111–120 of 148 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They aren't. You'll have to provide evidence for your claim.
Let's see some statistical analysis that the fact checkers FB claims are disinterested arbiters of fact aren't in fact pushing an agenda before we go along with censorship maybe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They aren't. You'll have to provide evidence for your claim.
Let's see some statistical analysis that the fact checkers FB claims are disinterested arbiters of fact aren't in fact pushing an agenda before we go along with censorship maybe.
Remember : - It all started with Facebook being accused of manipulating the timeline to remove conservative stories during the campaign - At the time, their PR was along the lines of : we will fire the staff and replace it with an "objective" algorithm - Shortly before the end of the campaign, the Fake News narrative started to be tested under various forms ("conspiracy theories are going mainstream", "damaging rumor…
First of all, you have the chronology right but the causation wrong. After conservative pressure to stop editorially reviewing news, fake news has increasingly trended. Since the election, people have realized how untenable this is and so Facebook is looking for a solution. This has nothing to do with the bill of rights. Facebook is not the government, government is not requiring fake news to be censored, and the fac…
Well, that's arguable, but in any case, and perhaps more to the point here, in the US you don't have a Constitutional right to force any private party to cooperate with you in spreading any political idea (lie or not) you want, even when you have the right to spread that idea yourself.
Remember : - It all started with Facebook being accused of manipulating the timeline to remove conservative stories during the campaign - At the time, their PR was along the lines of : we will fire the staff and replace it with an "objective" algorithm - Shortly before the end of the campaign, the Fake News narrative started to be tested under various forms ("conspiracy theories are going mainstream", "damaging rumor…
First of all, you have the chronology right but the causation wrong. After conservative pressure to stop editorially reviewing news, fake news has increasingly trended. Since the election, people have realized how untenable this is and so Facebook is looking for a solution. This has nothing to do with the bill of rights. Facebook is not the government, government is not requiring fake news to be censored, and the fac…
Well, that's arguable, but in any case, and perhaps more to the point here, in the US you don't have a Constitutional right to force any private party to cooperate with you in spreading any political idea (lie or not) you want, even when you have the right to spread that idea yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. Politifact will generally use the most generous possible reading of what a Democrat says, or the least generous reading of what a Republican says, when determining truth or falsehood. Take a look at these two stories: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/... Now, the first story is simply true. Hillary Clinton did attack her…
> Hillary Clinton did attack her husband's mistresses and accusers, and there's a long history of documentation of that > But Politifact labels it "mostly false" because it was never proven to have come directly from her. These statements are mutually incompatible. There can't be a long history of documentation for something which is proven. Start your own fact-checker. Your examples just affirm that Politifact is do…
There can't be a long history of documentation for something which is proven.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First of all, you have the chronology right but the causation wrong. After conservative pressure to stop editorially reviewing news, fake news has increasingly trended. Since the election, people have realized how untenable this is and so Facebook is looking for a solution. This has nothing to do with the bill of rights. Facebook is not the government, government is not requiring fake news to be censored, and the fac…
>Facebook is this era's nightly news and, just like the nightly news, they have a right to avoid sharing crazy conspiracy theories and outright lies. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with them choosing what I can share with my friends, and more generally what people can share with each other. "Sorry it's fake news so we limited the reach". The problem is that they are not open. My only problem is opacity…
They don't choose that, they choose what you can share via their platform. You can share whatever you want with friends, etc., using your own resources instead of theirs, and Facebook has no say.
Facebook limiting the use of Facebook's resources to things Facebook is comfortable with may not make them your ideal service, but why should they be obligated to be that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me guess: any source which doesn't corroborate your worldview is biased.
Politifact and Snopes push their opinionated worldview as though it is objectively true and morally righteous.
Wouldn't want to be guilty of the same sin, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Hillary Clinton did attack her husband's mistresses and accusers, and there's a long history of documentation of that > But Politifact labels it "mostly false" because it was never proven to have come directly from her. These statements are mutually incompatible. There can't be a long history of documentation for something which is proven. Start your own fact-checker. Your examples just affirm that Politifact is do…
There can't be a long history of documentation for something which is proven. Um, what ?
> There can't be a long history of documentation for something which is unproven.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fake news was a massive problem this election cycle, and it really highlighted Facebook's large influence and their inability to actually do anything about it. So yes, Facebook dealing with fake news here is a reaction to what happened during the election, but that's not a bad thing. Fake news turns out to be a serious problem and it needs to be fixed, regardless of your political leanings. Edit: Why am I being downv…
There's no evidence that "fake news" is actually a serious problem, other than getting a lot of likes on Facebook. Seems to me "fake news" is an agenda-driven narrative by the mainstream media to salvage their waning reputation and discredit alternative media. For instance: https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgrace...