Post by donkeyjazz on May 28, 2021 21:03:58 GMT
I want to put forward a new method of determining an online post's fishiness that can not only apply to this forum but to other websites too. First of all, I want to say my idea mostly applies to text posts so keep that in mind.
The current method is measuring by how unbelievable the post is - a logical fallacy. It is not that hard to come up with a fake post that sounds real. Plus, sometimes implausible things happen in real life. Using this method will just encourage people to get better at lying.
I suggest a method where a post's authenticity is judged based on how much imagination you would need to come up with the posts on their own. I call it "the trypothesis." To demonstrate, I will use examples from a subreddit called The10thDentist, a subreddit where the logical fallacy I mentioned is often used and even promoted in rule 5.
I would consider a post such as "cereal is better with water than with milk" to not be very trustworthy as there was another post somewhere else that said that and went even more viral. "I love diarrhea" might take a more moderate level of imagination while something like "dishsoap tastes good and not fully rinsing your dishes makes the dish better" is very difficult to make up.
Also, if you use this to accuse someone of being fake, clearly you can only use it when what they are saying is implausible. Relying on implausibility in this case actually works because even though implausible things happen in real life, they are still somewhat rare which makes it unlikely if someone was saying something that is also easy to come up with.
I'd like to know what you think. You could consider copying and pasting this somewhere else online if you agree.
The current method is measuring by how unbelievable the post is - a logical fallacy. It is not that hard to come up with a fake post that sounds real. Plus, sometimes implausible things happen in real life. Using this method will just encourage people to get better at lying.
I suggest a method where a post's authenticity is judged based on how much imagination you would need to come up with the posts on their own. I call it "the trypothesis." To demonstrate, I will use examples from a subreddit called The10thDentist, a subreddit where the logical fallacy I mentioned is often used and even promoted in rule 5.
I would consider a post such as "cereal is better with water than with milk" to not be very trustworthy as there was another post somewhere else that said that and went even more viral. "I love diarrhea" might take a more moderate level of imagination while something like "dishsoap tastes good and not fully rinsing your dishes makes the dish better" is very difficult to make up.
Also, if you use this to accuse someone of being fake, clearly you can only use it when what they are saying is implausible. Relying on implausibility in this case actually works because even though implausible things happen in real life, they are still somewhat rare which makes it unlikely if someone was saying something that is also easy to come up with.
I'd like to know what you think. You could consider copying and pasting this somewhere else online if you agree.
