A rising star.

[SomeStupidName]

Without fact-checking it cannot be defined as debate.

I'm not referring to competitive debates, people debate issue all the time without fact checking. These nonofficial debates are probably largest driving force behind shaping and molding societies since the dawn of time. I'm all for having proof that can be pointed at in public forums for all to see, but I have found that these days that even those artifacts required a debate upon there authenticity. We have a situation where the source of what we thought was the truth has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt to be corrupt and agenda driven. So I ask you who's facts do you deem as actual facts?

[quintessentone]

I'm not referring to competitive debates, people debate issue all the time without fact checking. These nonofficial debates are probably largest driving force behind shaping and molding societies since the dawn of time. I'm all for having proof that can be pointed at in public forums for all to see, but I have found that these days that even those artifacts required a debate upon there authenticity. We have a situation where the source of what we thought was the truth has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt to be corrupt and agenda driven. So I ask you who's facts do you deem as actual facts?

People on social/public forums don't debate, they have heated arguments, get angry because they are emotionally immature and start name calling - I see it everywhere. Depending on one's accepted belief system, if it aligns with other members and moderators who are a majority, they will shape and mold the site into a shitshow.

Facebook was looked upon as a shitshow because their fact-checking was deemed to be slanted to the left of which the moderators followed the rules. Was the fact-checking science- and non-agenda based? I don't know, I'm not really into Facebook, but from what I've seen from it's inception, it's been troubled all along.

They could have improved the existing fact-checking team with fact checkers from both sides, then they could have debated it to establish common truths, but Zuckerberg decided to abandon it to the masses.

Well to me it appears to be a social experiment under the guise of free speech, whatever that means for him.

[Lynyrd Skynyrd]

The left is upset about a swing towards free speech, because they won't be able to control the narrative. Look at all the disinformation the Biden administration and their press allies were trying to foist onto the American public.

[SomeStupidName]

People on social/public forums don't debate, they have heated arguments, get angry because they are emotionally immature and start name calling - I see it everywhere. Depending on one's accepted belief system, if it aligns with other members and moderators who are a majority, they will shape and mold the site into a shitshow.

I would argue that colorful metaphors used properly only enhance a debate. If you find yourself emotional with someone else's opinion that's really only a problem for you to get sorted out with yourself.

[quintessentone]

I would argue that colorful metaphors used properly only enhance a debate. If you find yourself emotional with someone else's opinion that's really only a problem for you to get sorted out with yourself.

It can never be defined as a debate and my point, that you missed, is that if a site is leaning in a biased manner with moderators and members being the majority or leaning in a specific way, then there can be no free speech or proper discussions when the dog piling starts.

There can never be an agreement to disagree because of emotionally immature players and a lack of fairness and this could be from both players and usually is. This is why X.com is losing members because of biased moderation, or wishy-washy moderation by an owner accepting that he may be bi-polar - so don't get on his bad side if he woke up on the wrong side of the bed that day.

Facebook, to me, will devolve into a shitshow as I can't see any other way for it to go.

The social experiment that will now be Facebook

[SomeStupidName]

It can never be defined as a debate and my point, that you missed, is that if a site is leaning in a biased manner with moderators and members being the majority or leaning in a specific way, then there can be no free speech or proper discussions when the dog piling starts.

There can never be an agreement to disagree because of emotionally immature players and a lack of fairness and this could be from both players and usually is. This is why X.com is losing members because of biased moderation, or wishy-washy moderation by an owner accepting that he may be bi-polar - so don't get on his bad side if he woke up on the wrong side of the bed that day.

Facebook, to me, will devolve into a shitshow as I can't see any other way for it to go.

The social experiment that will now be Facebook

I find it odd you would put social media on such a pedestal that a civilized people should have or should ever look at it and think it was or ever will be anything more than a sewer pipe, they're not "communities". I feel like you were not around when computers were first connected to each other for entertainment purposes. The sewer debates will continue as they always have and I don't think anyone will be put off by the fact you don't define them as debates.

[quintessentone]

I find it odd you would put social media on such a pedestal that a civilized people should have or should ever look at it and think it was or ever will be anything more than a sewer pipe, they're not "communities". I feel like you were not around when computers were first connected to each other for entertainment purposes. The sewer debates will continue as they always have and I don't think anyone will be put off by the fact you don't define them as debates.

Well I just found a new social site where their members have put it on a pedestal due to fair and effective moderation, so they are out there albeit few and far in between. Maybe this will be the future of social forums because certainly with membership waning/tanking at X.com and Truth Social it does not take much to learn what is required for a successful forum these days.

Facebook may need to learn the hard way.

[Sirius]

told you
https://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/a63...ne-energy/
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/mar...79867.html

such obvious plots.

[David64]

Without fact-checking it cannot be defined as debate.

Define "fact checking" and who gets to censor who when it comes to presenting those "facts". According to some, only their version of the truth is worth listening to.

[Sirius]

Sorry as you where. They are openly pagan so easy to predict and I just find it humorous.