+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 451

Thread: Should "Fake News" be surpressed on social media?

  1. #1

    Should "Fake News" be surpressed on social media?

    Since the election last week, there has been a lot of discussion about "Fake News" and the effect it had on the election, especially since Donald Trump was the winner. Twitter, Google and Facebook have all taken action in response.

    Twitter in the last few days announced that it was banning "alt-right" accounts (it banned Milo Yiannopoulos a few months ago). Google and Facebook have announced that they will ban "Fake News" websites from using their advertising platforms, which will also deny them the associated revenues on their publications.

    Facebook, Google, and Twitter: Arbiters of the truth or threats to liberty?

    Recent reports state that corporations such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter are considering how to curtail “fake news” through such steps as blocking advertising. The timing is curious.

    It is one matter to distinguish between legitimate intellectual property and pirated material online, such as efforts described by the Digital Citizens Alliance. It is entirely different matter to distinguish between the “truth” and something less than the truth.

    No publication or website is error-free; everyone makes mistakes. Reputable newspapers have sections entitled “Corrections” to correct prior mistakes. For example, “Jane Doe was born in 1933, not 1932 as previously reported.”

    For the past 25 years, the Internet has been filled with false information. During that time, major corporations did not launch publicity campaigns to purge the Internet of “fake news.” Why now?

    The recent “fake news” stories about Facebook, Google, and Twitter focus less on the inaccuracy of online information than on the possibility that online information, whether accurate or not, may have influenced the recent election. This all begs the question: had the election turned out differently, would there be a “fake news” campaign this week? Almost certainly not.

    Did “fake news” change the outcome of the election? The answer is unknowable, much less in which direction “fake news” influenced voters. It is unclear that one position or candidate was endowed with more “fake news” than another.

    Incorrect information is everywhere on the Internet, as are efforts to root it out. The challenge, of course, is that one person’s “fake news” is another person’s reality, and vice versa. The private sector already has many different ways of exposing false online information. For years, many organizations have attempted to identify false information. Various news organizations such as the Washington Post offer “Fact Checker” columns to identify and evaluate potential erroneous political information. PunditFact is a website that monitors and critically reviews conservative commentary such as Rush Limbaugh.

    Facebook, Google, and Twitter now appear to be saying that they will take it upon themselves to punish “fake news” sites. These are private companies, and they are free to do as they see fit. Better that private companies curb speech than the government. Most Americans would be horrified if the federal government took upon itself the responsibility of monitoring political commentary and limiting access and advertising compensation to websites the government labeled “fake news.”

    There is a much more elegant, technologically sophisticated method of undermining “fake news” without engaging in corporate censorship of information available to their customers. Third-party software is available to enable consumers to screen out objectionable images and words. If consumers, rather than a corporation, do not want to see sites that say that Martians have landed in New Jersey, or other forms of “fake news”, a consumer can block the story or the entire site. Advertising at those sites would not have the benefit of a visit from that consumer.

    More importantly, individuals—rather than Facebook, Google, and Twitter–would be making decisions about the information they can access. Those who want to read about Martians in New Jersey—or any other topic—may. Those who do not, can avoid this discomfort.

    Blocking information—even disturbing information–from reach consumers is deeply troubling. George Orwell wrote in the preface to Animal Farm: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Neither corporations nor the government should be engaged in categorically blocking that liberty, that ability of one set of speakers from reaching a potential audience.

    No doubt, many individuals and companies are disturbed by “fake news.” But blocking information in the name of the “truth” is still blocking information. Is there really any company that can be an arbiter of the truth particularly in a digital age? Rather than limit liberty on the Internet, major online companies should expand that liberty by allowing consumers greater control over what they see and hear on the Internet. Consumers, rather than corporations, can better decide for themselves what is “fake” and what is not.
    Of course Facebook had a controversy earlier this year around censoring conservative content, after which it fired a whole team of its content review staff. Google is notorious for its search algorithms, which promote websites in the search list based on a variety of criteria, some apparently content related and of course also apparently based on the money paid to Google. Twitter has apparently banned a number of people who posted messages that did not fit in with their preferred political "narrative".

