Orkut Satire FPP Treated as Real News

February 26, 2004 1:41 PM

This thread treats satire as a real news report. The author seems to have thought it was real (not having read the small notice at the bottom). I'd either put "[satire]" at the end or delete it.
posted by abcde to etiquette/policy at 1:41 PM (20 comments total)

dmd seemed to handle the situation fairly well with the very first post.
posted by mischief at 2:09 PM on February 26, 2004

Pretty easy to pick out those who read neither the link or the comments pointing out the true nature of the link before throwing in their 2c worth, isn't it?
posted by dg at 2:33 PM on February 26, 2004

I'm sorry. Under federal regulations, satire is not intended to be identified in an online or print publication. In fact, Neal Pollack's recent work for Salon has been labeled as such. And it's become of the Department to Discourage Gullibility's biggest cases.

Beyond the legal problems lies a troubling ethical question: Must we identify all forms of humor to the dumb, the careless or the aspiring clueless participant? Sadly, no. It is every American's duty to figure out what constitutes bullshit and what does not. This nation was forged with the blood of several healthy skeptics. In fact, they were so skeptical that it was difficult to get them to volunteer for the militia. But for a moment, they came together to believe. And then they questioned everything again.

In the name of this nation's forefathers, I urge Mr. Haughey to let the thread persist, to let it provide succor for those bulbs that may not be burning brightest right now. If only to provide an exercise to those who cannot currently identify real from fake. As we all know, this skill will be highly important in November.
posted by ed at 3:01 PM on February 26, 2004

I propose a constitutional amendment to portect satire.

After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few posters and local commenters are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization.

Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the MeFites must be heard. Activist Metatalkers have left the people with one recourse.

If we're to prevent the meaning of satire from being changed forever, our website must enact a constitutional amendment to protect satire in America.

[/scumbag]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:13 PM on February 26, 2004

{bangs on table}
posted by clavdivs at 4:31 PM on February 26, 2004

/doffs wig

Hear. Hear.

I second that emotion.
posted by cedar at 4:41 PM on February 26, 2004

I portest!
posted by ashbury at 4:42 PM on February 26, 2004

methinks the laddie doth portest too much ......

*waves order paper*

HEAR HEAR !!
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:26 PM on February 26, 2004

In the name of this nation's forefathers, I urge Mr. Haughey to let the thread persist, to let it provide succor for those bulbs that may not be burning brightest right now.

Mislead threads get to stay as a stupidity test?

Hmm.
posted by abcde at 5:34 PM on February 26, 2004

Also, I did read the comments. Noting the mistake in the thread is different than actually reporting it.
posted by abcde at 5:37 PM on February 26, 2004

hey cedar! there's some guy wearing a number 7 jersey marching back and forth on the sidewalk carrying the latest national enquirer and waving a sign that says "fuck you, cedar!". any idea what that's about? :-)
posted by quonsar at 5:59 PM on February 26, 2004

This thread is fraught with protent.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:12 PM on February 26, 2004

Improtent? Try new METAGRA. Guaranteed to stir something up.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:28 PM on February 26, 2004

This thread is fraught with protent.

I originally read that as "this thread is fraught with protein."
posted by konolia at 8:11 PM on February 26, 2004

Why do you think this thread treats satire as a real news report, abcde?
posted by namespan at 8:40 PM on February 26, 2004

The "it seems" phrasing implies he has at least some skepticism toward whether it's true, which usually (granted, not necessarily) implies that he doesn't realize it's not real.
posted by abcde at 9:09 PM on February 26, 2004

I don't get it.

So is this a troll by hact because tfylm didn't realise the original article was a satire and got trolled?

Or is it a troll by tfylm because tfylm (whose gender I am unaware of) realised that hact was trolling, but posted hact's troll as a fact, thus constituting a troll by tfylm (a meta-troll by tfylm?), that is posted in such a way as to make some people think that tfylm hadn't realised that hact was trolling. In other words, was tfylm trolling by pretending not to have noticed that tfylm had been trolled by hact? In that case, we could argue that abcde was trolled by tfylm.

On the other hand, this could in fact a troll by abcde, because if abcde realised that tfylm was trolling (rather than being hact's trollee), and also realised that tfylm was also trolling in a meta-sense (that is, trolling on hact's troll), then the original post was a non-issue. In the post here in MeTa therefore abcde appears to be taking tfylm - as tfylm appeared to take hact in the original post - at face value, in this case portraying tfylm as trollee rather than troller, despite evidence to the contrary (that is, that tfylm was aware that hact was trolling).

However if abcde is only appearing to take tfylm at what appears to be face value, but has a suspicion that tfylm was indeed trolling on hact's original article (by tfylm pretending not to notice that hact's article was a troll), then abcde could be seen as attempting to troll this thread, by pretending not to realise that tfylm was trolling, and instead displaying righteous indignation.
posted by carter at 10:29 AM on February 27, 2004

I don't think there is a troll involved, carter; you're the first person to have used that word.
posted by hattifattener at 11:29 AM on February 29, 2004

Wow, that scale ranges from me being stupid to some kind of evil genius ;)

Unfortunately it's the stupid one. I'm innocently assuming tfylm got trolled, and my indignation is real ;)
posted by abcde at 8:29 PM on February 29, 2004

Just joking, abcde. I think trolling's pretty much in the eye of the beholder unless it's flame-batey, in which case it's flamebait, or well-crafted, e.g. early Steve Woston on Slashdot. Myself I find it difficult 99.99% of the time to decide if anyone's trolling or being trolled; hell, most the time I don't even understand what *I've* written (see above) ;-)
posted by carter at 6:58 AM on March 1, 2004