Recent searches
Search options
Corrections posted to social media never have quite the same reach as the original.
A correction isn't likely to be shocking, or salacious. Who cares if "He *didn't* have an affair" or "common trusted thing *isn't* secretly plotting to kill you." ?
What if on the fedi we can be different? Make "correction boost" part of the culture here?
A tag the original post. Make a new post with the correction. And we make an effort to make corrections go big?
There is only one thing I have all notifications turned on for on this platform (including sound and pop ups) and that's when a post is edited.
I love that feature, this isn't really about features or software it's about using tags, and "culture"
@futurebird when you edit a post, people who boosted it get the notification about the change. I've already found out about a few corrections to the stories I've boosted that way.
@noodlejetski @futurebird and good practice is to mention what you changed in the edited version. e.g. "edited: typo correction"
consider:
> you boost a wrong OP
> your followers, who do not follow OP see the wrong OP
> OP edits their post so it's not wrong anymore
> you boost the corrected OP
> the edit does not federate to your follower
> you think you've posted a corrigendum
> your follower thinks you're doubling down on the original wrong thing
but by that point you might as well just boost another post with the correct information
This is why, in the era before Fox News, journalists and news organizations cared so much about their reputations. Accuracy required extra time and effort and often not going forward with a story if they could not be certain. Now we just post on a whim in a race to be first. The same holds true for personal communication. I'm guilty of it, too, which is why I'm trying to learn how to slow down. It's not easy in the current overall online environment.
That kind of bait of switch is done deliberately by very bad actors, I would love to see a way to boost the truth once they finally 'apologize'
@futurebird oh, I agree, but I wish the notifications highlighted the changes.
In fact, I'm looking to see what new dynamics and social patterns this enables.
I do hope someone figures out change-highlighting though!
What I didn't know was that it would be implemented in its own fedi-way, notifying not just every instance but every *user* that something had changed! At which point I was afraid my timeline would fill up with "edited" notifications but that isn't the case at all.
Result, we now have *two* cool new features on the fedi
@llewelly @futurebird
Depending on the client you can view the older versions of a post. A diff-like interface would be neat, of course.
Edit: Thankfully I made a mistake in the original post and corrected it, so you can try it yourself :-)
CET @llewelly @futurebird Until that happens, these notifications are actually annoying since how would I know, what changed? Sure, you can add a changelog to your post but that might get out of hand and there are character limits after all. Not to mention that metadata doesn't necessarily belongs to the post without differentiation and without a common denotation.
@futurebird Also I think normalizing that it’s ok to make actual mistakes, and owning up to it should be commended and not attacked.
If we turn off redemption, digging in becomes the solution:(
@futurebird I just edited a post where I said something factually wrong to add a correction at the end. I think only one person had boosted it but the correction is now in their timeline. I left the wrong text followed by the correction. I think that's the best way to handle it.
#FBPE @futurebird I recently edited my post by adding "***CORRECTION***" and the changed info. But I haven't worked out who does and doesn't get notified of the edit.
I used to work at a medical quality improvement collaborative. They put out a paper that said that there were more heart attacks the week daylight savings time started than there were at other times. That flew out of the journals and into the popular press.
A couple years later, they did a new study and they were like "Well, we looked again with more data and it turns out we were wrong the first time."
The scientific journals wouldn't even print it.
@MegaMichelle @futurebird Was it just the usual "there will be more of anything in a 25-hour day than in a 24-hour day", or was it a different error?
IIRC, it might've just been that the first study was done on a small sample size and the effect seen turned out to have been just a coincidence. When they tried to repeat it, they couldn't find it again.
But, like, I wasn't actually involved in the research. I was just a computer person there.
I thought it was basically true too. Although I dislike daylight savings enough I'm filing it under "unresolved and questionable"
I'll email the authors and see if I can get a copy of the second study.
@apophis @MegaMichelle @futurebird same. I'm disappointed because it was such a good argument against it :(
@MegaMichelle @futurebird I’d heard it was debunked but never went looking for a source. Probably because I wanted it to be true because I hate the change. Pick one!
@MegaMichelle @futurebird how do we go about knowing the world in our current day and age when even ostensibly scientific publications engage in this sort of insidious misinformation?
Yes 
Getting best info out, and for the most accountable posting.
I edit the original, with thanks for the correction, and because its MassstodonnnNNN! It is automatically propagated to every account that had interacted with the original.
Thats a good boost. And sorry if this old hat, the original post and edits are also available to read. So, editing is a big benefit here, both designed in purpose well, and coded well.
@futurebird editing the original post is a far better method.