I used to love your blog. I know it's *your* blog, so I don't get to say what should be published. And I realise you feel strongly about this topic. But if you post unverified Facebook content, which you used to criticize, saying "might not be true" doesn't change the fact that this blog has become part of the machine for regurgitating Facebook nonsense.
FYI, the Facebook post was written by AI. It's obvious, and I asked four AI-checking tools. It could still be true, but is that where tywkiwdbi is at - reposting unverified, AI-written Facebook slop and saying "hey, who knows, might be something in it!".
Written with love and nostalgia for the old days of earlier this year, before things got spoiled ... James
I suppose you are gone by now, but in case you come back to check replies to your comment, I'd like to ask which parts of the post you believe to be untrue - Iran collecting fees from tankers, their use of Bitcoin, their threats to the undersea cables, their threats to other Gulf states... I have no way to "independently" verify almost anything I post, including archaeology findings or severed feet stories.
you should look into tiktok, that's an even better source of news items than facebook.
from what i can tell from your comment here (the facebook link having been removed) , those are (at least) four different stories that have been reported by reputable media. but it is an entirely different kettle of fish to have a pastiche linking those stories, from a site notorious for manipulated, fearmongering, and rage-baiting content.
and fwiw, "the severed foot saga continues" had 7 sources, because that is a real story, from more or less reliable sources, picked by you. and that's the way we like it.
I respect you engaging with my comment. I've been reading this blog for what feels like 20+ years and I'm not going anywhere. I will continue to read - worst case, I imagine that when Trump goes, this place will revert to butterfly migrations.
It *may* all be true. I don't know if any of it is untrue. I'd have to put hours (days) of effort into checking, via reputable news sources, and for much of it we probably can't tell because our news sources don't have the kind of Iran coverage that would need (I read Aljazeera but even so).
But that's not how I want news to work - that there's an AI article from an unknown source on a low-quality network (Facebook) and now the onus is on me do ten hours of research. When I read CNN and they say something happened, I don't *know* it's true, because I'm not there, so I go with CNN's reputation. And we could debate the reputation of mainstream media (I do), but on balance, CNN is up there with the best and pretty reliable.
This Facebook writer, assuming what he says on his profile is true, is a financial consultant based in Canada, but somehow has deep Iran knowledge (sure, he might do, but the odds are low), and by financial consultant he means crypto shilling (again, according to his own page). If you click to his website, that leads you to his YouTube - watch ten seconds of his videos and tell me, is this man a reliable source for deep-in-Iran news (or any news). And as I said, the article is written by AI.
I suspect bits of it are true, bits are rumours, bits are untrue. It's no secret that Iran wants to charge for the straits. It's been widely discussed that a full tanker might have to pay a million or two. And so on (I didn't read the whole Facebook article). But that's why we want proper news organizations - to work on the nuance, to distill the we-don't-know-yet. Not a crypto weirdo (and hey, I'm very into crypto myself) getting an AI bot to produce some Facebook slop. James
Greetings, James. I quite agree with your comment in paragraph 2, but I simply do not have hours (days) to check material. I'm not under a deadline, don't have to crank material out on a schedule or to justify a subscription, and I wouldn't have to post anything for days. But I don't want to use that time to research topics like government and international events.
I would be more intense as a fact-checker if I intended the audience for the blog to be large and to be demanding of such. But mostly I just blog what comes to mind and I use it to express opinions to my cousins in Peru and Barcelona and Montana and others who have wandered in. I have to trust that people will speed on through whatever doesn't appeal to them.
Re our war against Iran I am not anti-American or unpatriotic, but I do abhor the ridiculous way it was instituted and conducted, and I'm starting to see consequences that could stretch out for many years and the economic crises attendant to that. I see others online at Facebook who feel the way I do about this total clusterfuck of a war, and sometimes I cite them to save writing a long rant or cautionary advice myself.
As others have pointed out, sharing a rumor on a butterfly population is different than current world events.
It is much easier today to create mis- and disinformation than it was just two years ago. Our mental models have to adapt to this.
The reason we come here, and reply here, is because of trust. Tossing slop at the wall because it's interesting would diminish this trust over time.
One of the most reputable verifiers of information is Bellingcat. Their guides on identifying misinformation and their investigations will be interesting to you even disregarding this current discussuion.
I don't think you quite understand the relationship here. I don't care whether you trust me or whether you even visit and read. I would actually prefer to have a smaller readership because then I would have fewer comments to screen. I'm not trying to make a popular blog. TYWKIWDBI is where I store neat stuff. The main reader will be ME when I'm demented I plan to reread all the interesting posts here, forget them, re-read them etc. I plan to incorporate more "slop" and "crap" in the future when it pleases me. You may need to get faster on your scrollling speed
Given how often you ask for, and receive, advice the relationship might be more nuanced than presented. That helper demographic tends to disagree with slop.
PS You make a good point about how you can't verify almost anything. But with a neolithic trackway in Somerset, it's unlikely to be made up, and it doesn't really matter. Whereas topics like this are more likely to have vested interests who want to make things up, and it does matter, not only in itself but for maintaining a higher ground in a world where truth is very under attack.
I used to love your blog. I know it's *your* blog, so I don't get to say what should be published. And I realise you feel strongly about this topic. But if you post unverified Facebook content, which you used to criticize, saying "might not be true" doesn't change the fact that this blog has become part of the machine for regurgitating Facebook nonsense.
