Snowden: Stop Relying on Facebook for Your News • Hacker News Board

Re: Snowden: Stop Relying on Facebook for Your News

#311

Post by ejstronge » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 4:34 PM UTC

eternalban wrote: post #264

ejstronge wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Issues of going to magazines for current-events aside, I do not understand what your underlying argument is when you say: how it glibly notes in passing that DJT denies it If we step away from the context of what happened, are you stating that anything a politician denies must not be true? If you'd like, I'm happy to go into the context of this as well.

> are you stating that anything a politician denies must not be true? No. Simply that the barrier to featured publication of rumors on national press is supposed to be somewhat more demanding than 4chan et al.

I think reputable organizations risk their integrity each time they quote an unnamed source - this is the basis of the public's acceptance of unnamed sourced.

I imagine NBC has a process for using unnamed sources; I know the NYT has one and has written about it in the past.

Thus, I recognize your frustration but do not see the link between 4Chan and a well-known news organization. You might raise the issue of the Vanity Fair reporter's lawsuit, to which I would suggest not reading VF if you no longer believe in their integrity.

Re: Snowden: Stop Relying on Facebook for Your News

#312

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 4:37 PM UTC

jbkrule wrote: post #229

dragonwriter wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that when confronted about false stories (which were sourced from white aupremacist propaganda) he retweeted, the President-elect, while still a candidate, responded fairly similarly, so, yeah, it's definitely an attitude that is becoming quite normalized.

Just wondering, was this sentence intentionally written in an extremely complicated way? It took me a while to figure out what it was saying.

No, that's pretty typical of my writing that isn't edited down.

Usually, even for HN comments, I'm a little better at editing before anyone else sees it, though.

Re: Snowden: Stop Relying on Facebook for Your News

#313

Post by mhurron » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 5:02 PM UTC

lake99 wrote: post #303

mhurron wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The show was about Trump, and only about Trump. Why would they bring up anyone else? And stating that Trump made those statements is true, saying that others also make idiotic statements does not change that.

These are pretty much the defining characteristics of a hit piece. I do not enjoy such things, and I do not recommend such things, for reasons I have already given. Many people think that they are being educated (while being entertained) by such programs. In reality, they develop a very distorted view of politics and of reality. If the media keeps at it, the next two candidates will be no different from Clinton and T…

So if you don't go into off topic material, it is a hit piece?

Focus on the topic is also the defining characteristic of a good article.

Re: Snowden: Stop Relying on Facebook for Your News

#314

Post by dmfdmf » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 5:11 PM UTC

norea-armozel wrote: post #299

dmfdmf wrote: post #130

I am more than a little disappointed in Snowden for falling for this gambit. Blaming the "fake news on the internet" for the loss to Trump is just the Left's way to divert attention to their own failures to report fairly or even try to understand his popularity without dismissing or smearing everyone as racists, homo-phobes and misogynists. This latest post-election narrative is a ploy, and if it gains any traction,…

"Blaming the "fake news on the internet" for the loss to Trump is just the Left's way to divert attention to their own failures to report fairly or even try to understand his popularity without dismissing or smearing everyone as racists, homo-phobes and misogynists." Uh as for Trump being misogynist, the fact he's okay with groping women without consent that's pretty much a classic case of it if I ever heard it. As f…

The First Amendment limits the government's power to control speech. Its not "legal censorship" for Google, Yahoo, et. al. to control what is on the websites/property, it is their RIGHT to do it that the constitution respects (not ALLOW but RESPECTS). Your concepts are too sloppy for rational thought.

Re: Snowden: Stop Relying on Facebook for Your News

#315

Post by throwaway101416 » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 5:15 PM UTC

pg314 wrote: post #305

throwaway101416 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYT started reported on wikileaks emails very late in the revelation process. This already shows dishonesty on some level. It also coincided with release of emails that didn't actually matter, thus the narrative was - hey she is just human and yes there is some bad, but nothing that terrible. For example, they didn't report on leaking questions to debate organizers until Donna Brazile got fired. I think people lied o…

> For example, they didn't report on leaking questions to debate organizers until Donna Brazile got fired. I imagine this is the email you're referring to: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/38478 Some of the other Wikileaks emails have a cryptographic signature that can be verified. This one doesn't. If they cannot verify the authenticity of that email, I have no problem with them not reporting on it. The…

You are right about this story. But honestly this is the first story I've seen there that presents him in a positive light in the past 6 months or so.

In fact, I assumed they wouldn't report on it at all since it broke yesterday morning or early afternoon and they mentioned firings in the disarray story.

Sure, I know about opinion pages, but sometimes the opinions can cloud people's judgement.

Regarding Fox news - they've been going back and forth. Fox news already ruined their reputation in the past with biased pro establishment republican reporting. I view them as an alternative news source at this point. They don't outright lie, but they bend the truth in such a way that the message becomes whatever their narrative is at the time.

Edit: Regarding professional protesters: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-15/whos-behind-portlan...

This is not a great source, but you can check that indeed they are from out of state. Some of the protesters who are organizing with megaphones were previously on Dem payrolls. There were also pictures of some of the same protesters in multiple cities all over the country.

Moveon organizes some of the protests: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/13/moveonorg-ra...

craigslist ads advertising pay for protesters (this one is not very good source, but I can't find a better one right now and can't find any archive links): http://truthfeed.com/breaking-bitter-soros-hiring-team-of-fu...

