Humanities desk
< December 31	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 2 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 1

Truth Social

Happy New Year, everybody! Regarding this current debate about the adequate characterization of the above platform, I would like to kindly ask for further comments there. Thanks a lot in advance for any participation. Hildeoc (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Truth Social. Alansplodge (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone there pointed out that entities with "Truth" in their title tend to be suspect? For example, Pravda and The Plain Truth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention The Ministry of Truth. Alansplodge (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs, Alansplodge, Lambiam: Would you mind joining in on the above discussion? We really need some consensus there but I'm afraid there are not enough participants yet. Hoping for your interest, Hildeoc (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vey. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In what respect? Hildeoc (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a no-win argument either way. But you should know that I care almost nothing about social media. I'm not on Facebook or Twitter or any of the others, whatever they may be. I consider social media to be mostly garbage, and I can't imagine that "Truth" Social is any worse than the others. Hence, I don't want to dive into it. Good luck finding someone more interested than I am. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Nil Einne, @DuncanHill. Hildeoc (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also anyone claiming to be talking about Truth (so capitalised) rather than just the truth. Iapetus (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas where else one could successfully ask for further comments?--Hildeoc (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could consult anyone who has worked on the article. Though beware of being accused of canvassing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Conservatism#Is_TruthSocial_Alt-tech?.--Hildeoc (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muted street interviews in London New Year Parade street interviews

Please see broadcasts such as [1]. Seems to me if someone accepts an interview on the street there's little reason to suppress the audio? 74.64.73.24 (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really expect someone to watch a 3.5 hour video to work out what you're talking about? Speaking generally though a broadcaster may want to receive explicit permission to quote or broadcast an interview before doing it, perhaps even going as far as to get some sort of signed waiver. And perhaps more importantly, may not want to air certain comments, views or words, stuff they regard as inappropriate or unsuitable for broadcast, stuff that could easily arise in a live interview with random people on the street. Nil Einne (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outside broadcasts are notoriously prone to technical errors, which seems a possible explanation. Alansplodge (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]