zlacker

>>maelit+(OP)
I deleted my Twitter right before Elon bought it.

Aside from political or social reasons, X is a terrible platform.

More often than not, I get a blank page, something didn't load.

If I get content, it's (randomly) behind a registration-wall.

Or it shows confusing cookie banners that half the time don't even work. (Dev console full of js errors)

So I don't even bother anymore. This service is technically so fragile and unstable, it's not worth the click.

Aside from how it's socially and businesswise broken. Because I have looked into some of the errors and issues and they'll only occur for "anonymous users" and not for twitter users. They're oftencaused by (normal vanilla) adblockers or privacy protection.

So I dare say they're either malicious, deliberate. Or lack of interest/resources for non-registered and/or privacy-aware users

>>berkes+ce
I find the combination of a Grok button on every post to real time fact check it, along with eventual notifications when a Community Note is added to something you previously interacted with goes a long way to making it the most trustable of all social media platforms.

I don’t see any similar attempts to transparently live fact check on any other platform.

>>bright+Fi
Why does "a Grok button on every post to real time fact check it" increase your trust, given the obvious and open control Musk has over it? When Grok disagreed with him, he kept saying they'd "fix" it, and that's not to mention that infamous "white genocide" issue. It's undeniable that Musk is using his control to align Grok with his own opinions.

How does that not decrease your trust? I can't understand the thought process.

>>Timon3+7o
Because when I take the time to spot check it more deeply, it's usually pretty accurate and balanced. Having it built right in, free to use makes it convenient.

I don't all the time, because that would take forever, but every month or so I'll do a deep dive on the sources of something I'm reading about. Strongly recommend that people periodically do this, especially on topics where you catch yourself having a strong reaction such as anger or immediate validation of your view point.

>>bright+pt
Are you checking general topics, or also specifically ones that Musk has "fixed"?

My concern wouldn't so much be that general information is incorrect, but that anything Musk has opinions on - which seems to be a great number of topics, many of which are completely detached from his companies etc. - has an unacceptable chance of being deliberately manipulated. This is easy to spot when he tries to convince people of his "white genocide", but we don't know what other topics he's "fixed", and you specify that you don't verify all the time.

How do you know you're not being fed another "white genocide" if you don't verify? I wouldn't be as concerned with other AIs because we haven't seen as explicit manipulation as we've seen with Grok, but that seems to be explicitly built to distribute Musks opinions.

>>Timon3+Ip1
I'm 45 years old and I treat every bit of news I read on the internet or otherwise with a large glass of skepticism, whether it came from an AI or anywhere else. My default assumption is that whoever is reporting is pushing an agenda; seldom misreporting facts but often leaving out context that affects framing.

I appreciate Community Notes and Grok for the closest thing to a real-time ability to call it out that exists.

My default AI query on any topic or story is, "Please validate the details of this story and compare to other sources to identify any critical information from other publications that was missing from this source. Highlight those differences."

It gives me a validation, a comparison and helps me to identify the bias/context framing that's going on pretty quickly. I haven't seen many AI sources that can fact check things in real time like Grok can, like Maduro news the other day.