    As I search for information on Google, I increasingly find myself needing to use alternative search engines, as Google seems to be devoted to promoting information relating to certain topics that is not what I am looking for. A good example of this is Brexit, on which I started a thread here that I have made quite a few researched posts in. Starting the day the vote came in, the Google news feed was almost entirely filled with negative and very critical stories about Brexit, even though Brexit had just won a decisive victory. There were plenty of pro-Brexit articles, news sites, and blog posts about Brexit on the internet, but it was damn hard to get at them using Google.

    Also, let's get real. The mass media organizations like the New York Times and the Cable News networks publish dishonest crap all of the time, then just move on like nothing ever happened. These stories are in too many cases "Fake News," that were either published to promote a partisan narrative, or just to be sensational in order to jack up their ratings and their revenues, which is exactly what these "Fake News" websites are accused of doing.

    Some of this is clearly just a partisan retaliation against Donald Trump winning the election. In fact, it appears that a number of popular conservative websites are being tagged by some as "Fake News," while similar leftist websites are given a free pass. For example, here is a link to an article about a list of "Fake News" websites produced by an assistant professor at Merrimack College, which is apparently a popular topic of discussion on Facebook, which includes Brietbart on the list, but excludes the Huffington Post.

    Assistant Professor’s ‘Fake’ News List Has Breitbart, Not HuffPo

    Both of these websites spew their share of fabricated, sensationalist crap, that is a fact. But the problem here is the disparate, clearly partisan treatment, which appears to be a lot of what is motivating these actions.

    So, should "Fake News" be suppressed by these sorts of large social media organizations on the internet? This is such a difficult thing to do, that they would probably be better off staying away from it unless they can do it in a clearly unbiased, non-partisan way. Which the people leading these organizations appear to be anything but.

  • #2
    Companies can do what they want. A conservative entrepreneur is free to start social media or search competitors. Conservatives aren't afraid to boycott and vote with their feet on most things.

    Google though, to its credit, weighs search results. It does create a popularity bias, but it isn't inherently biased against any particular thought. If anti-brexit articles were being read more, they would go to the top, and that's exactly what was happening when you searched. A few years ago, you could search "birth certificate in hawaii" and you'd have to dig to actually find the site where you order your own birth certificate. Instead, all you would get is birther Obama links. They always make slight changes in the hopes that you find exactly what you want. Don't worry. Unlike Facebook, Google wants you to type "brexit" and get what you want, and they also want me to type "brexit" and get what I want, even though we may want something different. That's why they want you logged into gmail so they can track your history, something I turn off and you likely do as well. However, if you do turn it off, you get no personally tailored search results.

  • #3
    asshat neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pig Farm
    Posts
    21,060
    Private companies can do whatever the $#@! they want.

    don't care

  • #4
    Quote Originally Posted by neonmoon44 View Post
    Private companies can do whatever the $#@! they want.
    Unfortunately, not true.

    Companies can do what they want. A conservative entrepreneur is free to start social media or search competitors. Conservatives aren't afraid to boycott and vote with their feet on most things.
    Can't believe you just walked right into that one.....
    Last edited by gecko; 11-17-2016 at 08:28 AM.

  • #5
    I don't disagree that suppressing fake news will be a challenge, but trying to argue that a left-leaning story published by an outlet like the New York Times is comparable to an outright lie published by a fake site like WTOE5News.com (Pope endorses Trump!!) tells me this country lacks the critical thinking skills needed to appropriately filter this information on their own.

  • #6
    First they came for the fake news sites and I said nothing because I read a story 2 years ago that Facebook was banning conservative sites so I just assumed it had already happened.

  • #7
    asshat AtomHeartBevo Probably Shaggy upper class AtomHeartBevo Probably Shaggy upper class AtomHeartBevo Probably Shaggy upper class AtomHeartBevo Probably Shaggy upper class AtomHeartBevo Probably Shaggy upper class AtomHeartBevo Probably Shaggy upper class AtomHeartBevo Probably Shaggy upper class AtomHeartBevo Probably Shaggy upper class AtomHeartBevo Probably Shaggy upper class AtomHeartBevo Probably Shaggy upper class AtomHeartBevo Probably Shaggy upper class AtomHeartBevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    23,178
    If the advertising platforms stop allowing fake sites, the problem will resolve itself - those sites only exist because somebody was making money off of them.

