No shit. All online conversations on social media shouldn’t be treated as reliable information. Not all data is of the same quality. I thought this was obvious, apparently it isn’t.
That actually makes me wonder if these things have any correlation besides “more inferences = more true”. You’d hope they have things like: if on wikipedia=big mega true, if on some random dude’s blog=maybe kinda true, if on the onion=not true.
My guess is they use the vote counts to classify the reliability of the data. They might even have vote identities to classify the data based on audience. That actually seems pretty likely, now that I think of it. It would be an important part of making them effective propaganda tools, which I believe is one of the end goals.
No shit. All online conversations on social media shouldn’t be treated as reliable information. Not all data is of the same quality. I thought this was obvious, apparently it isn’t.
That actually makes me wonder if these things have any correlation besides “more inferences = more true”. You’d hope they have things like: if on wikipedia=big mega true, if on some random dude’s blog=maybe kinda true, if on the onion=not true.
My guess is they use the vote counts to classify the reliability of the data. They might even have vote identities to classify the data based on audience. That actually seems pretty likely, now that I think of it. It would be an important part of making them effective propaganda tools, which I believe is one of the end goals.