1129
It's expensive to be poor (thelemmy.club)
submitted 3 months ago by [M] to c/latestagecapitalism@lemmy.world
176 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

You're dodging the issue I have. I'm not arguing with the "resonation of truth." No one here is arguing with the message.

It's presented as real.

That's the problem. This is upvoted for its apparent authenticity, and it. Is. Not. Real. It's a story.

...Look, tell me this. Lets say you're OP. You found this post yourself, you posted it, but later you found out it's a content farm account. Which would you do:

  • A: Edit it. Label it as such in the title.

  • B: Keep it as is.

  • C: Something else. Delete it?

And yes, you could post a comment, but the vast majority of viewers wouldn't see that. You could crop out the poster, but that's giving no indication the post isn't authentic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

    I'm not dodging the issue. You even copied a quote of me facing the "issue."

    Just because it's a bot doesn't make the validity of the message any less. It just means OP should clip out the account's name.[emphasis added onto original text]

    It's presented as a tweet. Whether or not you trust any tweet is a personal decision. You yourself, unless you have a habit of checking the background of every tweet picture posted, decided not to trust this one.

    You keep saying it's upvoted for its authenticity and I keep saying that's not the case. If this was framed as a hypothetical, it would get much the same reception because they aren't saying "wow, it's sad this destitute man is having trouble renting a new home. We should make things better for real people like Jeremy. "

    They're probably thinking, "fuck yeah, I feel that. Shit's expensive out here for everybody."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

    You keep saying it’s upvoted for its authenticity and I keep saying that’s not the case. If this was framed as a hypothetical, it would get much the same reception because they aren’t saying "wow, it’s sad this destitute man is having trouble renting a new home. We should make things better for real people like Jeremy. "

    I dispute this.

    Post a similar Tweet, like this, but label it as "hypothetical" right in the title. Not as a comment or mention, but smack where people see it before they read the Tweet.

    It might get some upvotes, but I'm positive it wouldn't make it to #1 on the front page.

    It’s presented as a tweet. Whether or not you trust any tweet is a personal decision.

    I think this is disingenuous too.

    ...Do you really think, when most people are reading this post, their initial thought is. "Huh, a tweet. I dunno if this Jeremy guy is real, let me consider that... Eh, I like the sentiment anyway. Upvote."

    That's nonsense.

    No one even checked and posted about it until now, apparently.

    It's not a choice. Most never knew to choose! The Tweet is worded as if a real person describing their situation, so that's what the initial assumption will be.

    Just because it’s a bot doesn’t make the validity of the message any less. It just means OP should clip out the account’s name.[emphasis added onto original text]

    And this does nothing.

    It removes attribution. But it does nothing to suggest the Tweet isn't authentic.

    ...And you didn't answer my question, I don't think.

    To be clear, if you were OP of this post, what would you do now? Just remove the author, that's it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    ...Do you really think, when most people are reading this post, their initial thought is. "Huh, a tweet. I dunno if this Jeremy guy is real, let me consider that... Eh, I like the sentiment anyway. Upvote."

    I didn't even read the account's name until your comment (I also didn't upvote because I don't upvote a post unless it's small and/or I really like it).

    I try to not extend my experience as "normative" to other people but I don't believe people are giving names much credence unless they're famous.

    To be clear, if you were OP of this post, what would you do now? Just remove the author, that's it?

    Idk if you can hotswap the content of a post. If I learned after posting, I'd probably just delete the post because I don't feel strongly enough to put the work into editing and reposting. I wouldn't have even posted this in the first place because I don't think this is novel enough to be posting. That's almost besides the pount but you asked for personal opinions.

    If I knew beforehand (and was possessed of a desire to share this), yeah, I'd just cut out the account name.

    I agree the tweet form factor drives engagement for some reason, but if the username were "fake-anti-capitalist-tweets" with a blue thumbs up icon, I'm certain it would have moved in much the same ways.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago*

    I agree the tweet form factor drives engagement for some reason, but if the username were “fake-anti-capitalist-tweets” with a blue thumbs up icon, I’m certain it would have moved in much the same ways.

    If it was actually impossible to miss, I disagree.

    Idk if you can hotswap the content of a post. If I learned after posting, I’d probably just delete the post because I don’t feel strongly enough to put the work into editing and reposting. I wouldn’t have even posted this in the first place because I don’t think this is novel enough to be posting. That’s almost besides the pount but you asked for personal opinions.

    Well this is admirable, but:

    If I knew beforehand (and was possessed of a desire to share this), yeah, I’d just cut out the account name.

    I think this is where you and I have a fundamental difference of viewpoints, that's not going to be resolved.

    To me, this would be the same as filing the author off an article I knew was fake, and reposting it with no context. It's disingenous. I'd interpet it as presenting something to the internet as authentic, and hiding that its not. And if it needed the "hypothetical" label, I just wouldn't post it at all, because what's the point of that? Just post the thought directly.

    The source comes before the message, for me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent