Starting threads with a Twitter post - your thoughts?

I'll point out one potential issue here: many media sources do have paywalls which makes them less good as thread starters. I think the issue comes down to how to judge the Twitter accounts being used. I'd be fine with a rule about it needing to be from a major news source, politician, or think tank rather than some rando on Twitter.

Edit: the issue is always the definition of "major:" but how about this for a rule? No Twitter threads from a person that doesn't use a real name or organization name?

 

Absent? No. You were not the OP'ster but you did respond to the OP'ster and comment on the thread several times.

You made a few posts on this thread and no doubt remember it. But your impression of what was discussed, should or might have happened, is speculative and inaccurate. No one is attempting to ""censor X." We're looking for balance. That's what is being discussed / debated.

The thread was reported, but for hours no moderating action was taken to edit the thread's posts or delete it. It remained unedited as it was posted. River made the first comment on the report to the Moderator forum. "Thoughts on threads like this? Anonymous poster on X posts a claim based on some other anonymous claim..."
Further adding, "Years ago, we had a problem with people starting threads on Too Hot with an email they'd received, with no real concern about it being true or not. Just as long as it said something bad about the other side."

Gator Growl put a stop to that practice.

River closed his post on the thread's report asking -
"Do threads like this add anything real, or just more crap?"

Several hours after the original report there were still no responses from any other Mod and River again asked, "No mods have thoughts about it?"

It was shortly after this 2nd inquiry I first read the thread and found the report thread with River's comments and questions added hours earlier that same day. And it was then I added my comment to the report thread, copied and posted on this thread as post #67. Repeated again:
"Leaving this thread on Too Hot would be as irresponsible and damaging as the Springfield Haitians eating pets story later deleted from Facebook by the apologetic person who posted the story. I'd hate for the forum to in any way contribute or be responsible in spreading a possibly / likely false and devastating rumor. That's not who we should be. It will be discussed."

I then locked the thread and a senior mod later removed it from Too Hot. And since then the policies and protocols for dealing with posts and threads like this controversial one has been under discussion.

 

This wasn't from just today. We have been discussing it behind the scenes for a while. Its actually an age old problem. The media format just evolves.

 

They aren't "leading the charge". He started the thread that has been an ongoing bts conversation forever. Its just evolved over to X from email and FB.

He isn't asking anything that the entire mod team hasnt already discussed.

Your not a victim here.

 

This seems like a good compromise.

 

I would agree, outside of certain sources.

If its a source that we deem credible in other media, then I am ok with it from X as well.

For instance, if Trump tweets something dumb, I think that could start a thread.

Or if Anderson Cooper or Tucker actually tweet somethjng that is ok too.

But @ Magapatriot102547 on x with 13 followers doesnt get any benefit of the doubt.

 

How long has/was the "Fine People Hoax" allowed to prosper at Too Hot? 6 or 7 years? It was easily debunked by reading 3 paragraphs from the transcript of Trump's remarks.

 

I don’t understand the issue with “dumb tweets”. Just ignore them.

I’ve flushed dozens of offensive lefties from Too Woke as well as skip over comments from two mods ….. and have found the quantity of discussion to be profoundly improved. Just ignore and skip comments you know are just mindless pablum. There’s enough of that on the MSM newsfeed; no need to see it regurgitated on Too Woke.

 

As you are the OP'ster of the problematic thread currently in the spotlight, you should be aware it was I who locked the thread, not River.

 

My next thread from “Dave”. I am not saying he is an alien, but, he is an alien.

 

I don't see why the thread is problematic. It jives pretty well with a NY Post story where the Post hired a lip reader to interpret what Obama and Biden were saying at a funeral, I believe. I trust Jack Posobiec as much or more than anybody else in the MSM


rivergator: "Good grief. Posobiec has a long history of dishonesty, including pushing the ridiculous Pizzagate crap. Locking the thread."

That made it look like river locked the thread. I think river does a great job of moderating as I've always said. FWIW

One of the higher ups here has told me I'm doing a good job with my posts. So your deletions of several of my posts is of no concern. If you still think Roger Maris Jr was never in Alligator Alley all you had to do was make 1 phone call. Most of your suspicions about me could have been resolved in 30 seconds. Like I said, you do make me smile. All good lacuna

 

I think there's an obvious distinction between a spam email someone received, a Facebook post someone saw and a tweet. X (formerly Twitter) made its name on breaking news before anyone else by providing a direct instantaneous connect to the people before stories would even hit the wire. Is it perfect? No, of course not. But X did delete the accusation. And it's not like fake news doesn't come from a multitude of well-known media outlets. There's a difference between banning spam emails and the largest right-leaning social media network in the world, owned by the richest man in the world who just happens to be a Republican now.

I don't know that I would call myself a victim, but if you put this restriction on X posts, it is a form of censorship. And if anybody's vote was changed based on that tweet being on THFSG for a few hours, they probably shouldn't be voting in the first place. In this day and time, you have to be able to use your brain. Notwithstanding the multitude of other clear lies that are posted about various figures on this forum daily, I see zero distinction. In fact, since this is supposedly "Too Hot", let the users roast whomever posts the uncorroborated material. If it becomes corroborated, some users will have egg on their face. If it doesn't, then the OP will lose credibility. IOW, it's a problem that will take care of itself, if it's even a problem at all.

 

Such threads should not be allowed for the reasons you state.
What has been the breakdown on the responses you've received so far?

 

Here’s why, I see it all over the place people post crap and don’t even try to vet it. Then it becomes some complete BS story.

I rarely start a thread in part because there is so much garbage being thrown about I don’t want to be that guy.

I think you’re overstating about the left hating every site people on the right post from. Certainly there are some who will never believe a negative about the left just like some on the right who won’t believe a negative about Trump.

I’d think we can do better.

 

Yeah, then that person with a damaged reputation might need to come back under a new name...

 

Although neither is really acceptable, there is a difference between paraphrasing for effect rather than using a direct quote which was the case of the "fine people" quote and outright lying such as greatly exaggerating the number of crimes committed by illegal aliens to the point where the numbers bear no relationship to reality. There is also Trump's story about Haitians eating cats and dogs which he continued to promulgate even after it was debunked as well as his reference to Haitians in Springfield, Ohio as "illegal aliens" when they in fact have legal status.

 

Absence of proof isn't proof of absence. A lot of people say Haitians sacrifice and sometimes eat cats and other animals.

 

I read the first page, but not all the pages. I don’t have a definitive thought either way

What I don’t like is

- threads started with unsubstantiated crap from social media
- posters that spam the board with the other side is bad gotcha topics without any discussion. I generally find these posters aren’t very smart or articulate so this is their way of hiding and trying to look smart.

I guess I would say a tweet quoting an otherwise acceptable media source is OK.

As to should the OP provide commentary? At one level it seems kind of arbitrary. If it reduces spam threads by idiots then I support it.

 

But others who aren’t frequent fliers of Too Hot might not have your engrained knowledge. That’s the danger (if you believe posting disinformation on Gator Country creates a danger).