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

Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 175 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#161

Post by dclowd9901 »

ThomPete wrote: post #115
dclowd9901 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Anecdote is not evidence. 2) In one breath you dismiss this article as elitism, and in the very next admit the problem of fake news, which is exactly what this article is talking about. It's not another discussion. It is exactly this discussion. I've never seen such a blatant use of straw man.

The article claims that Zuckerberg is wrong in his claim that the fake news affected the election in any meaningful way. Thats what I am talking about, not sure what exactly make you say it's a straw man.

I don't even know what kind of point you're trying to make now. In your post you describe a class of individuals so out of touch that they can't believe Trump voters weren't tricked, yet admit that fake news exists and is a problem. Which is it, bub?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#162

Post by AnimalMuppet »

Pokepokalypse wrote: post #143
makomk wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter whether the fake stories actually had any effect on people's political leanings, because the media narrative is that they did. Ultimately, the mainstream media are in denial. Every single media organisation backed Clinton, including ones that had never backed a presidential candidate before, they published articles pointing to this as reason to vote for her whilst insisting that it was ridiculous to…

As a liberal; I completely agree with what you say about the media organizations, and I'll add to that, some of the more-respected leftwing media; which used to be reliable, went into a phase of spewing absolute garbage. I found it disquieting, because it came about gradually, and I realized it suddenly, after the fact (about 6 weeks ago), that they were really playing fast-and-loose with standards of credibility on…

Trump is appalling. But media went from reporting that Trump was horrible, to cheerleading for Hillary. Some of them went further, and tried to be on the playing field on Hillary's team. That's a problem, and it's not justified by how horrible Trump is.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#163

Post by AnimalMuppet »

mc32 wrote: post #43
bluedino wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I think it's too early to tell if these fake stories had any effect on people's political leanings Facebook isn't the only place people get 'fake news'. Just look at their peer groups. My cousin is a member of a labor union and they tell all kind of goofy tales about what will happen is candidate X gets elected or candidate Y gets elected. You should hear the coffee shop rambling the old men do at Tim Horton's in…

You make a great point, although I think it's different. These are just people opining privately rather than a "news" organization presumably publishing news/information based on some kind of rigor --now, which one has more influence on voting, yes, I agree, your circle of friends is typically more influential, disinformed as it may be.

Your circle of friends has more influence on you. One-sided media may have a bigger influence because it is national, not just a few people who have coffee together.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#164

Post by AnimalMuppet »

Pokepokalypse wrote: post #144
pault wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to agree with you, but in the days after the election several of my acquaintances witnessed hate crimes accompanied by Trump slogans. This, along with the surge in reports of hate crimes in the media, tells me that this isn't just a repeat of 2000.

This is fact. This is actually occurring. I've seen it, and I've heard first hand accounts. What is also significant is that I see it being largely ignored in the media, as they frame peaceful counter-Trump protests as "riots" and "thugs destroying property". This is the opinion I'm seeing coming out by moderates, who are decrying the protests, and ignoring the fascist violence coming from hate groups.

Really? The only (mainstream) articles I've seen have always put "riot" in quotes - as if we the media don't really think it's a riot, but the police say it is, and even implying that the police saying it is might be some kind of a problem. This about events where there is actual, documented (and even photographed) property being destroyed. (This was in Portland.)

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#165

Post by AnimalMuppet »

newdayrising wrote: post #16

If Hillary won this wouldn't have been an issue for the NYT. Close to the election I repeatedly saw articles comparing Trump to Hitler and predicting the end of free society of he were to win. The only fake news I saw was satirical "news." I did not vote for Trump, but it's crazy how hysterical and witch-hunty the left is right now.

> ... it's crazy how hysterical and witch-hunty the left is right now.

Well, see, Trump was really horrible as a candidate. Really incredibly weak. And yet Hillary lost. That couldn't have been because Hillary was an even weaker candidate! It had to be because of a witch! If we can find that witch, we'll be fine in the next election!

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#166

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jimbokun wrote: post #130
VLM wrote: post #5

The Times is in denial that anyone considers it anything other than a mixture of Democratic party propaganda and clickbait legacy media. The stats are not looking good for them and dying industries always lash out reflexively and ineffectively at random opponents.

You speak as if this is only a problem for the New York Times. How can a democracy function without an informed populace? If not the New York Times or some other existing "news" entity, what entity can possibly provide reliable information going forward? Also, this isn't just about bias. Reporting with a bias can still be useful for informing people, as long as the information presented is accurate. Over time, outlet…

> How can a democracy function without an informed populace? If not the New York Times or some other existing "news" entity, what entity can possibly provide reliable information going forward?

The New York Times forfeited that position. If I wanted a Democratic Party propaganda rag, I could find one - I don't need the New York Times for that. If I wanted accurate information, I do need the New York Times, or someone like them - but they won't do it. They used to, but they won't any more.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#167

Post by krapp »

ajdlinux wrote: post #157
Pokepokalypse wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not wrong about the pro-Clinton content. I'm politically liberal, so I've kind of sheltered myself from the rightwing stuff. A couple of weeks ago, I started looking at it, after some conversations with some trump supporters. I was completely floored. I remember the situation in 2000, and 2004, and there was a lot of crazy stuff particularly from FoxNews, and commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Dine…

Ironically, Glenn Beck is one of the more sensible voices on that end of politics this election cycle...

I guess Glenn must have stopped worrying about Obama's plans to spark a race war, overthrow the government and install a Communist Islamic Caliphate, then?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#168

Post by flukus »

jimbokun wrote: post #152
barrkel wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of people in denial that there is a genuine grievance at the heart of voting for Trump. People who voted for him are not all misinformed racist sexist delusional hicks. There's too many of them to all be fooled. Many of them voted for Obama last time; the numbers make that clear. Denial is the biggest thing I see in the US media right now, and it's worrying. Because it will probably lead to opposition t…

How well do you think the average voter, whether Trump or Hillary supporter, would do on a Politifact quiz? I believe most of us are misinformed and delusional, and I do not believe people having Facebook as their primary news source is improving the situation.

People vote with their hearts not their heads. This has always been true.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#169

Post by flukus »

Pokepokalypse wrote: post #145
lake99 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's true that Donald Trump is lying, feckless fool. Lying? Sure. Feckless fool? Not a fact. > But that doesn't really change the facts. You mean, facts like Hillary arming radicals and destroying governments? Or facts like Clinton getting millions of dollars from major banks? Or facts like Clinton wiping email servers? There were floodlights on the liar, but a crook sneaked in behind them. Rampant editorializing d…

He's a feckless fool. Campaigns on deporting ALL illegal immigrants and building a wall. Says (on 60 minutes, this is not fake, he said it): he's only going to deport illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes. This is exactly Obama's policy. He just won an election, and he's pushing the status-quo. Again, on ACA repeal, he was VERY CLEAR in the debate: "repeal and replace Obamacare" (just not clear on "rep…

If trumps a fool then what does that make the people that he beat?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#170

Post by flukus »

swalsh wrote: post #33

I'm scared people are going to keep pushing for social media to implement stronger filters. I believe very strongly that the free flow of information (even when it's just wrong) is critical. Information gives people power, but withholding information takes power away. If a company like Facebook implements the filter, we're giving that power to them and hoping they are ambivalent. The solution to fake news is for peop…

Free flow of information isn't going away, it will just move into channels where that information can't be corrected. It will create even greater information bubbles.
Post reply on HN