The idea that Meta does any meaningful fact-checking would be a hilarious joke if it weren't such a shameless insult to real fact-checkers
Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
241–250 of 702 posts
Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe they should mark the content more clearly as satire to avoid causing confusion?
Just to be clear what you're saying, you personally, or for the sake of others, need satire labels to identify that "CNN Purchases Industrial-Sized Washing Machine to Spin News Before Publication" is satire? That is the statement you just made?
Even knowing it's satire, the headline makes an implication that CNN is misleading people by "spinning" the news they report.
Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
#243Did the ancient Greeks have factcheckers ? I always wondered how they debated without “fact-checking” and muzzling the crap out of other side, yet produce wisdom that stood test of time > Boyer 1991, p. 119 notes, "The Elements of Euclid not only was the earliest major Greek mathematical work to come down to us, but also the most influential textbook of all times. [...]The first printed versions of the Elements appea…
[deleted]
Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
#244The 'elites' control the narrative through propaganda censors like Facebook, Twitter and Reddit. Anything that doesn't conform to their predetermined agenda gets discredited, the author smeared, then eventually banned from posting. These are legitimate 1st amendment issues that need to be defended or what little freedom we have left will be boiled away like baby frogs.
The Internet is not, and has never been, a "public forum." At the end of the day the only piece of hardware you own is (probably) the one on your desk. You may put whatever data you want into it, but it's no one's responsibility to share that data. Beyond that the suggestion that all user's data should be shared equally is inherently flawed.
I don’t think these types of arguments that proclaim the internet is owned by private entities make any sense.
The point of the parent comment was to discuss advocacy for a alternative and your comment essentially is replying well this is how it is currently so nothing can be done.
Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can I ask if you think Facebook fact checking is as serious as the Spanish Inquisition?
Not in any meaningful way without first coming to terms on a shared ethical framework and a common understanding of 'serious', no.
You're not wrong, but this whole discussion is about ethics, and I don't see any shared ethical framework being established.
Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
#246The 'elites' control the narrative through propaganda censors like Facebook, Twitter and Reddit. Anything that doesn't conform to their predetermined agenda gets discredited, the author smeared, then eventually banned from posting. These are legitimate 1st amendment issues that need to be defended or what little freedom we have left will be boiled away like baby frogs.
Facebook and Twitter have very specific policies against hate speech and inciting violence. This caused a lot of extremists on the American political right to be banned. That isn't elitism or censorship. It's enforcing their ToS, which as a private business, they have every right to do. I also think you're confused about what an 'elite' actually is. Spoonfed, entitled, whining, bitching opportunists like Trump fit th…
The private business argument is weak as you're really pointing to the freedom that businesses employ. Quite obviously censorship runs contrary to the idea of freedom and the spirit of the law. Private industry does not have an inherent right to censorship, it is only legal currently because social media is a relatively new form of communication. This censorship has clearly been disruptive and since social media is essentially serving the role of a telecommunications provider those laws surrounding their freedoms are likely to change. You have to be careful because just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Social media companies can also read your private messages and share your private photos but that wouldn't make it right.
Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
#247"Fact checking" serves only to ossify the current view on any emerging discussion. Vatican "fact checkers" kept Galileo under house arrest for spreading "fake news", in a sense. This is an unwinnable fight, the only reasonable response is to abandon the pretense that opinions are facts, and that most people can't distinguish truth from falsehood.
Fact checking is just censorship. It's literally a group that gets to decide what is an acceptable view and what isn't. How is that not just plain censorship?
You can certainly argue that censorship isn't always a bad thing. But calling censorship "fact checking" is purposely misleading.
Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
#248The 'elites' control the narrative through propaganda censors like Facebook, Twitter and Reddit. Anything that doesn't conform to their predetermined agenda gets discredited, the author smeared, then eventually banned from posting. These are legitimate 1st amendment issues that need to be defended or what little freedom we have left will be boiled away like baby frogs.
The Internet is not, and has never been, a "public forum." At the end of the day the only piece of hardware you own is (probably) the one on your desk. You may put whatever data you want into it, but it's no one's responsibility to share that data. Beyond that the suggestion that all user's data should be shared equally is inherently flawed.
I would strongly argue that coordinated censorship of media should be illegal.
It's not today. But is it in society's interest that a small group of elites gets to decide what we can discuss on our primary discussion platforms?
Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
#249I am seeing this A LOT the last few years wherein the left (politically) will do something they think is clever, like start "fack checking" Republicans. Then slowly the Republicans catch on and start doing the same thing.
They are doing it now with the supreme court, they did it with the filibuster, how we should have the right to not be offended, etc etc
Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
#250This is why "fact checker" is a useless job for power tripping jannies.