231–240 of 381 posts
I chose to believe that this is a side-effect of facebook trying to combat fake news with some lame algorithms and an understaffed department of reviewers, not facebook actively trying to please the Romanian authorities. But even so, this shows how utterly unprepared facebook is for its role as a de facto news business. A bunch of engineers thinking they are smarter than they actually are unwillingly facilitate the e…
"unwillingly" should probably be "unwittingly".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Fake news" came into popular usage because Trump was using it to disparage critical real news. No, it came into popular usage to refer to propaganda supporting Trump which closely followed what RAND Corp. labelled the “firehose of falsehoods” propaganda strategy used by Russia. It was subsequently co-opted by Trump in the way you describe, but that's not how it came into popular usage.
No, you're completely politicizing an issue based on your warped world view. That's just as damaging as fake news. Here's an article from 2014 discussing fake news: https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2014/08/30/large-the-intern... Here's an article from 2011 discussing the measures taken against fake news (to little effect) since 2006: https://www.freepress.net/blog/11/12/21/truth-about-fake-new...
https://gizmodo.com/facebooks-fight-against-fake-news-was-un...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you're completely politicizing an issue based on your warped world view. That's just as damaging as fake news. Here's an article from 2014 discussing fake news: https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2014/08/30/large-the-intern... Here's an article from 2011 discussing the measures taken against fake news (to little effect) since 2006: https://www.freepress.net/blog/11/12/21/truth-about-fake-new...
Google trends graph shows a fairly recent and step spike for the phrase "fake news"[1]. I'm sure the phrase was intermittently used for some time, but it's current usage send new, and much more popular. My memory is the same as the comment you are replying to. "Fake news" was a left attack on the media supporting Donald Trump (think Breitbart). Trump and friends then coopted the term to describe the mainstream media…
No, "fake news" was used to label news that was quite literally fake. As in: false. Not true. It was not used to describe simply biased reporting.
As others have said, Trump co-opted the term and uses it to describe news that he doesn't like, regardless of truth. Thus, he has muddied the meaning of the term and created a new dog whistle. Brilliant move on his part.
Fake news was generated to appeal to all sides of the political spectrum, but the pro-right literally untrue news was much more popular than the pro-left literally untrue news.
This is a good article on the subject: "Inside the Macedonian Fake-News Complex" https://www.wired.com/2017/02/veles-macedonia-fake-news/
It's opens:
"The first article about Donald Trump that Boris ever published described how, during a campaign rally in North Carolina, the candidate slapped a man in the audience for disagreeing with him. This never happened, of course."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really don't like that "fake news" became this term that means "news I disagree with". What it was describing at the time it was coming into popular usage, it mostly described "news" sites that in many cases used scripts to generate their content, and for the most part preyed upon far right sentiments. So yeah, we shouldn't censor "fake news" on the premise that it is something we disagree with, but rather whether…
"Fake news" came into popular usage because Trump was using it to disparage critical real news. It's a dangerous phrase, trivially dismissing real news based on emotions and critically attacking propaganda based on facts. Just call things as they are. News, lies, propaganda...
Kind of like everything else they've done lately. Rape culture: turns out it's real after all... in ultra-left circles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google trends graph shows a fairly recent and step spike for the phrase "fake news"[1]. I'm sure the phrase was intermittently used for some time, but it's current usage send new, and much more popular. My memory is the same as the comment you are replying to. "Fake news" was a left attack on the media supporting Donald Trump (think Breitbart). Trump and friends then coopted the term to describe the mainstream media…
"Fake news" was a left attack on the media supporting Donald Trump (think Breitbart). No, "fake news" was used to label news that was quite literally fake . As in: false. Not true. It was not used to describe simply biased reporting. As others have said, Trump co-opted the term and uses it to describe news that he doesn't like, regardless of truth. Thus, he has muddied the meaning of the term and created a new dog wh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A couple of good replies have already been written, but I'll add another, using the new gold-standard often used to advocate censorship: The Russians pushing out disinformation to help Trump win the US election. Millions of Americans weren't instantly converted from open-border advocates to wanting to build a Wall and limit immigration, thus supporting Trump, because of a few Facebook ads. Propaganda doesn't work in…
And censoring anyone who speaks of it, even if it is in an exaggerated way, is probably better in the long run than letting it fester until it really blows up with much more force. I'm guessing that this was mangled in an edit and some essential word was left out. Or are you saying censorship is the opposite of "letting it fester", and that if we can prevent issues from being spoken about we can prevent them from eve…
I think censoring ideas will lead to groups moving to echo chambers where whatever issue they have, is magnified into something far more absurd than the original issue probably is. And that inevitably leads to violence.
It's better for society to allow open debate, even if its uncomfortable, than to just ban users or groups, make ad-hominem attacks, and hope it goes away.
I'm a Romanian and I can confirm that posts and accounts have been blocked, probably because of being reported by the other side. On the other hand, folks, this is a little reminder that censorship is a doubly edged knife ;-) So next time you call for censoring "fake news", think again, because it's not you who will benefit from it. A couple of years back I was enthusiastic about the rise of social media for informin…
>A couple of years back I was enthusiastic about the rise of social media for informing and coordinating citizens to fight injustice. Now that I'm older and wiser, I can tell you that no evolution or revolution can happen because of Facebook, only regression. Facebook is poison. I'll add to that. The internet is a great tool for coordinating citizens, spreading information, and fighting injustice. Having facebook , o…
The question is how to focus it how to organize it?
We see the poison of zuckbook. It's beyond time to kill it. Now, if you stand by, your endorsing the subjigation of all the lesser informed people who you care about that use zuckbook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, the difference between first, second and third world is whether a country aligns to the USA block, the USSR bloc or remain unaligned and pretend to stay out of the Cold War stand-off. That Third World Non-aligned countries tended to be piss-poor, plundered failed states, and theaters for proxy wars between USA and USSR helped the confusion that the classification is of economic development. It’s not
You're using an old defintion that is very rarely used today. It's now considered archaic, relegated to the dustbin of history. In fact, you're attempting to educate the parent precisely because of how old and out of use that defintion is. Further, it's so out of use, the most common dictionary references to eg first world, are always about level of development / industrialization and not cold war political alignment…
Oh and BTW, understanding that “1, 2, 3rd world” are not a success scale enshrining the winner position to one’s own moral system does help a lot in not coming through as an arrogant fool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The left is shooting itself in the foot, by having gun control on its agenda. If Occupy or BLM brought as many guns to their protests as more right-wing protesters do, the police would probably think twice before dispersing them with riot police, beatings, and pepper spray. At least, that's a theory. It might turn into a bloodbath.
That hasn't worked out so well. For example, Wounded Knee, MOVE, Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Right wing protesters/militias regularly parade around with clearly visible guns. Now, perhaps there is a double standard w.r.t. how police deal with them, as opposed to left-wing protesters... But perhaps there isn't.