves to increase the risk to appeals to authority; though, it's a double edged sword as, imo, unchecked skepticism erodes one's trust in reality.

[…] I’m saying anybody who has to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, and thus is an acting journalist is statistically very likely to be extremely unqualified for the job. […]

What, in your opinion, would determine if someone is qualified to fact check a news article? Do you have criteria?

Also probably extremely unqualified to be one.

Are you saying that I'm unqualified to be a journalist?

I don't understand how exactly this differs from something like Tor.

Ahh, yeah, I think I did misunderstand you — my bad! I didn't realize that you were describing something like indentured servitude.

When I actually post something informative, it seems crazy to not include the links I already have anyway. And make sure it’s viewable in the wayback machine if it’s something so predictably ephemeral…

Citing sources is a practice that I think is sorely lacking in public discourse currently. I appreciate all efforts to quell misinformation and disinformation.

[…] for […] brevity. […]

I don't agree that citing sources affects that. For example, anecdotally, a citation can just take the form of a footnote in the document.

[…] for practicality […]

Imagine having to document every bit of background research in a presentable way.

Well, presumably, that's their job ^[1]. Being responsible takes effort /s.

Their reputation and past reporting is supposed to back up things they state as facts […]

Imo, this in an example of an appeal to authority — an argument isn't sound because it should be, but because it is. I believe that it's a disservice to the truth and constructive public discourse to not cite one's claims.

Good catch. Given that that it's currently still available ^[1], I would guess that it's likely not the case that Google is purging reviews. Imo, one review is hardly review bombing, but at least that's proof of one claim made by a news outlet ^[2] (It's terrible, imo, that we have to be the ones fact checking claims being made by news organizations. Doesn't that make us the journalists?).

Instead of broken windows needing replacement, we have broken CEOs needing protection.

Hm, but a possible effect, imo, is that this incentivizes those companies to start being more consumer-friendly — perhaps they make a connection that predatory policies are a risk to their safety so, to mitigate that risk, they take more consumer-friendly position. However, I think where that idea may break down and become more like the broken window fallacy is if people get the idea that policies will keep improving if CEO's keep getting killed — I think that would just make it so that insurance companies are too scared to operate, which would shift the supply curve to the left ^[1].

Yes.

In that biology course, how would you want the biology knowledge to be taught to the students? Like what form would the knowledge take? For example, would it be that you want students to simply memorize a sort of currently understood concepts in biology? Would it be something else?

Years in jail. […]

For clarity, are you saying that the more that people are incarcerated, the more money the private prisons and jails make?

If it had a definition, it wouldn’t be nonsense, would it?

It would depend on the definition in question. The term in a vacuum is just a collection of words — what those words mean is rather important, imo.

If you're willing to believe a couple of random news outlets:

https://www.axios.com/2024/12/09/altoona-mcdonalds-luigi-mangione-unitedhealthcare

https://www.ibtimes.com/altoona-mcdonalds-flooded-angry-1-star-reviews-after-arrest-suspected-unitedhealthcare-ceo-3754683

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/dec/9/altoona-pennsylvania-mcdonald-reviews-go-negative-/

Thanks for the sources! I wish that news articles would actually cite how they know things — it's annoying to me that their statements regarding the reviews are essentially conjecture — I don't want to have to feel like I need to just take their word for it.

Not hard to imagine thag G**gle would be on the case, deleting reviews by now.

Fair point.

[…] what do you think it is?

Note that your shifting of the burden of proof is not a sound argument for the veracity of your claims. At any rate, imo, exactly what it means depends on the context; however, it's generally accepted as the theory that certain economic policies favoring those on the upper tier of the economic spectrum will trickle down to benefit the masses ^[1][2].

I’m not […]

What do you mean? Are you saying that you don't have a definition for the term that you are using?

I don’t understand how signal intends to pay for servers forever with voluntary donations.

I think donations can be sustainable if the service in question is handled correctly. Imo, federation/decentralization would improve this, as it wouldn't place the cost burden on a single entity.

I almost think that’s a pro. I don’t understand how signal intends to pay for servers forever with voluntary donations.

In the same vein, a privately owned service, to me, is rather suspect if it is free of cost — the money's gotta come from somewhere.