Fake News ????

[chris98251]

With the increase in AI/ fake news, do you think we would be a better community and source for all things SEAHAWKS if we cracked down on the posting of unverified speculation?

Maybe you enjoy the back n forth and tit for tat?

There is no right answer.

This is your house, you have a voice/ say.

Let’s hear your opinion on this.

Make it like it used to be, post the source on rumours. If found to be a fake lock it.

 

[flv2]

I have the following related issues:

1) Members posting fake/AI video clips of NFL people, (normally HCs), saying ridiculous stuff that is supposed to be funny. Some of it is and some of it isn't, but it needs to be identified as fake or AI up front.

2) Members saying 'I've seen an unlikely such-and-such story on the internet but now I can't find the link. Is it true?' Such posts/threads should either be tagged as rumours or be removed.

3) I've seen on other forums members switch from posters who contribute opinions and information into social media re-posters. Twitter/X is for knee-jerk reactions and hot takes. Forums are discussions or opinions with a bit of thought behind them. I don't need or want people to trawl through social media for their opinion of what I should see. Verification links for your story and opinion are fine, but social media re-posts with no comment are not.

 

[glenwo2]

I think as long as members note that the post is a rumor upfront it could be ok. A lot of what we discuss are things that might happen .

EXACTLY.


Like for example, @AROS , in the Maxx Crosby thread I created, I made sure to put in All-Caps "RUMOR" before putting the title there so people know it's a rumor.

And as it turned out, the source wasn't AI but it was from Corbin who does have Press Credentials...though I imagine he knows about as much as we do regarding what we offered (or didn't offer) for him to the Raiders.

 

[Torc]

Some of it is really tough to figure out, to be honest. This came across my feed today, and it was pretty obvious that it's fake since I'm on this site pretty frequently and I would have heard about it already. But if my wife had seen it she'd probably be asking me what happened. It's nuts that this crap is so prevalent, and if you're not checking the source carefully it'd be easy to fall for it.

 

[ccla]

Agreed.

I also agree.

 

[MORGULON]

I also agree.

I also agree

 

[pmedic920]

@ everyone

So far I think the consensus is..

AI/Fake news is okay for the sake of Humor as long as it’s clearly stated as such.

Likewise RUMORS and SPECULATION are fine as long as this is clearly stated in the title.

I personally believe we need to get back to providing a link or verification for any “I heard” type posts.
Do you agree?

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Great idea. WAY too easy to read a thread wrong if it's not stated in the title and/or the beginning of the post.
Like the one claiming the Hawks offered two 1s and a bunch more for Max Crosby. Ridiculous rumor with nothing to back it up.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

With the advent of Ai, AI can create links to support whatever the initial person wants and they can be fake. So If this happens, the OP needs to put on that post that the link has been verified by him/her. That way the rabbit hole is closed.

 

[glenwo2]

Great idea. WAY too easy to read a thread wrong if it's not stated in the title and/or the beginning of the post.
Like the one claiming the Hawks offered two 1s and a bunch more for Max Crosby. Ridiculous rumor with nothing to back it up.

Did you read it wrong?

I did put "RUMOR" in all-caps.....

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Probably did. Just using it as an example of the type of stuff that should have it in the title. To me, that was just a ridiculous rumor. Not your fault, I just can't see any way it was close to accurate.

 

[glenwo2]

Probably did. Just using it as an example of the type of stuff that should have it in the title. To me, that was just a ridiculous rumor. Not your fault, I just can't see any way it was close to accurate.

That's fair.

I mean it was from a rando in chat so that's not much of a source anyway.

And it was revealed that where he got that was from Corbin so....hey...at least it wasn't AI, right? LOL

 

[SoulfishHawk]

AI is a trip. A1 is better on steak though.

 

[Hawknight]

AI is a trip. A1 is better on steak though.

Love A1...AI I can do without

 

[Seahawkfan80]

57 ways.

 

[Mase]

-- I have to say depends. I would prefer it to be a news and discussion site, but part of that discussion can be about the merits of a theoretical trade, signing, benching, whatever. News, actual news, often comes in the form of what the coach said, the GM said or a player said, even with video to prove it. But lets be honest, most of that is just vapid noise from people trained in "say nothing" media.

-- The trick is the reader. The reader has to develop the skill of assigning a value to what they are reading. Consider the source has become so much more valuable in modern media. No one likes Prisco, or ever agrees with what he says, yet the number of posts about what he says at times is ridiculous. Who cares what he says.

-- It is also cyclical, there is a lot to discuss right now, big wins, big trades, etc. When things are slow, a need to talk about something, anything, leads to some really pointless chatter. I would hate to get too draconian on what you do and what you don't allow.

Mase

 

[GemCity]

Voted depends…agree with Ruminator.

OP’s just need to be careful. I’ll often see something online, then check here to see if it’s true .

Speculation oriented posts are often fun to read. But, they definitely need to be id’d or what not.

 

[flv2]

@ everyone

So far I think the consensus is..

AI/Fake news is okay for the sake of Humor as long as it’s clearly stated as such.

Likewise RUMORS and SPECULATION are fine as long as this is clearly stated in the title.

I personally believe we need to get back to providing a link or verification for any “I heard” type posts.
Do you agree?

I agree in theory, but most people will just link MSN and that organisation doesn't verify anything. They re-package stories from elsewhere that they hope will generate clicks. Then they swamp their page with adverts and tracking software.

Posting verification links is generally a good thing but there's no point having a rule about because the rule wouldn't be enforced.

 

[pmedic920]

I agree in theory, but most people will just link MSN and that organisation doesn't verify anything. They re-package stories from elsewhere that they hope will generate clicks. Then they swamp their page with adverts and tracking software.

Posting verification links is generally a good thing but there's no point having a rule about because the rule wouldn't be enforced.

On the contrary.

Coming up with a standard, or getting back to the old standard is exactly why I’ve made this post.

Whatever we come up with WILL BE enforced.

I’ve given the Opportunity to voice opinions because this is a community, and I by no means want to appear as a dick tatter, but I assure you….
I’m tired of the shit posts, and I’m on a mission.

 

[OneLofaTatupu]

To be clear, I do NOT want any click bait, unverifiable speculative posts on the main forum, ever.

Verifiable, known sources are fine if they are speculating but the thread title MUST be clearly stated. Anything falling short of that paradigm should be removed from the forum.

That's my take.

This. We can have the argument about alternative facts some other time. Because it’s really really stupid.