  • #8
    asshat AtomHeartBevo Probably Shaggy upper class AtomHeartBevo Probably Shaggy upper class AtomHeartBevo Probably Shaggy upper class AtomHeartBevo Probably Shaggy upper class AtomHeartBevo Probably Shaggy upper class AtomHeartBevo Probably Shaggy upper class AtomHeartBevo Probably Shaggy upper class AtomHeartBevo Probably Shaggy upper class AtomHeartBevo Probably Shaggy upper class AtomHeartBevo Probably Shaggy upper class AtomHeartBevo Probably Shaggy upper class AtomHeartBevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    23,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuckie Finster View Post
    I don't disagree that suppressing fake news will be a challenge, but trying to argue that a left-leaning story published by an outlet like the New York Times is comparable to an outright lie published by a fake site like WTOE5News.com (Pope endorses Trump!!) tells me this country lacks the critical thinking skills needed to appropriately filter this information on their own.
    It's not a new problem though - we've always had a problem with critical thinking skills when it comes to the internet. Go back 5-10 years, and it was those ridiculous email chains being passed around by your aunt. These days, it's just repackaged and pushed through Facebook and Twitter.

  • #9
    Quote Originally Posted by AtomHeartBevo View Post
    If the advertising platforms stop allowing fake sites, the problem will resolve itself - those sites only exist because somebody was making money off of them.
    Is Breitbart a "Fake News" website? Is the Huffington Post? Both spew large numbers of fabricated, sensationalist, click-bait, "Fake News" articles.

    The trick is going to be identifying which sites are basically just nothing but "Fake News" and the others that have some "Fake News," (such as Breitbart and HuffPo) without bringing people's partisan biases into play.

    Rest assured that much of the motivation behind wanting to do this now is that Trump won the election. If Hillary won, do you really think this would be a hot issue, like it is now?

    Clearly the answer is no.

  • #10
    Quote Originally Posted by gecko View Post
    Unfortunately, not true.



    Can't believe you just walked right into that one.....
    Into what. Nothing is stopping a conservative from creating a competitor to google or facebook.

  • #11
    I'd be suprised if it were surpressed.

  • #12
    asshat Foosters Galore Shaggy Gold Club Foosters Galore Shaggy Gold Club Foosters Galore Shaggy Gold Club Foosters Galore Shaggy Gold Club Foosters Galore Shaggy Gold Club Foosters Galore Shaggy Gold Club Foosters Galore Shaggy Gold Club Foosters Galore Shaggy Gold Club Foosters Galore Shaggy Gold Club Foosters Galore Shaggy Gold Club Foosters Galore Shaggy Gold Club Foosters Galore's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    My Side of the Mountain
    Posts
    9,305
    I think step #1 is for people to grasp the difference between an opinion and a factual statement.

  • #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Foosters Galore View Post
    I think step #1 is for people to grasp the difference between an opinion and a factual statement.
    Bwahahaha. Would you like to try explain that difference to us? What is a fact? Also, what do we call it when two people sincerely identify the same facts differently?

  • #14
    asshat BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,284
    Quote Originally Posted by AtomHeartBevo View Post
    It's not a new problem though - we've always had a problem with critical thinking skills when it comes to the internet. Go back 5-10 years, and it was those ridiculous email chains being passed around by your aunt. These days, it's just repackaged and pushed through Facebook and Twitter.
    Yes, but Facebook and Twitter potentially have the ability to block the untrue stories whereas the email chains were forwarded by your crazy aunt had no such mechanism.

    I'm sure that Facebook wants to rely on the goodwill of people and their desire to read/share factual news. But most people only want to read/share stories that bolster their current opinions. So the stories will get crazier and crazier as time goes on. And I believe Facebook and others did have an effect on the elections. On both sides.

