- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Platforms can also respond to misleading content that does not violate official policies using community-based moderation that adds context to misleading posts (like X’s Community Notes and YouTube’s new crowdsourced note program). Larger platform changes such as ranking content based on quality, rather than engagement, might hit at the root of the problem rather being than a Band-Aid fix.
You must log in or # to comment.
Larger platform changes such as ranking content based on quality, rather than engagement, might hit at the root of the problem
Wait, we shouldn’t just let people create intentionally divisive outrage machines?
Bold idea, right?! Meanwhile the tech bros in charge of those sites are like “We’ve tried nothing, and we’re all out of ideas!”
Scientific American - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Scientific American:
MBFC: Pro-Science - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
Didn’t read, of course. But let me spare everyone from the drudgery: “Anything right-wing is misinformation”
…lol. Leftists.
I know I probably shouldn’t engage, but I am curious. Do you believe Scientific American has some sort of ideological agenda?
Buddy, you think the concept of the 15-minute city is somehow a nefarious plot to control you. Spare us.
Right-wingers only actually being right about anything when they “think” they’re grossly distorting the truth for a “joke” that ain’t ever funny… where have I seen that before? Oh yeah, everywhere. Like, it must be day that ends with a Y or something.
