Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is tongue-in-cheek fascism? Example.
Sure. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/23/alt-right...
[deleted]
Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking
111–119 of 119 posts
Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking
#112Interesting times, and a slippery slope. These fairly square rules will surely cause other uproars as it invites back the alt-right with their tongue-in-cheek fascism. And the Facebook algorithms seem embarrassingly incapable of nuance, like this Tommy Robinson debacle: the mere mention of the name "Tommy Robinson" in a post (in Sweden) renders your profile inactive for several days or indefinitely. In other countrie…
Where are you getting this information that mentioning Yaxley-Lennon's alter-ego gets the post deleted? Appears to be nonsense to me, I have seen plenty of posts with that name in them.
Can't blame you for finding this strange, it has not been reported widely since Tommy acquired his well deserved pariah status. But you will find it on the second page or so using a internet search provider of your choice, predictably on unsavory pages that also might call for the death of large portions of the worlds population solely on basis of their beliefs. You efforts might lead to tweets like these:
https://twitter.com/blondesoulbird/status/115134913120768409...
But I can also assure you this happened to the moderator of a group I'm in (he did it as a test to check the veracity of the claim). He typed "test Tommy Robinson" in a post to his friends. His account was disabled for 3 days.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/kallkritik/permalink/6131282... (in Swedish)
Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most reporting is based on opinions, or is at least misleading in the sense that it tends to be reported from well defined perspective. What do you mean by this? Most new organizations have a separate, opinion section. Does your statement include the news department, too?
Even beyond editorializing as the sibling comments point out, there is considerable opinion in what is reported vs brushed aside. On August 3, 46 people were shot in El Paso, Texas. [1] That same weekend, 51 people were shot in Chicago, Illinois. [2] [3] One statistic gets hours and hours of national press cycles, Wikipedia page, etc. The other statistic gets a passing mention in local channel and papers. [1] https:/…
> On August 3, 46 people were shot in El Paso, Texas.
> That same weekend, 51 people were shot in Chicago, Illinois.
One is not like the other.
The El Paso shooting was the result of one person, armed with semi-assault weapon, going into a Walmart and killing more than 20 people within a couple minutes.
The Chicago shootings resulted in seven deaths but were spread out among multiple cases and days.
Both are tragic obviously.
But the El Paso got wall-to-wall coverage because, in essence, it was a domestic terrorist attack.
Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even beyond editorializing as the sibling comments point out, there is considerable opinion in what is reported vs brushed aside. On August 3, 46 people were shot in El Paso, Texas. [1] That same weekend, 51 people were shot in Chicago, Illinois. [2] [3] One statistic gets hours and hours of national press cycles, Wikipedia page, etc. The other statistic gets a passing mention in local channel and papers. [1] https:/…
> On August 3, 46 people were shot in El Paso, Texas. > That same weekend, 51 people were shot in Chicago, Illinois. One is not like the other. The El Paso shooting was the result of one person, armed with semi-assault weapon, going into a Walmart and killing more than 20 people within a couple minutes. The Chicago shootings resulted in seven deaths but were spread out among multiple cases and days. Both are tragic o…
> semi-assault
?
> The Chicago shootings resulted in seven deaths but were spread out among multiple cases and days.
Naturally, smaller events have less coverage. But even totaling up the coverages for each Chicago event in less coverage than El Paso.
Most new outlets bias their reporting disproportionately. IDK what the relationship is. Cubic, probably. An event that is 2 as big gets 8 times the coverage. Three times as big gets 27 times the coverage.
---
In any case, media frequently shows an unrepresentative perspective on reality. It is very easy -- indeed expected -- to change report reality based on the opinion of what should and should not be reported.
Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
> On August 3, 46 people were shot in El Paso, Texas. > That same weekend, 51 people were shot in Chicago, Illinois. One is not like the other. The El Paso shooting was the result of one person, armed with semi-assault weapon, going into a Walmart and killing more than 20 people within a couple minutes. The Chicago shootings resulted in seven deaths but were spread out among multiple cases and days. Both are tragic o…
> semi-assault ? > The Chicago shootings resulted in seven deaths but were spread out among multiple cases and days. Naturally, smaller events have less coverage. But even totaling up the coverages for each Chicago event in less coverage than El Paso. Most new outlets bias their reporting disproportionately. IDK what the relationship is. Cubic, probably. An event that is 2 as big gets 8 times the coverage. Three time…
> ?
