Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 335 posts

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#251

Post by gilleain »

paulddraper wrote: post #238
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.…

> greater than the lives saved by repealing abortion rights That's a tall order. To put that claim in perspective, more Americans die in abortions every year than have died in combat in the entire history of the US. (Whether a fetus is a person is of course the point debated, but anyway, those are the numbers.)

> Whether a fetus is a person is of course the point debated, but anyway, those are the numbers

More pedantically, they are surely not Americans either, since citizenship is conferred at birth?

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#252

Post by hx87 »

cmdrfred wrote: post #228
seertaak wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is extremely obvious if you are non-partisan. Right now, there are huge issues about Clinton just released by wikileaks[0] she said that she has a "public position" and a "private position" to placate a room full of bankers (Read: Hey guys I won't really do any of that Bernie Sanders stuff, I'm just saying it for votes) CNN's top story: Trump said "grab her in the pussy" in 2005 [0] http://www.washingtontimes.co…

Having a public position and a private position is something everyone does--expressing your private position publicly is often detrimental to getting the goal of that position done, so you craft a public position more amenable to achieving that goal.

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#253

Post by hx87 »

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…

> no matter how fact-free, no matter how irrational, no matter how dangerous

The allegations against Trump are based on fact, rational, and hardly dangerous.

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#254

Post by hx87 »

mtanski wrote: post #194
seertaak wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It seams like in this election even traditionally right learning news papers like the WaPo or WSJ are pilling onto trump. Not to mention countless regional newspapers that have a right leaning edition staff. Bias disclosure: Left leaning, not by my own choice. More centrist, along the lines of the Economist editing staff view of the world. So not by choice, because there's not really centrism left.

Hillary Clinton is solidly centrist--Sanders had to pull her to a left a tiny bit.

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#255

Post by ionised »

ap22213 wrote: post #179
angry-hacker wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For someone outside of U.S, both right (breitbart etc.) and left (huff etc.) are propaganda all the way down . It is your left bias. And the people on other political spectrum feel the same but other way around. Watching American elections is like seeing a freak show. I don't understand who are those people who can support any of the candidates or the media.

As an outsider, what are some of the things that you find troubling with Clinton? She seems pretty status quo to me.

That is what is troubling.

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#256

Post by aaron-lebo »

paulmd wrote: post #248
seertaak wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, ok. However it seems to me that those leaning right don't give CNN and the like the benefit of the doubt, and equally those leaning left don't give the likes of Breitbart the benefit of the doubt -- which brings us back to the parent posters position :)

Breitbart is a tabloid that pretends to respectability, much like the British tabloid The Daily Mail. They use that respectability to push their (explicit, strong) slant. If you're comparing CNN and Breitbart then their camouflage is sucessful. Benefit of the doubt needs to be earned. I mean, hopefully you are not taking supermarket-checkout tabloids at face value, right? CNN may be terrible journalism that's full of…

CNN has been doing a lot of selective editing this cycle. They also tend to focus on things that support their narrative. You can focus on things that are completely true and effectively "lie" about those truths because of the way you are presenting it.

Softballs and clickbait aren't any more true than lies.

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#257

Post by bbctol »

hx87 wrote: post #253
seertaak wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> no matter how fact-free, no matter how irrational, no matter how dangerous The allegations against Trump are based on fact, rational, and hardly dangerous.

There I believe he was referring specifically to the breaking story that Trump's descriptions of leaked Hillary emails were fed to him by Russian propagandists, a story with little basis in fact.

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#258

Post by cmdrfred »

hx87 wrote: post #252
cmdrfred wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is extremely obvious if you are non-partisan. Right now, there are huge issues about Clinton just released by wikileaks[0] she said that she has a "public position" and a "private position" to placate a room full of bankers (Read: Hey guys I won't really do any of that Bernie Sanders stuff, I'm just saying it for votes) CNN's top story: Trump said "grab her in the pussy" in 2005 [0] http://www.washingtontimes.co…

Having a public position and a private position is something everyone does--expressing your private position publicly is often detrimental to getting the goal of that position done, so you craft a public position more amenable to achieving that goal.

...and the goal is enriching her donors. As the other leaks show.

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#259

Post by 551199 »

hx87 wrote: post #253
seertaak wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> no matter how fact-free, no matter how irrational, no matter how dangerous The allegations against Trump are based on fact, rational, and hardly dangerous.

Like the rational 'fact' that Trump is a Russian agent. Please.

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#260

Post by unityByFreedom »

dlss wrote: post #118
unityByFreedom wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there should be "block designed" hiring around these issues to maximize political diversity and reduce bias in aggregate How do we deal with those who would push treasonous information? If WikiLeaks publishes correspondence between, say, USA and China, that is private because China wanted it that way, and that hurts American allies, should this be allowed to trend on an American-based website? Has WikiLeaks contrib…

These are very good questions, and have been debated at extensively (as you might imagine for such important questions) by humanity's legal, ethical, and philosophical scholars. Here's the current state of things with references as to why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite... although I have some emotional disagreement with those policies at times, I can't say I'm well read enough on the to…

Thanks. I mention it because, as a tech enthusiast, I was once very much in the camp of "we should know everything our government does"

Now, I understand that "we can't know everything, because some other governments won't tell us their true feelings if we don't keep those conversations private."

Perhaps one day some Chinese or Russian hackers will level the playing field.

In the mean time, I wonder if more tech folks can understand that our government might actually want to prosecute Snowden, Assange etc. for legitimate threats to our national security.

Post reply on HN