• tirateimas@lemmy.pt
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • teft@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • 123@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          And how sarcastic replies with high vote ratios like telling someone to add glue to their pizza so pepperoni doesn’t slide around get through.