    From a business standpoint, Facebook has a problem. They don't want to censor anyone but they also don't want to become a site that is only full of untrue political propaganda and kooky editorials masked as facts. But if Facebook allows people to mark a "Obama is a space alien" story as fake, then people will try to censor an NBC News story about a forest fire in retaliation.

    I'm an infrequent Facebook user that has blocked the crazier elements of my friends. I'm not entertained by crazy posts or shares so I only see vacation and school pics only. Probably another reason why I log on once every few weeks. For me, I can't even tell if this really is an issue or not but I take it that others see many news stories in their feed.

  • #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    Bwahahaha. Would you like to try explain that difference to us? What is a fact? Also, what do we call it when two people sincerely identify the same facts differently?
    Not this.


  • #16
    Quote Originally Posted by BA93 View Post
    Yes, but Facebook and Twitter potentially have the ability to block the untrue stories whereas the email chains were forwarded by your crazy aunt had no such mechanism.

    I'm sure that Facebook wants to rely on the goodwill of people and their desire to read/share factual news. But most people only want to read/share stories that bolster their current opinions. So the stories will get crazier and crazier as time goes on. And I believe Facebook and others did have an effect on the elections. On both sides.

    From a business standpoint, Facebook has a problem. They don't want to censor anyone but they also don't want to become a site that is only full of untrue political propaganda and kooky editorials masked as facts. But if Facebook allows people to mark a "Obama is a space alien" story as fake, then people will try to censor an NBC News story about a forest fire in retaliation.

    I'm an infrequent Facebook user that has blocked the crazier elements of my friends. I'm not entertained by crazy posts or shares so I only see vacation and school pics only. Probably another reason why I log on once every few weeks. For me, I can't even tell if this really is an issue or not but I take it that others see many news stories in their feed.
    The easiest answer is to block all shares and bring Facebook back to what it used to be. Crazy uncle and grandma are really there to see pictures of their grandkids, nieces, and nephews, none of whom want to see that $#@! on Facebook anyways.

  • #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    Bwahahaha. Would you like to try explain that difference to us? What is a fact? Also, what do we call it when two people sincerely identify the same facts differently?
    Give us an example of "identifying" the same facts differently.

    I'll give you an example: it is my opinion that you don't know the difference between facts and opinion.

  • #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuckie Finster View Post
    Not this.

    How do you know that it is not true?

    Also, when the New York Times publishes a report that is clearly false, such as that the Benghazi attacks were motivated by a video on Youtube, doesn't that put the NYT in the same company?

  • #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    How do you know that it is not true?
    Good lord.

    You must be one gullible sob.

  • #20
    And here's an example of $#@! that Breitbart does:

    They publish this headline and map on the left a few days ago:



    Washington Post calls them on their $#@! and they stealthily switch to the map on the right without any note of the change. Breitbart then sends their twitter warriors out to claim that the Washington Post made up the map on the left to inaccurately smear Breitbart as some sort of evidence that you can't trust main-stream media.

    But even now, if you go to Breitbart's Facebook page, the link to this article STILL features a picture of the map on the left even thought this map is nowhere in the article. Breitbart knows that most of the people on Facebook won't actually click the link and will just see that $#@!tily-photoshopped map and take it as gospel.

    It's dumb and stupid and petty and a pretty damn effective way to build distrust towards legitimate news organizations.

  • #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Castyourhops View Post
    Good lord.

    You must be one gullible sob.
    I didn't say that it was or it wasn't. I asked how he knew that it wasn't true? Just because Josh Earnest or the Huffington Post says it isn't a good reason to reject a story like this. Hillary and Bill Clinton have a long history of corruption and far too many coincidences to be believed.

    If you believe that all her corruptions are coincidental, or are just right-wing conspiracies and "fake controversies," then it is you who are the gullible one.

  • #22
    asshat BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,284
    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    How do you know that it is not true?

