11–20 of 45 posts
What about traditional media lying all the time? By citing "sources" journalists can say whatever they want without any kind of accountability. This is just old media crying for losing to new media platforms.
Maybe, if Facebook doesn't require an ad's content to be truthful, just placing a disclaimer such as "CONTENT IN THIS AD NOT GUARANTEED TO BE TRUE" will be enough to dissuade its consumers to believe everything they read.
Yah if fake news can spread propaganda for dirty ukrain money why FB can't?
This kind of bla bla is getting boring. > By refusing to stay out of politics, the company is building the case for its own breakup. What does NYtimes think will change if FB and instagram separate?
This is an op-ed by a law professor at Columbia, not the Times' editorial opinion.
Cheap shots aside, they are as responsible for this piece as much as Facebook is responsible for the ads on their platform of course
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an op-ed by a law professor at Columbia, not the Times' editorial opinion.
Who decides who's allowed to publish op-eds in the Times and what topics those op-eds will be about?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an op-ed by a law professor at Columbia, not the Times' editorial opinion.
Who decides who's allowed to publish op-eds in the Times and what topics those op-eds will be about?
The author's opinion in this area is notable from their expertise. If there's someone with a notable w opinion on the opposite side, I think they'd print it.
The NY Times isn't just allowing lies, it's prioritizing them. By allowing a certain law professor to publish opinion pieces that contain hyperbole, innuendo, and other misleading rhetoric, the NY Times is increasing the reach of this law professor. If it had not been for this opinion piece, millions of readers would otherwise have been unaware of this law professor, but are now exposed to his rhetoric thanks to the…
In the days when Sussman was a novice...