Cambridge Analytica

There's no point in trying to assign a nefarious motive to the uncontextualised links ww posts. The truth is that she still can't 'do' URLS which link to a whole twitter thread or to an article.

And it's nothing at all like 'fake news' petra. What a stupid comment.

I am technologically illiterate I’m afraid?

But in truth silly comments like that go completely over my head.

Well, I still don't quite understand why you can't 'do' articles and twitter threads, ww, but then, I'm not totally technologically literate either!

But I wonder if it's because you're posting from an iPad? Because it's actually a mystery to me how you manage to get links to all those images; I can't do it but I'm generally using a laptop

Yes I use an iPad !

I suppose that explains it - not sure how though, except I followed the instructions you (I think) posted for me. I can’t make it blue though. I suppose I could ask my son when he visits if I remember

Jen; yes I did get to it and it was wonderful and uplifting, apart from two men. One of which sniggered and did a 'dickhead' gesture towards the person speaking and another one who actually jumped on the stage and took the microphone away from the speaker ( who was speaking about the effect brexit has had on valuable EU workers in this country), shouting British something or other. Similar things happened at Nottingham.

More evidence
pbs.twimg.com/media/DZSooQ2W0AAqojP?format=jpg

Whylie’s evidence was pretty devastating

So you think that whitewave doesn't know the source of all those tweets she puts on?

No, not at all - that's not what I'm saying. It's the people reading the links who have the problem. Of course, the poster knows the source. The problem is no one else does - especially when it's preceded by a comment like 'more evidence'.
It's meaningless. I'm sure people are nervous of reading the links, especially if the poster says they're not technically literate. No one wants to click on what looks like a dodgy link.

To say that someone cannot reference a source because they are unable to cut and paste a link is not reasonable. You can always type 'From Twitter - @Whoever A Sunday Times Journalist' for example.

Then if people want to see the context, they can find it.

The issue is very much like fake news. There are so many bots on twitter and there's no way of knowing what you're actually looking at when all you have is an image with no context or source.

I think people would be less nervous about clicking the link if they had an idea of where it was taking them. It helps the conversation if people know posters take care and only link to reputable sources.

Debate on parliament channel at the moment.

I think you should be able to trust whitewave to put reliable links on.

primrose perhaps you should ignore my links. I’d be quite happy if you did.

I just clicked on that last link. It may be "reliable" but how is anyone to know it's reliable without evidence of its reliability such as who exactly said what exactly and where, in what context. There is nothing with that link that is helpful. Which MP, for instance? And who is Wylie?

Bloody hell, bags, if you don't know who Wylie is, why are you bothering about this thread?

I don't know who Wylie is but that's not the point. I was commenting on the proper way to state one's sources for one's readers' benefit. It's just polite as well as helpful.

What's this Wylie person's other name, btw? I could look them up if I knew.

The thing is, if you want people to trust your reliability you have to give reliable sources and information that is useful even to ignoramuses.

I gather he's the CA whistleblower. I will have read his name before but not remembered it.

Then there's twisting what one's link actually says, like this:

*infacts.org/6-allegations-suggest-vote-leave-may-cheated/

A simple diagram to show how they cheated.*

The link doesn't "show how they cheated". It doesn't even claim to do that. It is speculation which may or may not turn out to prove something.

I thought that most of the links are self evident. I cannot be responsible for people following a politics thread but not knowing about the main characters of the moments.

I would strongly advise all those (and I note they are all rightwingers - so nothing to do with trying to shut down uncomfortable truth) not to read them. In fact I wish you wouldn’t

Wylie is mentioned on the first page of this thread, bags. Surely you could have read that before you asked who he was, as you had posted on that page.

Fewer than 10 tory MPs in the breaches of electoral law debate.
Tommy Sheppard asking for every cabinet member who knew about it to resign. Looks like they have already.

I did read that. Then I forgot names. I do other stuff as well as chat on gransnet.

Something I was taught when doing teacher training, ww, is "never assume", "nothing is obvious" (or self-evident).

I think that if you wanted to give sources you could. It's possible, for instance, to write one's GN post in a digital notepad (on iPad or whatever you're using) before posting it. Then you have time to find out and to quote sources properly. I often do that, as a matter of fact.

More info attached to twimg stuff would also, perhaps, jog the memories of people like me to have gaps between their sallies onto threads like this.

people like me who have gaps...

Chloe Smith speaking now and has just said she will not add anything to the debate that the prime minister said yesterday. So why is she bothering to speak?

OK baggs I will give a brief resume