Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what about left wing published news? Automatically becomes legit? By the way, I didn't know that site was right or left.
"Independent" "fact-checkers" will make sure of that.
They've thought of everything!
Facebook is America’s scapegoat du jour
141–150 of 172 posts
Re: Facebook is America’s scapegoat du jour
#142Aren't scapegoats usually blameless? edit: one of many, many articles you can find criticizing Megan McCardle https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/02/megan-mcardle... ... this is not a non-sequitur attack on her thesis, but I am saying that she has a long track record that one should be aware of before reading her OpEds.
No, but I seriously doubt the idiots at Cambridge Analytica and the guy with pink hair were the genius masterminds who can swing political votes through targeted advertising. People don't like to admit that the people in swing states are mostly against globalisation, wall street and the system as it is. Trump spent less than half what Clinton did on ads. I truly believe he could have spent nothing and still won. Vote…
Did you forget the fake news during the election? I'm from Quebec and I remember being ashamed to learn that some people near I lived made a living pushing fake news website just with the help of Google Ads on these pages. They made a profit with fake news. Do you see now how much cheaper it is to push a fake narrative that people want to believe?
The share button is the cheapest ad campaign you can ever hope for. You only pay for the first view, all the share are free.
It also helps when another country pays for your ad campaigns ;) but that's a whole other story.
Re: Facebook is America’s scapegoat du jour
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought they were trying to win back the House? One couldn't imagine a more evocative campaign issue, for independents suspicious of both parties like me. "We care about democracy and Paul Ryan doesn't! Tell Paul Ryan to restore trust to democracy!" OK, tell me that and I'll vote Democrat. Crickets.
> I thought they were trying to win back the House? One couldn't imagine a more evocative campaign issue, for independents suspicious of both parties like me. "We care about democracy and Paul Ryan doesn't! Tell Paul Ryan to restore trust to democracy!" And that’s the electoral (as opposed to policy) side of why 84 of them are cosponsoring a much broader election security bill than Gabbard’s HR 5147 (and, to be clear…
[deleted]
Re: Facebook is America’s scapegoat du jour
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but I seriously doubt the idiots at Cambridge Analytica and the guy with pink hair were the genius masterminds who can swing political votes through targeted advertising. People don't like to admit that the people in swing states are mostly against globalisation, wall street and the system as it is. Trump spent less than half what Clinton did on ads. I truly believe he could have spent nothing and still won. Vote…
Did you forget the fake news during the election? I'm from Quebec and I remember being ashamed to learn that some people near I lived made a living pushing fake news website just with the help of Google Ads on these pages. They made a profit with fake news. Do you see now how much cheaper it is to push a fake narrative that people want to believe? The share button is the cheapest ad campaign you can ever hope for. Yo…
The deal here is the "want to believe". People who believed those faked news were voting for Trump anyway.
It takes a lot to switch from Democrat to Conservative, not just some news that you read on the net. Political opinions are not that fluid and don't change easy.
Re: Facebook is America’s scapegoat du jour
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
All this is astride the long understood fact that American election security is so bad that there aren't reliable records to disprove a machine that's been tampered with. In this context, is it curious that no one has signed on to co-sponsor the following bill? https://congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5147/tex...
> In this context, is it curious that no one has signed on to co-sponsor the following bill? No one has signed on to HR 5147 because everyone (84 members, all Democrats) who cares enough about election security to cosponsor a bill on it has instead signed on to cosponsor HR 5011 [0], which is a much broader election security bill; to the extent the specific requirements in HR 5147 are desirable and not address by HR…
Terms that don't appear in everyone's favorite bill: "voter-verified", "open-source" (not sure why Gabbard has that hyphen), "preservation". On the other hand, it does begin with "It is the sense of Congress that, in light of the lessons learned from Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election..." so it ought to play well with the military-intelligence-enforcement-industrial-media complex.
If Gabbard somehow got all those important things amended into this most favored bill, it would lose all its co-sponsors. Democrats and Republicans are like Coke and Pepsi. If we had actual democracy we might end up with something palatable.