Snopes article on the protesters claims that it's unproven: http://www.snopes.com/craigslist-ad-trump-rally/

Wikileaks previously showed that DNC campaign posted craigslist ads (not for protests but for fake story): https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803

Regarding arguments pro-trump, Peter Thiel gave a fairly convincing speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4

I am still suspicious but at the same time hopeful of Trump. I think he is the only one who can change certain things. Otherwise, economic condition for many people would get worse partly because of outsourcing and partly because of tech advances. UBI is not ready yet. When the economy is poor, this has historically led to radicalization of various groups. We already see traces of it in US. I think it makes sense to appeal to these groups and fix some of their problems.

Re: Snowden: Stop Relying on Facebook for Your News

#316

Post by lake99 » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 5:27 PM UTC

mhurron wrote: post #313

lake99 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are pretty much the defining characteristics of a hit piece. I do not enjoy such things, and I do not recommend such things, for reasons I have already given. Many people think that they are being educated (while being entertained) by such programs. In reality, they develop a very distorted view of politics and of reality. If the media keeps at it, the next two candidates will be no different from Clinton and T…

So if you don't go into off topic material, it is a hit piece? Focus on the topic is also the defining characteristic of a good article.

> So if you don't go into off topic material, it is a hit piece?

That question can't be answered. What do you think the topic of this piece was? The title was "President-Elect Trump". The piece was not about "let's talk about Trump as the future president". Rather, it was about, "things are going to get frighteningly bad under Trump".

Staying on topic and selective blindness are very different things. The latter was on bold display here, and is a defining characteristic of a hit piece.

Re: Snowden: Stop Relying on Facebook for Your News

#317

Post by BlackjackCF » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 5:54 PM UTC

JacobJans wrote: post #66

I have interacted with several people on Facebook who rely on fake news sources. I pointed out fake news articles several times on one person's Facebook page. She agreed the articles were not true. However, she added "I don't have time to figure out if they're true. People can read your comments." I asked her what she thought of the fact that this particular article, which was blatantly false, was shared 16,000 times…

People will almost always take the shortcut/easiest way out. Facebook for news = the fastest way to get news. Doesn't mean it's going to be accurate, but do people care? Apparently not.

Re: Snowden: Stop Relying on Facebook for Your News

#318

Post by norea-armozel » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 6:44 PM UTC

dmfdmf wrote: post #314

norea-armozel wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Blaming the "fake news on the internet" for the loss to Trump is just the Left's way to divert attention to their own failures to report fairly or even try to understand his popularity without dismissing or smearing everyone as racists, homo-phobes and misogynists." Uh as for Trump being misogynist, the fact he's okay with groping women without consent that's pretty much a classic case of it if I ever heard it. As f…

The First Amendment limits the government's power to control speech. Its not "legal censorship" for Google, Yahoo, et. al. to control what is on the websites/property, it is their RIGHT to do it that the constitution respects (not ALLOW but RESPECTS). Your concepts are too sloppy for rational thought.

No, it's entirely legal to censor. That's why you can have gag orders on cases civil and criminal. I suggest you do more studying of legal procedure and definitions and less reading of Ayn Rand. BTW, my rational thought is probably sharper than yours any day.

Re: Snowden: Stop Relying on Facebook for Your News

#319

Post by briandon » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 6:52 PM UTC

tempestn wrote: post #254

JacobJans wrote: post #66

I have interacted with several people on Facebook who rely on fake news sources. I pointed out fake news articles several times on one person's Facebook page. She agreed the articles were not true. However, she added "I don't have time to figure out if they're true. People can read your comments." I asked her what she thought of the fact that this particular article, which was blatantly false, was shared 16,000 times…

Check out the most recent Last Week tonight. Features clips of President Elect Trump making almost identical comments. In March he claimed a man who rushed the stage at one of his rallies had ties to ISIS. When confronted with the fact that the source he'd linked to was a hoax, his response was, "What do I know about it? All I know is it was on the internet." [1] Then there was an interview with Bill O'Reilly: Bill:…

Your comment spurred me to look for some stats.

"Race, Ethnicity, and Sex of Victim by Race, Ethnicity, and Sex of Offender, 2015"

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

According to the FBI, in single-victim, single-offender homicides in 2015, 3,167 white people were slain and 500 of those murders were committed by black/African-American people. In the same year, 2,664 black/African-American people were slain and 229 of those murders were committed by white people.

Simple division: 15.8% of whites who were murdered were killed by blacks/African-Americans while only 8.6% of blacks who were murdered were killed by whites. The percentage of whites-killed-by-blacks is about 83.7% higher than vice versa.

So maybe O'Reilly may have garbled his delivery of this factoid?

Re: Snowden: Stop Relying on Facebook for Your News

#320

Post by colordrops » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 7:08 PM UTC

yosito wrote: post #286

colordrops wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How far can "slant" go before the news is "fake"? "Fake" isn't exactly a scientific definition. It's not like paragraphs of text have a binary value of "true" or "false". Have you seen this? http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/03/08/washington-post... In fact, "fake" news from these big outlets is even more insidious, because they have agendas from their powerful owners (Bezos in this case), a huge audience, and t…

In my mind fake news and biased news are two different concepts. All news should be taken with skepticism, because every bit of it from every news outlet is subject to potential bias. I'm aware that many news outlets published biased news against Sanders (and Trump and Clinton), and I'm aware that Bezos owns media outlets that may be biased. But organizations that employ fact checkers don't make up news stories out o…

So making a political candidate seem like he said and meant things that he didn't isn't "fake"? I'm afraid your definition of what is fake and what is not is arbitrary and vague. And no, you don't get an "A" for effort with supposed fact checkers - all that matters is the final product.