My mind immediately jumped to the "New Study Finds Household Herb can Cure Diabetes" style of fake news. I would support dropping that stuff.
There are political fake news sites out there, but I wouldn't throw HuffPo or Breitbart in that category. Dishonestly slanted and fake are two different things.
Last edited by The Missing Link; 11-17-2016 at 10:52 AM.
The New York Times is a little less fair today.
The newspaper’s executive editor and publisher famously penned a post-election letter to their readers on Nov. 11 that promised to “rededicate ourselves” to good journalism — while insisting the Times “reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign.”
The “fairly” line stood out because many readers felt news stories in the newspaper run by Executive Editor Dean Baquet and Publisher Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger Jr. were decidedly favorable to Hillary Clinton and biased against Donald Trump.
Both Baquet and Sulzberger took heat for that line.
Well, that sentence — “We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign.” — has been scrubbed from the current “To Our Readers” letter on the Times’ website.
It appears to be the only line edited from the 240-word letter.
Uh-oh, Snowden isn't drinking the zuckerberg koolaid.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/edward-sno...092615819.htmlEdward Snowden Warns Against Relying On Facebook For News
Mary PascalineNovember 17, 2016
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden said Tuesday the degree to which people rely on Facebook for their news is dangerous. He also expressed doubt at Americans falling so hard for fake news that it would influence their vote.
Snowden’s comments come at a time when Mark Zuckerberg’s social networking site is being blamed for influencing the outcome of the U.S. presidential election. During the 2016 race, Facebook failed to censor the trove of fake news articles that were doing the rounds on the site.
“I think that’s a very sad indictment of our democracy, that our voters could be so easily misled. But were it true, and there is some evidence that it may be, this gets into a bigger challenge,” Snowden said at Fusion’s Real Future Fair.
“When you get a Google in place, a Facebook in place, a Twitter in place, they never seem to leave,” he told Real Future Editor Kashmir Hill. “When one service provider makes a bad decision we all suffer for it… The Silicon Valley desire for massive, world-eating services, the scale that takes over not only our country but all others, it’s asking us to accept a status quo where we set aside that competition in favor of scale. We should be particularly cautious about embracing this and taking this to be the case.”
Snowden, who has been living in exile in Moscow since 2013, attended the conference via a telepresence robot. “We have one company that has the ability to reshape the way we think. I don’t think I need to describe how dangerous that is,” the former NSA contractor said.
Zuckerberg said last week there was a very small amount of fake news on Facebook and the notion that fake news influenced the election in any way “is a pretty crazy” one.
The Facebook CEO lashed out at critics again Sunday saying: “Of all the content on Facebook, more than 99% of what people see is authentic. Only a very small amount is fake news and hoaxes. The hoaxes that do exist are not limited to one partisan view, or even to politics. Overall, this makes it extremely unlikely hoaxes changed the outcome of this election in one direction or the other.”
A BuzzFeed analysis found that in the last three months of the 2016 race, “the top-performing fake election news stories on Facebook generated more engagement than the top stories from major news outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post, NBC News, and others.”
“I’m troubled that Facebook is doing so little to combat fake news,” Brendan Nyhan, a political science professor at Dartmouth College, told BuzzFeed. “Even if they did not swing the election, the evidence is clear that bogus stories have incredible reach on the network. Facebook should be fighting misinformation, not amplifying it.”
Snowden said Tuesday readers have given Facebook too much power over what they consume. “This gets into a bigger challenge which is the lack of competition, the fact that there seems to be no alternative to the largest services,” he said. “Once [companies] have gotten so big that no one can stop them…they get less careful.”
It was of poor quality. It was clearly designed to be provocative in a partisan way. The map on the left does not appear to be a map of counties, specifically, while the one on the right does. In fact, it is not clear to me exactly what the map on the left is supposed to be representing.
The fact is that the areas where Hillary Clinton's dominated were very largely on the coasts, in certain large urban areas. As a result, the map on the left is not "Fake," it is just very partisan, rather sloppily done and probably not as accurate as it could be, depending on exactly what it is that they are trying to show.
