askxnakjsn

I was thinking more along the lines of a true spectrum, like a percentage system. What you have here is a bunch of qualitative truthiness symbols decided arbitrarily, it's not much different from just saying true or false.

For example, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/marijuana-electron-microsc... this article would lead a passerby to believe that there is equal parts truth and lie in this picture + caption. In reality I would judge this as 'mostly true' because the caption is more true than it is false.

The bad thing about snopes is they don't have a spectrum, it's a binary 'fact or not fact' system. This means even a slight bit of bias can be the difference between fact or not.

But the more important question is why a random website is being used as the basis for truth. They don't even try to hide the bias in their language, it's just filled with words you would never see in an academic document.

Getting things wrong on occasion is better than having some sort of idiot free for all.

This is an excuse to be lazy and not try to establish truth at all, which is way worse than getting the 'truth' wrong sometimes.

What could you possibly want to post that might get taken down by twitter? Unless you post actual nazi propaganda or violence or something, it's a pretty free place. Remembering that freedom means people get to tell you to shut up, of course.

Now that I think about it, why aren't most messaging apps peer to peer? Shouldn't that be the standard? I mean it's literally the point of messages: sending from one person to another.

The big problem with this is that you expect the computer to respond to your clicks naturally and instantly and instead you are put on hold while an animation plays. It may not break the latency rule strictly, but theoretically feels like it should be added on there because it has the same effect for users who don't care about animations (aka most users).