Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Just concede the point. This is the most convoluted Rube Goldberg explanation you’ve ever assembled to support a really dumb position.
But you’ll go down swinging. I’ll give you that. You’ll invent a thousand nonsense standards for “newsworthy” and claim the story is bogus (despite the Times and Post now admitting it isn’t) before you’ll concede the obvious that any sane person would’ve 10 posts ago.
It must be exhausting having never been wrong.
|
If a platform knows that a story is heavily promoted, inorganically (whether via technological intervention or just good old-fashioned grassroots organizing) in the run up to an election with the obvious hope of influencing the outcome of that election, should it do anything?
That seems like a really hard question to me. Seems like whether it is technological or organizing probably makes a difference, but in a world that includes bot farms and nearly costless sharing, that may be a very difficult thing to distinguish.