Now an article that proclaims that Hillary Clinton is pregnant with the spawn of a space alien, that would be "Fake News" as there is no basis behind such a report at all.
Last edited by Spartacus; 11-17-2016 at 11:02 AM.
And if you show me a similar liberal misleading statement I will condemn that. It's wrong for journalist or people that resemble journalist to lie or mislead.
The answer to false political speech is more political speech. Or something like that... let the 'news' do what they want. I trust 300 million individuals to make the right decision more so than 4-5 social media conglomerates when it comes to distinguishing fact, from fiction, from opinion.
And it is not at all clear that the map on the left is supposed to be a map of "counties".
Last edited by Spartacus; 11-17-2016 at 11:14 AM.
And that map is attempting to make the viewer believe that only a few areas went blue last week. If you want to say it doesn't represent counties. Ok whatever. Maybe the average Facebook user is very familiar with the county shapes in the US. I'm not. The headlines says trump won a majority in the heartland, which is an undefinable region. Then they show a map that is overwhelming red when red represents the GOP.
You tell me. What does that map represent?
If you want to say the map in no represents a trump 99 percent victory, I guess we have to agree to disagree .
Last edited by gecko; 11-17-2016 at 11:27 AM.
Briebart does publish "Fake News," but the map on the left is not an example of that. So does the Huffington Post.
If you think the map on the left is a good example of "Fake News," that would be a good reason to make sure that none of these companies engages in the suppression of "Fake News," as that would clearly be engaged a partisan censorship exercise, given your idea of what constitutes "Fake News".
Maybe better thread title:
Should I apologize for partisan "Fake News" if it supports my side?
The way to supress fake news is for everybody to not be a sucker and don't click on bull$#@!.
For example, these teenagers from the former Yugoslavia who realized there was a fertile market in Trump news.
Facebook already was suppressing real news to favor Hillary. They either need to suppress all news or no news at all.
I think Facebook can do whatever they want, but keep in mind, this stuff isn't spread because people just happen to find their stuff. It spreads because your crazy uncle shares the story with his friends. Curtailing that would be curtailing the free speech of those people, not the fake website.
Obviously Facebook is a private company and isn't bound by first amendment considerations; all I am saying is that it's not these "websites" that are the problem, if there is a problem at all, it's the people doing the sharing.
FWIW, personally, I learned somewhere along the way to start looking at the source domain of every crazy story I saw shared on FB. Generally speaking, you can tell pretty easily which names are "fake" - which ultimately correlated to the outrageousness of the story - and ultimately it should be up to the reader to evaluate the source of the story. A lot of people apparently don't do that.
But I don't think Facebook should take it upon itself to decide what is reputable or true or whatever. Maybe they should do an approach similar to Google or cross-reference with Google's rankings or something like that. But simple saying, "this is fake" I think is counterproductive and ultimately unfair.
Last edited by crimsonlonghorn; 11-17-2016 at 11:55 AM.
The biggest problem is that many people consider anything that doesn't confirm their own biases as fake or as having a slanted view. You can't argue with that mindset.
I can't believe you really need this to be explained to you....
People are $#@!ing morons. They'll always find a way to get their fake news. Hell, CNN is fake enough these days. Slippery slope policing that $#@!.
It's amazing to me how many people think consensus is an argument. Getting a bunch of people to agree with you doesn't mean that you're right. You see some false claim on an article, which links to another article with absolutely no factual support, which links to another baseless article, so on and so on.
You burrow deeper into the rabbit hole and there's no there there. All you have is a bunch of people who agree with each other, and they love congratulating each other for how smart they are...Narcissism.
Football .. OC .. Basketball .. Baseball .. Other Sports .. RC Didn't Offer .. Gamboool
Varsity .. Hole in the Wall .. PCL .. Einstein's .. Nasty's .. GM Steakhouse .. NSAA .. Classics
Bada Bing .. Bernard .. Nerdz .. Can you help me with this? .. Shagslist .. Cloak Room .. Bellmont