    Also, when the New York Times publishes a report that is clearly false, such as that the Benghazi attacks were motivated by a video on Youtube, doesn't that put the NYT in the same company?
    I doubt if the NYT presented the story how you said they did. I'm sure they do publish stories that are later discovered to be untrue but that is in .01% of the time. They have a retraction section (when needed) and also an editorial page that is clearly stated as such.

    My opinion: Most people that criticize the NYT has actually never read one story from the NYT. Instead they read a facebook post told them the NYT is lib'rul and against America.

  • #23
    asshat TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    This Is Intramurals, Brother
    Posts
    63,638
    I love that Bannon is going to be in the WH. Drives all you lefties to distraction.

  • #24
    asshat BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,284
    Facebook cannot stop lies or even mistakes from being posted. But if its pointed out to them that a news source regularly is posting verifiable lies, they can easily eliminate or at least not widely share these lies.

    I believe that its widely known that Facebook is already deciding what you see. They are trying to show you what you think. So if _________ News Source has proven to lie, liking or sharing a news story from them just may not be shared to others.

  • #25
    asshat zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn.
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,123
    Quote Originally Posted by BA93 View Post
    I doubt if the NYT presented the story how you said they did. I'm sure they do publish stories that are later discovered to be untrue but that is in .01% of the time. They have a retraction section (when needed) and also an editorial page that is clearly stated as such.

    My opinion: Most people that criticize the NYT has actually never read one story from the NYT. Instead they read a facebook post told them the NYT is lib'rul and against America.
    Did you see the post election: "we'll try and be more honest now, promise" /paraphrase from NYTimes?

  • #26
    asshat BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,284
    Quote Originally Posted by TOR View Post
    I love that Bannon is going to be in the WH. Drives all you lefties to distraction.
    Bannon's inclusion show why Dems are taking an approach with Trump that they never would have tried with Bush: work with him to push an liberal agenda. Trump can be talked into anything. There are already stories about GOP politician upset about Trump's interview with 60 minutes on what he is going to do.

  • #27
    asshat TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    This Is Intramurals, Brother
    Posts
    63,638
    Fake news:
    White nationalists plot Election Day show of force

    KKK, neo-Nazis and militias plan to monitor urban polling places and suppress the black vote.

    By Ben Schreckinger

    11/02/16 05:01 AM EDT

    Updated 11/04/16 03:47 PM EDT
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...ampaign-230616

  • #28
    asshat BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,284
    Quote Originally Posted by zork View Post
    Did you see the post election: "we'll try and be more honest now, promise" /paraphrase from NYTimes?
    That's a strong "paraphrase" that you must have gotten from a FB post. That's not what they said.

  • #29
    asshat TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR Definitely Shaggy upper class TOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    This Is Intramurals, Brother
    Posts
    63,638
    Fake news:
    Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?
    This spring, a group of computer scientists set out to determine whether hackers were interfering with the Trump campaign. They found something they weren’t expecting.
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...th_russia.html

    fake fake fake, better talk about steak

  • #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    I didn't say that it was or it wasn't. I asked how he knew that it wasn't true? Just because Josh Earnest or the Huffington Post says it isn't a good reason to reject a story like this. Hillary and Bill Clinton have a long history of corruption and far too many coincidences to be believed.

    If you believe that all her corruptions are coincidental, or are just right-wing conspiracies and "fake controversies," then it is you who are the gullible one.
    Here's the text from that article:

    Walkerville, MD — An FBI agent believed to be responsible for the latest email leaks “pertinent to the investigation” into Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was Secretary of State, was found dead in an apparent murder-suicide early Saturday morning, according to police.

    Investigators believe FBI agent, Michael Brown, 45, shot and killed his 33-year-old wife, Susan Brown, late Friday night before setting the couple’s home on fire and then turning the gun on himself. Brown was a 12 year veteran of the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department before spending the last six years in the FBI.

    Neighbors saw smoke coming from the Brown residence and called 9-1-1 at approximately 11:50 p.m. By the time fire crews arrived on scene minutes later, the entire house was engulfed in flames.

    “Mrs. Brown’s death was caused by a gunshot wound prior to the house fire,” Walkerville Police Chief Pat Frederick said, “while Mr. Brown’s single-bullet head wound appears to have been self-inflicted.”