The El Paso shooter used a semi-automatic rifle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WASR-series_rifles
> Naturally, smaller events have less coverage. But even totaling up the coverages for each Chicago event in less coverage than El Paso.
Huh? The El Paso shooting was a big deal. Hence, the wall-to-wall coverage.
> Most new outlets bias their reporting disproportionately. IDK what the relationship is. Cubic, probably. An event that is 2 as big gets 8 times the coverage. Three times as big gets 27 times the coverage.
You don't seem to understand how reporting works. Journalists reporting on breaking news situations do not inject their opinions into the situation. They report what happened in a digestible and comprehensive way. Go and read the first coverage of the El Paso shooting and let me know if you see any opinions injected into the pieces.
> In any case, media frequently shows an unrepresentative perspective on reality. It is very easy -- indeed expected -- to change report reality based on the opinion of what should and should not be reported.
Again. You don't seem to understand how reporting works. I'd love for you to message the Texas reporters who covered the El Paso shooting your statement above and see how they'd response to your accusation that they, as well as other people who on the ground when shit hits the fans, shape their coverage based on opinion.
Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking
#116Most of the misinformation and propaganda out there is presented as "opinion" on all networks. The very little actual news on Fox, for example, is always accurate (and actually pretty good), so not being able to call them out on that takes away from the entire effort.
Most reporting is based on opinions, or is at least misleading in the sense that it tends to be reported from well defined perspective. The editorial decisions about what to report, what to not report, what to report as important or credible, and what to report as irrelevant or non-credible, can all be used to mislead the audience and misrepresent events. I can’t think of one mainstream news outlet that doesn’t do th…
The editorial selection of what to run, how long to cover it, and what the headline reads influences far more than anything else.
Which is why drudgereport is often the top of the list of sites D's want to regulate, even though Drudge rarely prints any original content.
And he links to way more left-leaning stories than you would expect, but grabs a buried right-leaning fact to re-title the link. Suddenly you're reading the story with the opposite expectation of what the reporter/editor often intended.
Equally effective is grabbing an over the top, inflammatory left-leaning fact (or quote or claim) to prime the reader with anger.
Both are extremely persuasive, without needing to change so much as a word of the linked text.
Edit: And of course the feed on fbook accomplishes much of the same for the opposing view, with slightly tweaked tactics, but the same overall strategy.
Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where are you getting this information that mentioning Yaxley-Lennon's alter-ego gets the post deleted? Appears to be nonsense to me, I have seen plenty of posts with that name in them.
Can't blame you for finding this strange, it has not been reported widely since Tommy acquired his well deserved pariah status. But you will find it on the second page or so using a internet search provider of your choice, predictably on unsavory pages that also might call for the death of large portions of the worlds population solely on basis of their beliefs. You efforts might lead to tweets like these: https://tw…
Certainly not the case in the UK, I literally posted "Just testing: Tommy Robinson" yesterday after seeing your reply; post was left intact, friends can view and comment, and I'm not locked out of Facebook.
Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't blame you for finding this strange, it has not been reported widely since Tommy acquired his well deserved pariah status. But you will find it on the second page or so using a internet search provider of your choice, predictably on unsavory pages that also might call for the death of large portions of the worlds population solely on basis of their beliefs. You efforts might lead to tweets like these: https://tw…
Certainly not the case in the UK, I literally posted "Just testing: Tommy Robinson" yesterday after seeing your reply; post was left intact, friends can view and comment, and I'm not locked out of Facebook.
It does (did?) seem to happen mostly in Scandinavian countries if you scrutinize the search results.
Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
So how do you feel about Ofcom's rules in the UK that regulate fairness and bias in broadcast channels? They seem to work fairly well.
I think the UK has an extraordinarily bad track record of allowing freedom of expression. Regarding ofcom though, they actually perform very little regulation of accuracy and impartiality, most of their work is as an ordinary utilities regulator, much like the FCC. To describe their regulatory action of section 5 of their broadcasting code (the part related to accuracy and fairness) as “working fairly well” is genero…
It it weren't functional, of course, the UK TV landscape would look like the US landscape. And it doesn't. At all.