The evil version of this is when people cite a click bait article, you go to the article and read the attached study and the study is not backing up their claims in any meaningful way. Like come on bro you clearly haven't read this study don't cite it and claim I need to educate myself.
Average YouTube influencer for me.
It's gotten even worse in the past year. Most of them sound like they're parroting AI summaries of blog posts and sprinkling stupid ass cutaway gags to memes. Like rather than actually consuming the entire body of context around a subject and having an informed take, they're just giving shallow thoughts and trying to monetize.
Any YouTuber whose whole angle is to spicy commentary on current events in tech/programming is definitely part of the trash heap.
Problem here is you're watching "influencers."
The sources are released under a source-available license, you are legally prohibited from reading them
Or you can get a monthly subscription for only $39.9!
That subscription allows you to ask the question to an AI that may or may not hallucinate.
Well, then... At least we will have apparently made enough progress by then to have eliminated the penny from circulation.
I literally had to cite the page number from the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 Public Law 117-328 that covered how the $800M that Trump keeps telling everyone FEMA spent on migrants was a completely different fund than the disaster relief fund that FEMA uses for hurricanes. Which the DRF was established originally as it's own fund in the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 Public Law 100-707
It's page 4,730 where that item is located for anyone wondering.
I fucking hate what online interactions have become. I think I've easily read over 200,000 pages of government legislation, federal regulation, and legal proceedings since June because of the lies one orange shit stain keeps telling. I really do hope that the Republicans can move past that fucker, it was a lot easier to talk politics.
MrFilmKritic on Twitter has the answer for you.
Yeah, I decided this a couple years ago unless someone seems unusually reasonable. No source will ever be good enough. The block button is the best way forward for most people who ask for a source. Because you can tell most people think asking for one is "winning" as soon as it's asked
Because they want to exhaust the person engaging in a good faith discussion. It’s far more labor intensive to have to look for, find, verify for contextual correctness, quote and link said sources, then argue why one’s position is factually correct.
And all the other person has to do is cite some patently false bullshit in 5 seconds and disregard the argument.
Aka, "Why Don't You Respond to Criticism?"
It all boils down to bad faith. They don't care what argument you make, you'll never sway them. They're not interested in the debate with you as much as as they are just getting their bullshit out there for randos to read. Like you say, while you're finding sources and making sure everyone agrees on terminology they've already said 3 more things that are completely wrong.
I bet they saw the source and said "oh, yes, thank you for the source, I have updated my opinion based on this new information."
The one on the right is a bearded 8 year old who never saw snow. He has a beard due to micro plastics. He thinks all pictures online of snow are AI generated. He’s also an asshole to everyone and rightfully so because his life and planet has been doomed. Welcome to 2034.
ngl, I don't comment nearly as often anymore out of concern for anything I say to be misconstrued, argued, or wanting verification like this meme. Ya'll, I've got a job and a life, I can't/don't want to sit here and fight people. The worst gets assumed of anything and it gets difficult to have productive, much less positive discourse online.
This is also due to a distinct drop in reader comprehension. One of the largest parts of reading comprehension is being able to infer the intended audience for a particular piece of work. You should be able to read a news article, see a commercial, read a comment, etc and infer who it is aimed at. And the answer is usually not “me”.
People have become accustomed to having an algorithm that is laser focused to their specific preferences. So when they see something that’s not aimed at them it is jarring, and they tend to get upset. Instead of going “oh this clearly isn’t aimed at me, but I can infer who the intended audience is. I’ll move on.” Now they tend to jump on the creator with whataboutisms and imagined offense.
Maybe you make a post about the proper way to throw a football. You’ll inevitably get a few “bUT wHaT abOUt WhEElcHaiR uSerS, I hAvE a baD ShoUlDer aNd cAn’T thROW SO wHaT abOUt me, I haTE FoOtbAll wHY aRe yOU SHowiNG tHIs to Me, etc” types of comments. It’s because those users have lost the ability to infer an intended audience. They automatically assume everything they see is aimed at them, and get offended when it isn’t.
I have even noticed this started to affect the way media is written. Creators tend to make it a point to outright state their intended audience, just to avoid the negative comments.
Hmm good point. Never realized there could be connection with hyper curated algorithm and main character syndrome.
Now I kinda understand why "just look away" makes no sense to these kinda people.
I've already had people demand "source?" for the most mundane facts. Why yes steroids do enhance physical ability.
source?
Read the comment above yours, that's where I learned about it
People are interested in sourcing of information in 2034? I see that as an absolute win.
Winter is on its way out due to climate change. In around the year 2100, it's estimated that there will only be 3 seasons left, no winter. And summer will be much longer and much hotter. So the 3 seasons will be spring, then a 2-season long summer basically, then fall. That's it.
But you can already see the disappearance of winter today because there's much less snow and it's much warmer than like 30 years ago. (Speaking for Germany)
Let's not vilify people asking for citations. With AI it's more important than ever to verify what you're reading.
I'm absolutely okay with vilifying people asking for sources on the historical existence of snow.
Pretty bold comment for someone with no sources.
I've heard a saying, two things you should never do on the Internet are argue or explain. It takes up a lot of mental energy and time to do it for no reward.
I think in many cases the people who explain things are doing a huge service. They’re silently appreciated by many. The true GOATs of the internet.
I’ve read so many great explanations on Reddit for things in math, science, literature, etc and I feel very grateful to the people who explained them.
I asked my employer provided AI assistant if this is true and it assured me that natural snowfall was disinformation invented by leftists in order to destroy our capitalist utopia.
"The sky is blue"
"No stupid that's woke liberal propaganda Trump 2024"
Or when you bring sources and they straight up ignore them entirely...
I understand not wanting to read or go through the entire Marxist-Leninist books I recommend, not everybody has the time for that, but a 5-20 minute article? You waste more time debating me after the fact than you would have just reading the article, at least do me the courtesy of skimming it and trying to engage with my points.
No, that's the current trend here (Switzerland plains).
Same here in Slovenia. 15 years ago we had at least 30cm of snow each winter that would stick around. Now if we even get any snowfall and not just rain it either rains the same day and the snow is gone, or the rain comes a day later and the snow is once again gone.
Also the local lake used to freeze every year. It has froten once in the last 15 years.
I’ve definitely noticed people who challenge anything you say by asking for a source, but make tons of unsourced claims themselves.
Guilty. Show me the almanac. I don’t trust nobody on the internet. Everybody speaks like they’re an expert.
And that's the same person who makes wild absurd claims but well just go off the rails and tell you to do your own research
If somebody would ask for a source it would already be a big improvement. Usually you are just classified as idiot if you dare to have a different view.
I think it's totally reasonable to ask for a source about a historical claim if something hasn't been true for over a decade?
@sharkfucker420 We would have flying cars and spaceships in future
The future:
It's gotten to a point where I just go ahead append a warning that I have no source and am just making casual conversation.
Source: my previous comment on Lemmy.
Family Member: Russia needs to invade Ukraine because they need a shield against NATO.
Me: But NATO wasn't going to attack them. It's a defensive organization.
That's what THEY want you to believe. (Was not able to clarify who "they" were during conversation, but got the impression it wasn't nato)