    “The totality of the evidence leads us to believe this is a murder-suicide. We believe he killed her, set the house on fire and then took his own life,” Frederick said.

    The findings support conclusions by investigators Saturday that the couple perished in a murder-suicide during which the 4,000-square foot house was intentionally set on fire. Authorities outlined a likely scenario based on interviews with neighbors and comments posted on Mr. Brown’s Facebook page.
    How do I know it is not true?

    1. Walkerville, MD is not a real place.
    2. Walkersville, MD is a real place, but there is no Walkersville Police Department.
    3. Because there is no Walker(s)ville Police Department, there is no Police Chief named Pat Frederick
    4. The Denver Guardian is not a real news site
    5. The Denver Guardian has deleted the link to this article
    6. The picture used in the article was from 2010.

    The fact that I even have to have this conversation makes me think Zuckerberg is on to something.

  • #31
    asshat Surly Bevo Shaggy Platinum Surly Bevo Shaggy Platinum Surly Bevo Shaggy Platinum Surly Bevo Shaggy Platinum Surly Bevo Shaggy Platinum Surly Bevo Shaggy Platinum Surly Bevo Shaggy Platinum Surly Bevo Shaggy Platinum Surly Bevo Shaggy Platinum Surly Bevo Shaggy Platinum Surly Bevo Shaggy Platinum Surly Bevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    It's Fun To Do Bad Things
    Posts
    27,001
    Wait...so does all of this mean I will NOT be getting a large sum of money from a Nigerian prince?

  • #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Foosters Galore View Post
    I think step #1 is for people to grasp the difference between an opinion and a factual statement.
    And Step #2 is to realize that if you are getting your news from Facebook, you are a loser.

  • #33
    asshat DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,836
    The appeal of social media is that you have to ability to follow who and what you want. It's not FB's job to censor and frankly, I don't trust them to determine what the truth is.

    I'd also like to point out that this is just a subversive way of discriminating against political speech. You don't need a smoking gun for shareholders to file a lawsuit if they view the actions of the CEO, COO or board of directors as going against the best interest of shareholders. You can quickly damage your brand if you take polarizing positions.

  • #34
    asshat zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn.
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,123
    Quote Originally Posted by BA93 View Post
    That's a strong "paraphrase" that you must have gotten from a FB post. That's not what they said.
    I don't use facebook.

  • #35
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...mepage%2Fstory

    You mentioned Trump, and you’ve probably heard the argument, or the concern, that fake news somehow helped him get elected. What do you make of that?

    My sites were picked up by Trump supporters all the time. I think Trump is in the White House because of me. His followers don’t fact-check anything — they’ll post everything, believe anything. His campaign manager posted my story about a protester getting paid $3,500 as fact. Like, I made that up. I posted a fake ad on Craigslist.

    Why? I mean — why would you even write that?

    Just ’cause his supporters were under the belief that people were getting paid to protest at their rallies, and that’s just insane. I’ve gone to Trump protests — trust me, no one needs to get paid to protest Trump. I just wanted to make fun of that insane belief, but it took off. They actually believed it.

    I thought they’d fact-check it, and it’d make them look worse. I mean that’s how this always works: Someone posts something I write, then they find out it’s false, then they look like idiots. But Trump supporters — they just keep running with it! They never fact-check anything! Now he’s in the White House. Looking back, instead of hurting the campaign, I think I helped it. And that feels [bad].

  • #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    I didn't say that it was or it wasn't. I asked how he knew that it wasn't true? Just because Josh Earnest or the Huffington Post says it isn't a good reason to reject a story like this. Hillary and Bill Clinton have a long history of corruption and far too many coincidences to be believed.

    If you believe that all her corruptions are coincidental, or are just right-wing conspiracies and "fake controversies," then it is you who are the gullible one.
    Lol.

    You're not really helping your argument here, imo, gullible one.

    How do you know it isn't true? Start with getting your news from reputable sources. As before, The NewsHour on PBS is a good source. As is the BBC.

