This is tough. There can be a fine line between "fake news" and highly biased but legitimate news. I wonder if there are some algorithms that can be used to distinguish them in a fair manner.
It is disturbing how many people swallow these garbage fake news headlines and pass them around as facts.
Fair enough. But that's different from blaming this on "the left" "silencing speech" I'd suggest either not using Facebook or not investing in the company if this bothers you.
Nearly every private media company already does this. The NY Times doesn't promote stories that it's editorial board does not agree with. Facebook already limits who can advertise with many rules on the content. Even legal businesses can't advertise on many publisher sites throughout the internet for a variety of reasons. So why can't Facebook say to Breitbart - you can't advertise your content on our site if neutral third party ratings company consistently rate your content as untrue? That's not censorship. Censorship isn't allowing a diversity of views or controversial ideas. Lying is not a valid idea. An organization has no obligation to promote propaganda. FB isn't censoring anything. You can still post fake news articles, it's just considering not allowing fake news as advertisements. There used to be something called truth in advertising.
LOL. What margin of error? That if we're wrong, the other guy wins? Wow. All their polls up to election night had Hillary up significantly. A lot of people were saying it was going to be an early night.
QUESTION: As a nation, are we ok with lying and manipulating people? Yes or No. If a strong person physically intimidates a weaker person . . . . . . everyone would cry foul. However If a mentally strong person mentally intimidates/manipulates a weaker minded person . . . . . . everyone seems to kind of be ok with it.. Protecting the Weak . . .seems to only be able the physically weak. Some of whom seem to thrive on taking advantage of the mentally weak Rocket River
The left wants to tamp down on disagreeable speech. Sometimes through legal means (Citizens United, Fairness Doctrine), sometimes through other means (putting pressure on Facebook to censor content and become arbiters of truth). Controlling the message as a means of controlling the people. Facebook should resist attempts to alter its status as a neutral platform. fwiw, I've never used Facebook
Is google a media outlet? Or just an internet site? Is it controlling what IT publishes, or what OTHERS publish? Because controlling what OTHERS publish is censorship. These outlets walk a fine line.
I have a science degree. Believe me, I know the math and I was making fun that you insinuated the polls were anywhere realistically predicted the probability of a Trump victory. Now, come on, what margin of error are you talking about?
Trump sucks dick. I could write a paper about it, doesn't mean it wouldn't be* factually incorrect. The right wing likes to perpetuate a bunch of lies and nonsense, a step further from the dramatized version we are used to getting. So yes, outright lies should be censored. They misguide stupid a easily manipulated people.
So you never use it and therefore don't even know what this debate is about? Facebook isn't censoring messages. It's just stopping someone from manipulating it's platform from spreading outright lies and passing it as fact. Let's be clear - stopping slander and libel IS NOT CENSORSHIP. Yes, google is a media outlet. It's considered a media company in fact. It curates content and it does decide what to promote because it penalizes sites already and has been doing so for many many years. By your definition every single media outlet practices censorship since it controls what others publish. Clutchfans controls what your publish since it stops people from posting certain content, therefore it practices censorship by your definition. The left doesn't want to control speech. A company has a right to clean up the mess on it's sight to provide a better experience.
It might be virtuous or justified, but it's certainly censorship. Facebook's neutrality is worth preserving. Throwing that away to become arbiters of truth for its user-base is a bad idea.
This is the real problem, folks like you and other partisans live in an echo chamber where your world views are constantly being reinforced. Read both sides of the aisle and read international perspectives on domestic issues if you truly care about being objective. Since you never used Facebook then you really don't have a grasp of what fake news has done on social media, especially on a giant like Facebook. It's both sides, but it seems all my 50 and up relatives believe whatever they read on Facebook.
Do not try to hide your alt-right friends unethical behavior under the guise of freedom of speech. FB removes posts from both the left and the right that users make currently - and you never whined about it before. Reddit kicks users out for having different viewpoints on things like the Trump forum. I know because I was kicked out for critiquing Trump. I was censored and where are you to defend it. This is different, this is a blatant attempt by an outside corporate entity to deceive users and you are backing it under the guise of fighting censorship. How can you defend that? If Russia wants to start convincing Americans that Trump is sleeping with Clinton you'd be against FB from trying to stop them from using their platform to do it?
