How long do you think a tweet takes to write?
What are they supposed to do about roe v wade? Are you passing the blame for that being overturned to them instead of Trump and republicans who are responsible?
Is this a way to help republicans win in the midterms, deflect the blame for roe v wade to some unrelated organization?
What's an alternative to reputation?
Can you also provides evidence that activists have taken over most sources of information in the US?
Most sources of information that the majority of people consume and trust, yes: https://dfmworkers.org/hedge-funds-and-newspapers-a-simple-p...
I can definitely see how fake or real activism would benefit hedge funds to drive attention away from news about how they've been destroying the financial markets and economy through deregulation and corruption.
I can also see why they would want to own newspapers to just directly trade on whatever they know will be in their own newspaper tomorrow (or news website in 1 second).
Higher probability of being truthful is actually too low a low bar, if it comes to asserting a bias over truth when it really matters.
Everyone has biases, that includes companies since they are composed of and controlled by people It's difficult to determine if a person or companies biases affected the information they provide with certainty. Further I'll state that since everyone has these biases it's basically a wash and pointless to discuss on an individual level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Higher probability of being truthful is actually too low a low bar"
We can't set some minimum level of reliability that needs to be passed because we are ranking sources against each other not against an undefined value. Even figuring out what that value is seems extremely difficult. This reminds me of the corruption discussion a few weeks ago, people were comparing the US to nothing, just making statements like "There's alot of corruption".
Since we need to get information about what's going on around us we have to use one or more sources of information. Therefore if there is a contradiction between sources we use reputation. --------------------------------------------------------------------
"You should simply believe what I say due to my strong reputation on social networks"
I don't know your reputation nor has anyone else told me about you. However let's talk about why, in general, individuals on the internet are more likely to be less trust worthy than dedicated news outlets. This is assuming you are only using reputation and there's no other variables.
1. People on the internet can and normally do use a pseudonym. Having to create a new account with a new name isn't that painful if your reputation is destroyed for some reason. This is much more difficult for a business. Since the consequences of starting over are less for a person it increases the probability of they are lying because it reduces the effect of a punishment
2. An individuals primary function isn't the distribution of information nor are they funded by it. CNN is a news network, that's their main function. If people stop watching them they can go out of business whereas a person on the internet just continue living even if their reputation is ruined.
Since the stakes are so low for a person that increases the probability they'll lie (This is similar to 1)
3. Due to anonymity it would be difficult to sue individuals on the internet for defamation or to hold them accountable in. CNN is a company that is registered as a corporation.
It's difficult to enact punishments for a person on the internet vs companies and the less likely a punishment will occur or the less painful the punishment the higher the probability a person will commit the crime
As for social networks. Both businesses and reddit'ers gain reputation by simply saying things others want them to say. Your theories all depend on people wanting the truth, as opposed to being told what they want to hear. And my statement was actually a joke because of how you so quickly pivoted from asking what alternative there was to reputation, to then asking me for thorough evidence.
The reason I asked you for proof was because the website you linked doesn't show that activists have taken over us news and are pushing an agends. Most of the points are about money, hedgefunds , and it also talks about how local papers are better to determine local corruption.
Where's the activist agenda information?
Conditional probability in this case is the probability computed with samples restricted to only the politically-charged topics, when the nuanced facts might not lead to public behavior they felt was right.
I don't get responses where people point out that a proposal to solve a problem won't be 100% effective.
It's also kind of funny that this idea comes from Japan, where school history textbooks, an authorative data source of sorts, have had a rather optimistic view on the world during 1937–1945.
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_history_textbook_controv...
Seems like that's been cleaned up and they were omitting information, which is bad, but when I think of misinformation I think of lies.
EDIT: Just to be clear, your statement was "where school history textbooks, an authorative data source of sorts, have had a rather optimistic view " which implies it is widespread and happening now. My counter shows that not to be true.