Re: Facebook is America’s scapegoat du jour
#146I stopped reading after "Facebook feeds lit up with outraged Hillary Clinton voters announcing that they were shutting down their accounts"
Not because of my politics (non-american) but because that set the intellectual level of the author. Life is too short to be reading this kind of garbage
Re: Facebook is America’s scapegoat du jour
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
>2. Start blathering about Hillary's emails, as if that were somehow important. I am really tired of this twisted version of the relative privation fallacy. Trump is worse != Hillary was good Her email situation was, in fact, an issue. Worse than Trump? Absolutely not. But even in context it doesn't belong in "as if that were somehow important" territory. Under normal circumstances (had she been elected) we'd probabl…
If her emails were such an issue why have multiple members of the Trump Cabinet and House and Senate members been found to do the same thing and continue to do the same thing. Objectively: voters don't care. Mentioning it at this point is sheer deflection. If you need a go-to example, pick someone in power like Kushner or Pence.
Those examples are issues too. Voters should care.
Re: Facebook is America’s scapegoat du jour
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In this context, is it curious that no one has signed on to co-sponsor the following bill? No one has signed on to HR 5147 because everyone (84 members, all Democrats) who cares enough about election security to cosponsor a bill on it has instead signed on to cosponsor HR 5011 [0], which is a much broader election security bill; to the extent the specific requirements in HR 5147 are desirable and not address by HR…
Terms that don't appear in everyone's favorite bill: "voter-verified", "open-source" (not sure why Gabbard has that hyphen), "preservation". On the other hand, it does begin with "It is the sense of Congress that, in light of the lessons learned from Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election..." so it ought to play well with the military-intelligence-enforcement-industrial-media complex. If Gabbard someh…
> Terms that don't appear in everyone's favorite bill: "voter-verified", "open-source" (not sure why Gabbard has that hyphen), "preservation".
HR 5011, rather than trying to cobble together a bandaid over hackable electronic voting systems, has its central mitigation the voting system problem (it addresses more election infrastructure than just ballot-casting) incentives and grants to get rid of electronic voting altogether in favor of the proven system of voter-marked paper ballots. Voter-marked ballots that are the thing that is counted in the normal case is much better than voter-verified receipts that are selectively or conditionally used to audit counts, and open source is irrelevant when there is no software, and the idea that open source is somehow equivalent to secure has been refuted time and again.
Now, sure, it arguably [0] wouldn't be bad to add something like HR 5147s requirements for hold-outs that aren't going to abandon electronic voting into HR 5011, and that would be a very good debate to have when HR 5011 (or, more realistically, the similar bill introduced in the next Congress) is heard in committee.
[0] Arguably not, though, because that could encourage people to see electronic voting as safer than it is; maybe better would be to amend in a hard deadline requirement for abandoning electronic voting in favor of voter-marked paper ballots, a stick to go along with the grant-money carrot.
Re: Facebook is America’s scapegoat du jour
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
>2. Start blathering about Hillary's emails, as if that were somehow important. I am really tired of this twisted version of the relative privation fallacy. Trump is worse != Hillary was good Her email situation was, in fact, an issue. Worse than Trump? Absolutely not. But even in context it doesn't belong in "as if that were somehow important" territory. Under normal circumstances (had she been elected) we'd probabl…
If her emails were such an issue why have multiple members of the Trump Cabinet and House and Senate members been found to do the same thing and continue to do the same thing. Objectively: voters don't care. Mentioning it at this point is sheer deflection. If you need a go-to example, pick someone in power like Kushner or Pence.
Having a private email is different to operating your own email infrastructure in some guy's cupboard while you're secretary of state.
Re: Facebook is America’s scapegoat du jour
#150Oh, poor Mark! Such a patsy is the perfect scapegoat. /s The company he founded reflects his work ethics. Personally I don't care that much when the bully starts being bullied. You reap what you sow.
This sentiment confuses me. Why do people dislike Zuckerberg by default? How does it happen that anyone sees him as a bully?
What does "dislike by default" mean? Are you implying that people don't actually have reasons to dislike him based on the actions of himself and his company through the years?
It's not like people just decided "I don't know who Mark Zuckerberg is yet, but I despise him".