21–30 of 80 posts
I just can't get my head around why political speech is permitted to be false.. Have Facebook ever actually given any solid reasons for this decision?
People should be allowed to be wrong. It's that simple. If you disagree with this you're not a very good person (fact).
>>> The online newspaper Nu.nl had been Facebook’s only factchecking partner in the Netherlands since Leiden University dropped out of the programme last year. The website had sole responsibility for marking Facebook and Instagram news content for Dutch users as being false or misleading, in order to help power the social network’s tools that suppress distribution of misinformation. Imagine the years of training and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because truth is subjective. "Trump is racist" a statement of fact. But it's entirely subjective.
> Because truth is subjective. no... It's not.. Thats the point. Things are not marked (legitemately) as fake based on opinion..
People are worried about things that are illegitimately marked as fake based on opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you provide some facts that would be subjective?
In the realm of media, there's a lot of equivocation with the word "fact". I believe in the existence of objective facts in the general sense. But when we're using the term in the context of our current media environment, a lot of "facts" are actually conclusions that contain heaping helpings of opinion, if you really dig into them. There's a lot of telling you what to think and not a lot of bare facts, because who w…
That's just a logical fallacy. By definition a fact can only be objective, otherwise it's simply an opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People should be allowed to be wrong. It's that simple. If you disagree with this you're not a very good person (fact).
Water is not wet. It's that simple. if you disagree with me you're not a very good person(fact)
I just can't get my head around why political speech is permitted to be false.. Have Facebook ever actually given any solid reasons for this decision?
The company insists that it does not want to be in the position of judging what is true and false, with its head of communications, Nick Clegg, saying that it was not an “appropriate role for us to referee political debates and prevent a politician’s speech from reaching its audience and being subject to public debate and scrutiny”.
I just can't get my head around why political speech is permitted to be false.. Have Facebook ever actually given any solid reasons for this decision?
Because people say any idea they disagree with is false.
Let me ask you the classic; "When did you stop beating your wife?"
For everyone doing all the hand-wringing about Facebook, doesn't existing media (newspapers, TV, cable, etc) already NOT "fact check" ads run on their networks?
Also can you back up your statement about not fact-checking before anyone claims otherwise ?
Unfortunately more people consume Facebook than others, so its a prime target.
Also I would point you towards another article :
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-advertising-...