    If you insist on going to PuffHo then that's on you.

  • #37
    asshat BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,284
    Quote Originally Posted by DSA View Post
    The appeal of social media is that you have to ability to follow who and what you want. It's not FB's job to censor and frankly, I don't trust them to determine what the truth is.

    I'd also like to point out that this is just a subversive way of discriminating against political speech. You don't need a smoking gun for shareholders to file a lawsuit if they view the actions of the CEO, COO or board of directors as going against the best interest of shareholders. You can quickly damage your brand if you take polarizing positions.
    facebook has always controlled what you see. They run experiments of only showing you happy vs sad vs non-emotional posts to understand how that effects everyone and even you personally. The whole point of the site is to get you too interact and log on more times. This drives up ad rates. And this isn't tin-hat conspiracy, they proudly proclaim it.

    Facebook doesn't want to control fake news posts but they also don't want be on the regular news about how their site is full of verifiable lies.

  • #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuckie Finster View Post
    Here's the text from that article:



    How do I know it is not true?

    1. Walkerville, MD is not a real place.
    2. Walkersville, MD is a real place, but there is no Walkersville Police Department.
    3. Because there is no Walker(s)ville Police Department, there is no Police Chief named Pat Frederick
    4. The Denver Guardian is not a real news site
    5. The Denver Guardian has deleted the link to this article
    6. The picture used in the article was from 2010.

    The fact that I even have to have this conversation makes me think Zuckerberg is on to something.
    OK so if what you are saying is true, then that story appears to be untrue.

    The point here is that this is coming up now because Hillary lost and leftists apparently believe their inability to control the "narrative" was an important reason why. Throughout this election, nearly all of the mass media refused to cover certain stories that were critical of Hillary Clinton for what were clearly partisan reasons. Meanwhile, they went after Trump to an extent that is unprecedented literally in the history of the world. Some of what they said about Trump was true, but quite a bit was not.

    Apparently that was not good enough for them and they want to take it a step further, especially with regards to suppressing unfavorable stories about their favorites on social media

  • #39
    asshat G650 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? G650 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? G650 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? G650 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? G650 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? G650 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? G650 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? G650 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? G650 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? G650 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? G650 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? G650's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pie in the Sky
    Posts
    3,909
    Threads like this reinforce how I've gone from a Libertarian leaning Jeffersonian Repubilcan to a fan of Hamiltonian thought and Jason Brennan's book Against Democracy.



    I have massively underestimated how many people have such an abject lack of critical thinking skills.

  • #40
    Quote Originally Posted by G650 View Post
    I have massively underestimated how many people have such an abject lack of critical thinking skills.

    Sad, but so true.

  • #41
    asshat zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn. zork is probably pretty witty. or good at photoshop. or porn.
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,123
    Did you notice when Hillary got the questions in advance vs when she didn't?

  • #42
    asshat BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,284
    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    OK so if what you are saying is true, then that story appears to be untrue.

    The point here is that this is coming up now because Hillary lost and leftists apparently believe their inability to control the "narrative" was an important reason why. Throughout this election, nearly all of the mass media refused to cover certain stories that were critical of Hillary Clinton for what were clearly partisan reasons. Meanwhile, they went after Trump to an extent that is unprecedented literally in the history of the world. Some of what they said about Trump was true, but quite a bit was not.

    Apparently that was not good enough for them and they want to take it a step further, especially with regards to suppressing unfavorable stories about their favorites on social media
    This has been discussed for a lot longer than the last week. The talk has increased this week but the rise of fake stories has lead to an entire industry that started long before the election. It's just that the average everyday people became much more focused on election stories in the last 3-4 months.

  • #43
    asshat BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,284
    Quote Originally Posted by G650 View Post
    Threads like this reinforce how I've gone from a Libertarian leaning Jeffersonian Repubilcan to a fan of Hamiltonian thought and Jason Brennan's book Against Democracy.



    I have massively underestimated how many people have such an abject lack of critical thinking skills.
    From talking with a few friends, I don't even think they read the entirety of a fake story. The key to a good fake story is the look of a real news source, an eye-catching headlines and decently written first sentence or two. You need the entire full page story to make it look legit but few will read it.

