this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2025
798 points (99.1% liked)

Funny

7224 readers
885 users here now

General rules:

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 225 points 2 days ago (5 children)

We fired our fact-checkers, so we cannot verify whether that is true or not.

[–] [email protected] 57 points 2 days ago (1 children)

True or not, this is the outcome we deserve.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 days ago

It's the outcome I want to believe as well.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 2 days ago (1 children)

i would like to post a community note saying that i personally believe it to be true

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I can assure you it is true as I was there. I was the $100 note.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

I can also assure you it is true. I was given a $100 not.. uh wait no you didn't hear that

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Literally everything about it's anecdotal so the best result a fact-checker could have is a shrug.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

Nah they have actual footage from the event

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago

The AI replacement says this is true.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They couldn't before they fired them either, so not a lot has changed. Their "fact checkers" were poorly written algorithms that frequently flagged benign content as misinformation.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

Their "fact checkers" were poorly written algorithms that frequently flagged benign content as misinformation.

I think the goal was to flag benign content as misinformation to push truthful content to the same level as flat earth content.

So doing exactly what was intended.