lol quillette.
The right wing safe haven where opinion is fact and facts are opinion.

Aah, so that's what happened to Hambo....

Here's my thread

"Quilette sucks shit"

Bosh.

Was Hambo a fan of Quillette or am I confusing them with something else?

Yeah it was JRPC, they brainwashed him

Tempy wrote:

Do a bit of a content creator abuse scandal too, get fired from my main channel but still keep a healthy fanbase sending me money on my secondary channel, get retweeted by Donald Trump etc. Just generally be a shithead and have no worries or cares.

 

Well...

You weren't lying, were you?

Christ. Actual retraction up now.

No editors worth a damn. Lol.

Lol @quilette.

https://twitter.com/JeffreyASachs/status/1165989076547321858?s=19

https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.08313

"Auditing Radicalization Pathways on YouTube

Manoel Horta Ribeiro, Raphael Ottoni, Robert West, Virgílio A. F. Almeida, Wagner Meira
(Submitted on 22 Aug 2019)

Non-profits and the media claim there is a radicalization pipeline on YouTube. Its content creators would sponsor fringe ideas, and its recommender system would steer users towards edgier content. Yet, the supporting evidence for this claim is mostly anecdotal, and there are no proper measurements of the influence of YouTube's recommender system. In this work, we conduct a large scale audit of user radicalization on YouTube. We analyze 331,849 videos of 360 channels which we broadly classify into: control, the Alt-lite, the Intellectual Dark Web (I.D.W.), and the Alt-right ---channels in the I.D.W. and the Alt-lite would be gateways to fringe far-right ideology, here represented by Alt-right channels. Processing more than 79M comments, we show that the three communities increasingly share the same user base; that users consistently migrate from milder to more extreme content; and that a large percentage of users who consume Alt-right content now consumed Alt-lite and I.D.W. content in the past. We also probe YouTube's recommendation algorithm, looking at more than 2M million recommendations for videos and channels between May and July 2019. We find that Alt-lite content is easily reachable from I.D.W. channels via recommendations and that Alt-right channels may be reached from both I.D.W. and Alt-lite channels. Overall, we paint a comprehensive picture of user radicalization on YouTube and provide methods to transparently audit the platform and its recommender system."

Might have some minor quibbles over who's in what column (see pic in Tweet) but this seems solid. Certainly sample size is solid. Seriously. It's super. Some would say superfluous, or silly, or... Fuck it.

https://twitter.com/mccormick_ted/status/1170024524433297408?s=19

So skeptic Mag, quillette, areo (edited by one of those folks who did the hoax study sending stuff to various journals) the spectator and a few other spots got duped by a dude.

He was far less obvious than the Archie dsa dude, but still.

Duped in entirely the same way as the journals.

1. It wouldn't be such a big deal if all of the folks in question didn't use previous hoaxes as a stick to beat the humanities with. A little humility would go a long way.

2. They could maybe see that they're as likely to go for stuff because they agree with it as anyone else.

Is it surprising though? Little John published an article in one of the papers explaining who the prime minister of England lying is a good thing. Trump is so far over the edge with truth and yet his supporters don't care. Even on a smaller level, when rihanna was beaten up by Chris brown, many of his fans cried false or misrepresentation. Facts aren't important just the side.

I should be fair, I recently found out that Johnny Depp might have been innocent in relation to claims of spousal abuse. I jumped to condem him when that story first came out and didn't even think to check or wait and see.

cockbeard wrote:

RedDave2 wrote:

I should be fair, I recently found out that Johnny Depp might have been innocent in relation to claims of spousal abuse. I jumped to condem him when that story first came out and didn't even think to check or wait and see.

I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the claims were spurious at best and a massive deflection from the actual shit going down at worst. But that said we only know our own frames of reference, so just because I was exposed to voices calling her a prick from before the accusations and divorce, I just stuck with them. Which is dangerous though, because you can be a dickhead and still be wronged

To my shame, I just believed it all and I think because I'm not the biggest fan of Depp it made it easier to believe. I think there is also an inherrant want to believe a victim for most people. I know you've had experience where this could have led to some hassle but I guess I'd find it easier to believe that a man is guilty of hitting his wife than his wife is making stuff up. And this probably correct in 99 percent of instances but there are always the exceptions.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that your experience coloured your opinion. I phrased that poorly, hope no offence was taken.

https://twitter.com/colourmeamused_/status/1170744738636394496?s=19

The tl;Dr version is quillette now have a paywalled forum.

The comments are already 8chan lite.

Good times.

Surely it would be fair to say that nobody actually knows what did or didn't go on between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard with regards to both parties claims of domestic abuse? The one may just be as bad as the other for all we know...or then again not, because we're talking about a multimillionaire Hollywood power couple flinging shit at each other in a vain attempt to salvage careers. Frankly, we're never likely to be sure of anything.