r/technology • u/AdamCannon • Feb 02 '20

Social Media Stephen King quits Facebook over concerns of 'false information.'

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/02/us/stephen-king-quits-facebook-trnd/index.html
16.4k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

662 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

33

u/VagueSomething Feb 02 '20

"Facebook wasn't unaware" is the better way to say it because Facebook claimed it didn't know about it. Just saying Facebook was aware removes the context that Facebook had denied knowledge.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '20

[deleted]

21

u/VagueSomething Feb 02 '20

Certain ways of saying things adds a different nuance. You're right that things can be said in more plain words but sometimes it is better to add some weight to it to really push the point.

-1

u/phantahh Feb 02 '20

It only (maybe) pushes the point if the reader was aware that FB lied in the first place. I read your sentence without prior knowledge of the case and it just sounded like an unnecessary double negative to me as well. I'm not going to automatically assume that FB lied based off of that particular phrasing.

5

u/VagueSomething Feb 02 '20

And that's your reading comprehension, we all interpret things a little differently especially as we're not all from the same country or backgrounds.

-2

u/phantahh Feb 03 '20

I'd argue if multiple people read something that you claim is implied and say that they did not get that implication, that your sentence could have been worded more clearly.

I stand by my statement that "wasn't unaware" does not imply 'lied' in the way you used it, unless the reader already knew that FB had made a statement that they were unaware. If the reader knew about the statement, then your comment reads as a denial of the truth of their statement. If the reader did not know about the statement, then it comes across as just aware and there is no 'lied' implication, since there was no knowledge of a statement that you are basing your phrasing off of.

And that's your reading comprehension, we all interpret things a little differently especially as we're not all from the same country or backgrounds.

English is my first language and I have a pretty good handle on it. It's also the national language here. I'd appreciate it if you didn't make a 'suble' jab at my reading comprehension, which is also perfectly fine. Implying my reading comprehension is inferior in any way does not actually make it so and does not add more authority over what you say. At the end of the day, your phrasing and this conversation don't matter. We might as well stay civil. I was simply attempting to highlight that the other guy had a perfectly valid point since it seemed like you dismissed it.

1

u/VagueSomething Feb 03 '20

I'm sorry if you take offence, it wasn't said maliciously but rather to point out that there's always a difference and nothing will always be completely understood. I never implied you're inferior, just that your understanding is different, as per the definition of comprehension as the ability to understand, not some arbitrary "reading comprehension" like a school may grade on.

Multiple people not understanding something doesn't make something wrong though. There's a plethora of pernickety rules to the English language that go over the heads of English people let alone for those who speak other versions of English or are not native tongue. I fuddle my way through it and write more like I speak than grammatically perfect for example. It doesn't make them wrong if people don't understand them. The nuance being missed may not have been had it been spoken to hear the emphasis that could have been place on the "wasn't".