Unfortunate Implications sources: Quantity vs Quality

A minimum word count could be useful.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

Just read through all of this and I very much agree with the original poster. There are certain topics that mainstream media is less equipped to get right than blogs and social media — and two of these topics happen to be fandom and social media activism. An example is the "End Father's Day" hoax: a fake and disingenuous trolling attempt by 4chan to create a manufactured hashtag and discredit feminist activists. Once it picked up steam there was a lot of mainstream coverage by the likes of the Los Angeles Times and TIME Magazine who saw a hashtag doing numbers and piggybacked on it. That coverage stopped because bloggers and people on social media pointed out, accurately, that it was a hoax.

Since no one has answered the "but what about sockpuppeting" question: How one tells whether two Tumblr/Reddit posts are made by the same person is by doing basic research. If there weren't signs, no sockpuppets would ever get caught. Do they have a prior social media history? Do they have a presence on other platforms? Does their profile picture show up on reverse image search as something from iStockPhoto? (less good these days because of This Person Does Not Exist, but people still do this) Do other people reblog/comment/etc. on their stuff? Do other people link to them who are linked to by other people outside a network of 2-3 people? None of these are absolute guarantees either way, but they are indicators. If there are no indicators, and it otherwise seems valid, then you just have to assume it's valid, like you would anything else. How do you know that a reporter is not paid to promote opinions or has not spent his career as the next Jayson Blair? You don't. All you can do is make sure none of the obvious indicators apply, and if not, assume good faith until shown otherwise.

The Guardian article linked as an "argument" about "how easy it is to sockpuppet" is not a very good argument. First, to state the obvious, it isn't "sockpuppets" but 12 separate and in most cases unrelated (some are couples) people — and as much as it would be nice if it weren't the case, their readership also is many, many more than 12 people. More importantly, these 12 people are public figures — if not outright celebrities, like Robert F. Kennedy — with millions of people reading their updates, which in turn are spread to millions more people because of how Facebook's algorithm works. This is why it was "easy" for them to spread misinformation; a random Tumblr user posting an essay about Warrior Cats does not have this platform.

One way to keep sock puppets from being an issue would be to require citations from multiple sites. Under this rule, you couldn't just list three tweets. But you could list a tweet, a tumblr post, and a goodreads review.

That being said, do we need Unfortunate Implications? Values Dissonance covers "older work is problematic to newer audiences" and Internet Backdraft and Overshadowed by Controversy both cover "a large group of people complain that a work is problematic". The only thing Unfortunate Implications covers is "someone with a platform accuses a work of being problematic".

Internet Backdraft is definition-only, with no examples allowed on the page or on other pages. Starting to wonder if we should do something similar with UI.

That feels a bit too drastic. Flame Bait, maybe, but not no examples.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

Which manages to be both really specific (to the point I'm not sure it even could count as an audience reaction) and overly broad when we have stuff like Overshadowed by Controversy or Glurge or Dont Shoot The Messenger? Like at this point UI is so broad it can cover like anything which seems legit pointless to trope.

"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."

Flame Bait might be the way to go.

UI already has an index on its page, in a super-trope to sub-trope manner (although it doesn't claim that relationship), but it's also got a bullet point list of UI subject areas, where it links off to the relevant subject indexes for people to explore (except the first bullet point, which is almost always going to end up being ROCEJ anyway), and it has an entire paragraph of redirects — telling people where they should be going instead of here.

So, the UI page is a mess due to having an identity crisis between whether it's a super-trope, disambiguation, or index. As a result, it's already acting as an informal disambig. I don't think just turning it into flamebait is going to solve this ambiguous status it's given itself. I think the real question is whether it's flamebait, a disambig or an index.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Apr 10th 2022 at 7:25:17 AM

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

No, that's a TRS decision.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "here". I do think it needs a TRS because, right now, it's sending out the message that it doesn't know what it is.

I've got no problem with it being made flamebait, but I don't think that status fixes the real problem. It's got an identity crisis.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Apr 10th 2022 at 7:28:38 AM

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

FWIW I’m open to a TRS thread myself.

TRS Queue | Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper Wall

Regarding the index, I don't think we should make Unfortunate Implications a Supertrope because I don't want to say that some tropes are inherently problematic.

If we take this to TRS, I assume we need a wick check?

TRS Queue | Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper Wall

What would we even be checking for?

Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢

I don't know. That's why I asked. Can this go to TRS otherwise?

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Apr 11th 2022 at 8:48:31 AM

TRS Queue | Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper Wall

Things have gone to TRS without a wick check before (like Role Reprisal), but there needs to be evidence of a problem. Such as this thread, where discussants question the single citation and who can be cited rules. Redundancy with items like Overshadowed by Controversy were also brought up, which does require a wick check.

So would one thread be enough proof for a TRS thread?

So could I be the one to take this in to TRS eventually?

TRS Queue | Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper Wall

I've added this to the TRS Queue. I will take this in when that slot is reached.

TRS Queue | Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper Wall

Alright the TRS thread is open. I think we can continue discussion there.

TRS Queue | Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper Wall