lol actually just look. Literally tens-hundreds of stories. It’s not a global conspiracy or group false memory. I get the Reddit hate but that’s just silly.
Edit: some of you struggle. Y’all understand that I can lie about a personal experience much more easily than I could lie about the combined hundreds of experiences of mutually individual people on the internet. How is it that until I’ve personally experienced it it must be false? Real cream of the crop with you lot.
I sincerely apologize for providing evidence of my claim that some men don’t wash their ass. I’ll remember for next time that I specifically have to know men that don’t wash their ass for my claim to have any validity, or else theKalash will not believe me.
This really speaks volumns about what social media has done to the mind of some people.
You really don’t see the problem when being asked for “acutal exprience” and someone unironically points to a comment on the internet? That’s literally the opposite of actual exprience.
Believing it isn’t really the point, but actually yes and so should you.
The time constraint and limited participant pool of an active thread provides information itself.
Imagine two different comments, one describing a very common expirence and the other one a very uncommen one. If you ask people to confirm these expirences you should get a lot of replies two the first comment, but very few or only negative ones for the second.
However if you just search for both statements over the entire internet and dismiss the time and userpool contraint you can find any comment ever made about the uncommon topic … which makes it look more common than it actually is.
I would say the issue is more of, if you don’t trust what someone on Reddit, a message board, blog, etc/whatever - then what difference is it going to make if someone on Lemmy says “Yes, I have firsthand experience”? Obviously it’s one thing if a friend, or someone I personally know, asks for “actual” experience vs someone on the Internet… But this isn’t the case (I’m going to assume you don’t know the person you replied to). I’d even potentially get it if there was only one random comment on some random website - however that’s not the case either.
I couldn’t even make the argument of there being more implicit trust in the Lemmy space… Because a lot of us came from Reddit anyways.
So what difference is it actually going to make?
And yes, for the record, I do have “actual experience” with this - just in case somehow I’m more trustworthy than tons of people who have posted on Reddit (or some other site).
lol actually just look. Literally tens-hundreds of stories. It’s not a global conspiracy or group false memory. I get the Reddit hate but that’s just silly.
Edit: some of you struggle. Y’all understand that I can lie about a personal experience much more easily than I could lie about the combined hundreds of experiences of mutually individual people on the internet. How is it that until I’ve personally experienced it it must be false? Real cream of the crop with you lot.
“I question this comment, do you have any actual expirence”?
You: “sure, just look at all these other comments over there”.
This is indeed very silly, but not because of reddit being involved.
I sincerely apologize for providing evidence of my claim that some men don’t wash their ass. I’ll remember for next time that I specifically have to know men that don’t wash their ass for my claim to have any validity, or else theKalash will not believe me.
Uff …
This really speaks volumns about what social media has done to the mind of some people.
You really don’t see the problem when being asked for “acutal exprience” and someone unironically points to a comment on the internet? That’s literally the opposite of actual exprience.
Are you more apt to believe them if they said they have personal experience? In their comment on the internet?
Believing it isn’t really the point, but actually yes and so should you.
The time constraint and limited participant pool of an active thread provides information itself.
Imagine two different comments, one describing a very common expirence and the other one a very uncommen one. If you ask people to confirm these expirences you should get a lot of replies two the first comment, but very few or only negative ones for the second.
However if you just search for both statements over the entire internet and dismiss the time and userpool contraint you can find any comment ever made about the uncommon topic … which makes it look more common than it actually is.
I would say the issue is more of, if you don’t trust what someone on Reddit, a message board, blog, etc/whatever - then what difference is it going to make if someone on Lemmy says “Yes, I have firsthand experience”? Obviously it’s one thing if a friend, or someone I personally know, asks for “actual” experience vs someone on the Internet… But this isn’t the case (I’m going to assume you don’t know the person you replied to). I’d even potentially get it if there was only one random comment on some random website - however that’s not the case either.
I couldn’t even make the argument of there being more implicit trust in the Lemmy space… Because a lot of us came from Reddit anyways.
So what difference is it actually going to make?
And yes, for the record, I do have “actual experience” with this - just in case somehow I’m more trustworthy than tons of people who have posted on Reddit (or some other site).
You know, I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but a lot of people lie on the internet for attention. Weird, I know now.