[…] 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.
All of this user’s content is licensed under CC BY 4.0.
[…] 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.
A reporter is a type of journalist who researches, writes and reports on information in order to present using sources. […]
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?).
Users left reviews for at least three McDonald’s locations in or around Altoona, Pennsylvania, with dozens of people leaving one star ratings and complaining about “rats.” Others more explicitly called out “snitches.”
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.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.
Is that true? I just checked the reviews for all of the McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania on Google Maps [4] and none of them appear to have been review bombed recently or have any mention of the UHI shooter [1][2][3].
Oh, I totally follow the logic of why each group would want a report, but I would still like to have an official source for the functionality besides anecdotes, if possible.
Would you be able to point to a location in the code?
Noted! Thanks! For my own future reference, would you be able to cite official documentation for where that information is located?
An issue that I often find is that misinformation is often spread under the guise of innocent humor. If information becomes oversimplified to the point of becoming incorrect, and it’s shared as such, I think that some people may not internalize that it’s incorrect and will take it at face value. I do think that people have a responsibility to be skeptical of what they read, but I think that the people sharing information also have a responsibility to ensure its accuracy to the best of their ability to, at the very least, reduce the burden on those consuming information, and to reduce the impact of the extremes of people that consume and spread information without any thought given to its accuracy.
This meme seems to be logically flawed — essentially, it’s an example of a faulty generalization: Let A be a set containing “Elites”, “Oligarchs”, and “Plutocrats”, let B be a set of things that are considered “bad”, and let C be a set of things that are considered capitalist; if A is a subset of B (ie all things in A are “bad”), and A is a subset of C (ie all things in A are capitalist) (assuming that those are correct subsumptions), that doesn’t imply that C is necessarily a subset of B (ie that things that are capitalist are bad, or, more generally that capitalism is bad) — there could be elements of C not in B. C is a subset of B if and only if all elements of C are in B (ie all things that are capitalist must be bad). So, for the meme’s logic to be sound A would have to equal C (ie capitalism only contains elites, oligarchs and plutocrats).
Of course, to avoid forming an argument from fallacy, I would like to clarify that this isn’t to argue that the final implied claim of “capitalism is the problem” is wrong, nor the explicit claim that “socialism isn’t the problem”, or, rather that “socialism is the problem” is wrong, but, instead, simply that the argument used is unsound.
Out of curiosity, for reference, could you cite official documentation and/or source code for where that functionality is defined?
I assumed that was there because there are some sites (e.g. reuters.com) that make it difficult to automatically grab a thumbnail image to go with the article. So if you’re posting a link to somewhere like there, you’d find a relevant image manually, and use that field so the post you make will be more engaging.
So are you saying that it only works for posts that are sharing a URL?
Based PSA of the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy!
You should probably also have more than one person with access to the server, to avoid the problems we had with feddit.de .
Which problems are you referring to?
For moderation you’ll want to join https://matrix.to/#/#defense:lemmy.world
Thank you! That’d be an invaluable resource.
When did we reach the point of deep fried Tintin?
Citing sources is a practice that I think is sorely lacking in public discourse currently. I appreciate all efforts to quell misinformation and disinformation.