  • #44
    Quote Originally Posted by G650 View Post
    Threads like this reinforce how I've gone from a Libertarian leaning Jeffersonian Repubilcan to a fan of Hamiltonian thought and Jason Brennan's book Against Democracy.

    I have massively underestimated how many people have such an abject lack of critical thinking skills.
    I guess everyone is just supposed to glean by osmotic impartation what you mean by that.

  • #45
    asshat tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman Shaggy Gold Club tantric superman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    ...one of the great temperments...
    Posts
    25,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    Also, when the New York Times publishes a report that is clearly false, such as that the Benghazi attacks were motivated by a video on Youtube, doesn't that put the NYT in the same company?
    Everyone is in the same company in terms of making mistakes. Media, individuals, corporations.

    The issue is whether they have, throughout their history/life established some level of credibility.

    People have to separate fact from opinion (you seem to be rejecting people's ability to do so) and then decide what sources are the most credible.

    The modern twitter world we live in allows more people to claim that the NYT is in the "same company" with sources that are routinely not credible.

    Critical thinking allows one to make better than average assessments of credibility.

    Recent problems are that newspapers and journals of record have either failed, simply aren't read, or been unfairly attacked. And that the rabble enjoy crap media, if they try to understand an issue at all.

    That has made it harder to agree on common credible sources.

    You unlikely will find a more credible source than the NYT, or the WSJ, if you read them critically.

  • #46
    Quote Originally Posted by BA93 View Post
    This has been discussed for a lot longer than the last week. The talk has increased this week but the rise of fake stories has lead to an entire industry that started long before the election. It's just that the average everyday people became much more focused on election stories in the last 3-4 months.
    I hope you will pardon me, but I do not do facebook or twitter, so this is news to me.

  • #47
    asshat G650 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? G650 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? G650 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? G650 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? G650 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? G650 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? G650 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? G650 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? G650 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? G650 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? G650 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? G650's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pie in the Sky
    Posts
    3,909
    Quote Originally Posted by tantric superman View Post
    You unlikely will find a more credible source than the NYT, or the WSJ, if you read them critically.
    Another issue is everyone conflates the opinion page with "news". The actual news delivered by print media is generally very good. The op-eds are just fodder for the partisans.

  • #48
    asshat DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,836
    Quote Originally Posted by BA93 View Post
    Facebook doesn't want to control fake news posts but they also don't want be on the regular news about how their site is full of verifiable lies.
    And like I said before.. I don't think it's appropriate for them to make that determination. Especially with all the information released from wikileaks showing the biases we have in the media and their willingness to lie to further an agenda. They need to focus on doing their $#@!ing job. If they don't, shareholders will make them pay the price.

  • #49
    asshat neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pig Farm
    Posts
    21,060
    Does CNN have to censor their "fake news"? I know CNN is not Breitbart level bad, but it's a scale of $#@!.

    CNN style news.

    KKK endorses Trump. Is Trump a racist? Panel of 8 people with 7 of them saying Trump is probably a racist.

    Mutliple organizations donating money to Clinton with heavy ties to Terrorism. Do we hear a "Clinton is funded by terrorist" hyperbole argument, we don't even hear about it.

    While it's not eactly fake news, it's not exaclty real news either.

  • #50
    Quote Originally Posted by neonmoon44 View Post
    Does CNN have to censor their "fake news"? I know CNN is not Breitbart level bad, but it's a scale of $#@!.

    CNN style news.

    KKK endorses Trump. Is Trump a racist? Panel of 8 people with 7 of them saying Trump is probably a racist.

    Mutliple organizations donating money to Clinton with heavy ties to Terrorism. Do we hear a "Clinton is funded by terrorist" hyperbole argument, we don't even hear about it.

    While it's not eactly fake news, it's not exaclty real news either.
    Sometimes it is "Fake News".

  • + Reply to Thread
    Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts

     

     

    Home .. Advertise .. ShaggyShop .. PanchoChat
    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