Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

Post by solvedit » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 3:06 PM UTC

Post by MollyR » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 3:09 PM UTC

gadders wrote: post #102

outlace wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people say it's impossible to have unbiased news. Of course this is true in a trivial sense, in that anything written by a human with intent to be interesting to read is likely to have some bias. And of course one can bias the news simply by choosing what to report and not report (eg if all you report are all the things fmr Pres. Bush did wrong, then the audience will get a bad impression). However, there is abs…

>> When you read 3 different versions of the same news story by BBC, NPR, and NYT (for example), then hopefully the biases sort of cancel out and you get something closer to the truth. You list three left-leaning news organisations, and expect their biases to cancel out? Wouldn't they reinforce each other?

Post by unityByFreedom » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 3:16 PM UTC

hueving wrote: post #131

unityByFreedom wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You make it sound illogical. > As a religious conservative, I do really want that supreme court seat. That factors heavily in the decision. Sorry, that's my bias seeping in. I respect your choice. > The President has to really ask for permission for everything else (laws, budgets, wars, etc.), but justice nomination is very largely his choice. Don't be surprised if that factors heavily in my decision. Not nuclear.…

>Personally I think the risks posed by Trump with his thumb on the nuclear button are greater than the lives saved by repealing abortion rights. I'm not sure if this was a subtle way to imply that, although the risk of Trump using the bomb is negligible, it's still greater than zero, which is the number of lives you consider lost to abortion. Impressive accidental troll. :) Realistically, what evidence do you have th…

Post by cmdrfred » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 3:21 PM UTC

seertaak wrote: post #185

vinhboy wrote: post #34

Thank god someone is writing about this. Recently I've been on the Yahoo's homepage a lot, because of Fantasy Football, and I noticed that a lot of the content is exactly like the article says, fake news from right-wing propaganda sites. And no, this is not me expressing my liberal bias. It's one thing to have opinionated headlines like the Huffington Post, it's another thing to have a completely fictional headline c…

Here's Glenn Greenwald, who can hardly be accused of being right-wing or a Trump supporter, on media bias: The U.S. media is essentially 100 percent united, vehemently, against Trump, and preventing him from being elected president. I don’t have an actual problem with that because I share the premises on which it is based about why he poses such extreme dangers. But that doesn’t mean that as a journalist, or even jus…

Post by yummyfajitas » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 3:24 PM UTC

devrelm wrote: post #184

seertaak wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The top Breitbart headline ... is willfully [sic] inciting anti-immigrant sentiment by taking numbers out of context. > The number is true but the inference is false. How are the numbers taken out of context? In your opinion, how would that headline read if the numbers weren't taken out of context? Or does the mere act of publishing the headlines (at all) make Breitbart guilty of taking the numbers out of context i…

> How are the numbers taken out of context? The numbers lack context in that they don't specify a rate, merely a value. It makes it sound like 70K women are attacked each year by undocumented immigrants, when the reality is that the number is closer to 1.27K per year since 1955. Let's do some back of the napkin math: There are about 11 million undocumented immigrants in the US, meaning that the rate of sexual assault…