ReplyDeleteFYI, the Facebook post was written by AI. It's obvious, and I asked four AI-checking tools. It could still be true, but is that where tywkiwdbi is at - reposting unverified, AI-written Facebook slop and saying "hey, who knows, might be something in it!".
Written with love and nostalgia for the old days of earlier this year, before things got spoiled ... James
I suppose you are gone by now, but in case you come back to check replies to your comment, I'd like to ask which parts of the post you believe to be untrue - Iran collecting fees from tankers, their use of Bitcoin, their threats to the undersea cables, their threats to other Gulf states... I have no way to "independently" verify almost anything I post, including archaeology findings or severed feet stories.
Deleteyou should look into tiktok, that's an even better source of news items than facebook.
Deletefrom what i can tell from your comment here (the facebook link having been removed) , those are (at least) four different stories that have been reported by reputable media.
but it is an entirely different kettle of fish to have a pastiche linking those stories, from a site notorious for manipulated, fearmongering, and rage-baiting content.
and fwiw, "the severed foot saga continues" had 7 sources, because that is a real story, from more or less reliable sources, picked by you. and that's the way we like it.
I'm pretty sure 'Anonymous' is the name auto generated by AI when it wants to try and prove it is a real boy.
DeleteDid you check the author of the Facebook post? He appears to be a real person concerned with investments and finance?
Deletehttps://www.facebook.com/vnzabbar/
DeleteI respect you engaging with my comment. I've been reading this blog for what feels like 20+ years and I'm not going anywhere. I will continue to read - worst case, I imagine that when Trump goes, this place will revert to butterfly migrations.
ReplyDeleteIt *may* all be true. I don't know if any of it is untrue. I'd have to put hours (days) of effort into checking, via reputable news sources, and for much of it we probably can't tell because our news sources don't have the kind of Iran coverage that would need (I read Aljazeera but even so).
But that's not how I want news to work - that there's an AI article from an unknown source on a low-quality network (Facebook) and now the onus is on me do ten hours of research. When I read CNN and they say something happened, I don't *know* it's true, because I'm not there, so I go with CNN's reputation. And we could debate the reputation of mainstream media (I do), but on balance, CNN is up there with the best and pretty reliable.
This Facebook writer, assuming what he says on his profile is true, is a financial consultant based in Canada, but somehow has deep Iran knowledge (sure, he might do, but the odds are low), and by financial consultant he means crypto shilling (again, according to his own page). If you click to his website, that leads you to his YouTube - watch ten seconds of his videos and tell me, is this man a reliable source for deep-in-Iran news (or any news). And as I said, the article is written by AI.
I suspect bits of it are true, bits are rumours, bits are untrue. It's no secret that Iran wants to charge for the straits. It's been widely discussed that a full tanker might have to pay a million or two. And so on (I didn't read the whole Facebook article). But that's why we want proper news organizations - to work on the nuance, to distill the we-don't-know-yet. Not a crypto weirdo (and hey, I'm very into crypto myself) getting an AI bot to produce some Facebook slop. James
Greetings, James. I quite agree with your comment in paragraph 2, but I simply do not have hours (days) to check material. I'm not under a deadline, don't have to crank material out on a schedule or to justify a subscription, and I wouldn't have to post anything for days. But I don't want to use that time to research topics like government and international events.
DeleteI would be more intense as a fact-checker if I intended the audience for the blog to be large and to be demanding of such. But mostly I just blog what comes to mind and I use it to express opinions to my cousins in Peru and Barcelona and Montana and others who have wandered in. I have to trust that people will speed on through whatever doesn't appeal to them.
Re our war against Iran I am not anti-American or unpatriotic, but I do abhor the ridiculous way it was instituted and conducted, and I'm starting to see consequences that could stretch out for many years and the economic crises attendant to that. I see others online at Facebook who feel the way I do about this total clusterfuck of a war, and sometimes I cite them to save writing a long rant or cautionary advice myself.
As others have pointed out, sharing a rumor on a butterfly population is different than current world events.
DeleteIt is much easier today to create mis- and disinformation than it was just two years ago. Our mental models have to adapt to this.
The reason we come here, and reply here, is because of trust. Tossing slop at the wall because it's interesting would diminish this trust over time.
One of the most reputable verifiers of information is Bellingcat. Their guides on identifying misinformation and their investigations will be interesting to you even disregarding this current discussuion.
I don't think you quite understand the relationship here. I don't care whether you trust me or whether you even visit and read. I would actually prefer to have a smaller readership because then I would have fewer comments to screen. I'm not trying to make a popular blog. TYWKIWDBI is where I store neat stuff. The main reader will be ME when I'm demented I plan to reread all the interesting posts here, forget them, re-read them etc. I plan to incorporate more "slop" and "crap" in the future when it pleases me. You may need to get faster on your scrollling speed
DeleteThat is your privilege to decide.
DeleteGiven how often you ask for, and receive, advice the relationship might be more nuanced than presented. That helper demographic tends to disagree with slop.
Understood, and I don't totally disagree. Perhaps we can agree to disagree.
DeletePS You make a good point about how you can't verify almost anything. But with a neolithic trackway in Somerset, it's unlikely to be made up, and it doesn't really matter. Whereas topics like this are more likely to have vested interests who want to make things up, and it does matter, not only in itself but for maintaining a higher ground in a world where truth is very under attack.
ReplyDeleteI am going to find out who is building the way around this stupid choke point and invest in that.
ReplyDeleteIt's a Pandora's Box Jellyfish, opened by an orange flavoured clown.
ReplyDelete