Re: A Credibility Use Case: Lessig v New York Times ("Clickbate Defamation")

> On 30 Aug 2021, at 02:29, <scsankaran@gmail.com> <scsankaran@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I feel this example, while valid, is peripheral to the central problem. 
>  
> Just numerically, the misinformation problem is to some degree about journalists and readers of institutional journalism but to a vastly larger degree about the millions of casual information broadcasters and consumers on social media and messaging that form the information supply chain.  See the recent example posts below that came into our platform.
Sorry, I’m confused by your examples. 

> Credibility signals need to surface the reasons for a consumer to be anxious (or not) about these posts below at the point they encounter it.  These posts were seen by tens of thousands of people.
>  
> The sort of credibility signals we’d care about to solve this problem are very different than the ones being discussed in this email thread. This can’t be a discussion about awards won, or anything you might use to rate an established journalism organization.  Ratings such as those done by NewsGuard, Media Bias Fact Check, etc begins to provide some value, but barely so, in this situation. 
>  
> https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1429174503930613764 <https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1429174503930613764>
> 
In the first one, is it being contested that the Taliban did not take this picture, or that it is staged (is there any claim it is from an actual fight?), or what are their intentions in releasing it?
According to Snopes, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/taliban-iwo-jima/ <https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/taliban-iwo-jima/>, it was first released in July 27, in a post by apparent Taliban spokesperson Hemat Mohammad along with a message that praised the Badri 313 unit's strength. This information could certainly be provided through credibility signals.
Other than this,  it’s reuse at a later date, the apparent reference to the famous Iwo Jima (staged) photo, and all the parallels and implications that can be drawn between them, would fall beyond the scope of credibility signals, no?

> https://twitter.com/SmartAssJen/status/1431793390224429056 <https://twitter.com/SmartAssJen/status/1431793390224429056>
> <image002.png>
>  
This post has several claims that evidently need to be better supported, and fact checkers would do this, at least the quantitive one. The second statement “…the same people…" is more  of a “ideological/moral” nature (The other posts in the thread seem to confirm this perception). 
Even if one could somehow verify the accuracy of them being the same people (anti-vexers = supporters of criminalization of exposure to HIV), I believe it would be less relevant to the actual (moral) message being conveyed.
Beyond the provenance of the author, what credibility signals would address this?

Cheers
D