Jury finds Rolling Stone responsible for defamation with gang rape story

Re:Jury finds Rolling Stone responsible for defamation with ... by morgante on Saturday November 05, 2016 @12:07AM (#12878104)

It's a shame you're being downvoted, because this is totally a legitimate question (why do the least credible stories gain the most attention).

This is a great analysis of the incentives which lead to that being the case (and it's a bit more complex than made-up stories simply being more interesting than real ones): http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Jury finds Rolling Stone responsible for defamation with ... by maxerickson on Saturday November 05, 2016 @09:33AM (#12879703)

why do the least credible stories gain the most attention

Is this so obviously true that it can be stated as a bare fact like that?

I would think the very least credible stories get essentially zero attention, but then I always trip over it when people use a straightforward categorical statement as a way of emphasizing a weaker point.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Jury finds Rolling Stone responsible for defamation with ... by thecabinet on Saturday November 05, 2016 @08:13PM (#12882656)

To summarize SSC: If Republicans agree with you, it doesn't do anything to prove your SJW bonafides. Your dad probably thought the killing of Eric Garner was awful, yawn. But defending Trayvon, now that's a "fuck you".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Jury finds Rolling Stone responsible for defamation with ... by tankenmate on Saturday November 05, 2016 @02:12PM (#12881026)

Thanks for posting that link, it's one of the more thought out musings on controversy, divisiveness, and stubbornness I have read for a while. A good thoughtful read.

[ Parent | on HN ]