If anyone selects for you what to listen and what to ignore, then you are allowing forces you do not control to decide on how to nurture your discernment about reality. In mass. Think about that.
As noisy as it gets, if we loose freedom of speech we will be gone.
Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads
181–190 of 268 posts
Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
The game has changed. There are people with intolerant and twisted views trying to manipulate the naive herd of sheep who blindly follows whatever people like on Facebook. Knowing the tactics of people behind fake news, it's good that Facebook is responding accordingly to punish and get rid of bad actors on their platform. It's once again showing that we can't have pure anarcho decentralization. It would be a haven f…
> edit: there is some heavy downvote brigading going on here. I've alerted the mods. You'll likely attract down votes with this edit regardless of whether members agree with the sentiment, as it's counter to the guidelines: > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
There is likely also some state player trying to rig the hn system. Why is this post at the bottom of the front page after 2 hours and 120+ upvotes?!
I hope hn has some anti state player routines in place...
Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-in... Really - there are stronger arguments against Trump.
And that photo is from the opposite direction, focuses on a different part of the crowd, and in no way contradicts the smaller crowd shown in the other picture.
You know you can rotate the image, right? There are clear landmarks along the mall, countable rows of people, and but a single section where it even comes close to matching up.
Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
The game has changed. There are people with intolerant and twisted views trying to manipulate the naive herd of sheep who blindly follows whatever people like on Facebook. Knowing the tactics of people behind fake news, it's good that Facebook is responding accordingly to punish and get rid of bad actors on their platform. It's once again showing that we can't have pure anarcho decentralization. It would be a haven f…
> edit: there is some heavy downvote brigading going on here. I've alerted the mods. You'll likely attract down votes with this edit regardless of whether members agree with the sentiment, as it's counter to the guidelines: > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
i dont think a person should downvote because the other person disagrees with them, or even if they are factually wrong - thats what a reply + source is for.
however, tattling to the mods because you are being downvoted and dont like it? good lord
Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads
#185So how does Facebook really know if something is fake? You can't trust user reports. They will say a story is fake when they don't like it. You can't trust some worker in Bangladesh to determine this either just as easily as you can determine if something is NSFW. You still can't trust AI. So how? It hires specialists in each field to determine what is real and what is not?
Human expertise, in this context often called "subject matter experts"
Journalists aren't even SMEs in most cases.
If they're good, they get enough depth to explain what SMEs are talking about and to understand the difference between a huckster and an expert. And, amazingly enough, the SMEs themselves will disagree on fine points and big issues.
There is too much specialized information and knowledge for social media companies to be reliable arbiters of truth for any controversial topic.
Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
I deliberately and ironically linked to the UK Daily Mail - the largest online 'newspaper' on the planet- and their Snopes story as an example of a 'credible' news site (despite all the click bait Taboola style 'stories' on it). You don't have to look far to find troubling criticism of Snopes and their ad agency owners online example https://foodbabe.com/2017/02/24/do-you-trust-snopes-you-wont... The fact that they a…
You backed up your point with a website that is staunchly pro pseudo-science and fear mongering, which contains multiple sources from the Daily Mail yet again to make their point. Of course you won't have to go far to find circular sources in an echo chamber, but finding qualified sources for your point seems to be difficult.
You are clearly debating based on perceptions of my being part of 'a certain segment of people with particular persuasions'. I gave up Facebook but I am very interested in who gets to decide what information I am allowed to see via the internet.
I don't think either the Daily Mail or Snopes are credible information filters. I would hope for something better.
'Pseudo science' is another case in point. who gets to decide what is 'real' science and what is 'pseudo'? It's the same censorship challenge as the 'news' crack down on free speech...
Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
my point is that anyone who explicitly refused to reprint Benjamin Franklin's writings on the realities of the US because they were declared fake and treasonous deserved to be called censorious and biased against freedom of speech. Mind you, more than a couple of his articles were actual fake news meant to stoke discussion on British policies.
But the fear of censorship is that truth will be obscured. If free speech is being abused to do what we're afraid censorship will do, doesn't that create a contradiction in your logic? And to be clear, what we mean by "fake news" are stories that are demonstrably false with incorrect information that's never corrected even when it's revealed to be false. We're _not_ talking about what Trump calls "fake news," by whic…
> If free speech is being abused to do what we're afraid censorship will do, doesn't that create a contradiction in your logic?
Irrelevant. Limiting speech doesn't solve that contradiction, it only guarantees the worse outcome. More speech solves your proposed "contradiction" just fine.
Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
> edit: there is some heavy downvote brigading going on here. I've alerted the mods. You'll likely attract down votes with this edit regardless of whether members agree with the sentiment, as it's counter to the guidelines: > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
There is likely also some state player trying to rig the hn system. Why is this post at the bottom of the front page after 2 hours and 120+ upvotes?! I hope hn has some anti state player routines in place...
It also has 179 comments (as of this comment). As I understand it, high comment rates can trigger the "overheated discussion detector" which can depress a submission's rank. HN isn't intended for and actively works against creating a community where flame wars (discussions that create more heat than light) are encouraged and proliferate.
Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads
#189This is like light (or indirect) censoring...
Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a photo by the National Parks Service, timestamped 11:51AM, according to the Washington Post. Frankly I trust high-resolution photographic evidence vetted by the National Parks Service and the Washington Post reporting staff, over your memory of unnamed, unsourced live video. But yeah both sides, totally. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/03/06/...
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-in... Really - there are stronger arguments against Trump.
Yea that picture definitely reinforces the original Parks Service one. You can see all the empty space and people milling around, not that far in the background. The Obama inauguration was shoulder to shoulder standing room only.