Using facebook for news lmao. Sheds a lot of light on the stupid sources from a lot of the far right posters on here. Commodore is trying to graduate from twitter twats as we speak.
Forget about suppressing social media bs, we have a president that gets his panties wound up over tough questions and threatens reporters.
How is something determined to be fake, though? Almost universally, in these situations, there was a clear bias in what they determined they needed to censor.
They oversampled liberals. A case could be made that it was deliberate and thusly the poll was fake. I know what margin of error is. I'm asking what margin of error did the polls predict the results?
I thought the way he handled Megyn's question was brilliant. She threw a loaded question - a question that, under most circumstances, would make anyone look bad. And, muh threat. All he did was that he wasn't going to be nice to her anymore. What? Are they too thin skinned they can't handle a little banter? He did nothing out of the line. Now, I'm sorry for her, she got physically threatened by crazies but every side has those.
No, you are defending the ability to outright lie and deceive and force a media company allow it because it serves your political purpose. Sadly you don't know much about freedom of speech because if you did you'd understand it doesn't have anything to do with a private company.
so what exactly is FAKE news? TMZ??? Fake news??? Should they be censored? Are rumors FAKE news? IMO this was clearly designed as a way to censor information as social media deems fit. I am officially off of facebook...and Twitter is next on my list.
This is NOT a freedom of speech issue. There is no god given and/or constitutional right to have your facebook feed display exactly what you want it to. Aren't you supposed to be conservative? Shouldn't you support negative rights instead of positive rights?
I don't think this is fair. He's not calling for social media companies to be "forced" to allow it. He thinks they *should* allow it. A crucial difference. And free speech means you defend the right of others to express what they like, whether you agree or disagree and whether its facts or lies. Ideally, people don't abuse that platform and use it to intentionally spread misinformation. But once you try to censor people to prevent that from happening, it's a slippery slope. It's sometimes a gray area whether something is truth or deception, since people with different political views often disagree on what the basic facts are. What policy do you enact to prevent such disagreements from being exploited to marginalize certain political perspectives that some users may have? Is it really the responsibility of a social media platform to play "Big Brother" and do this, rather than have the users themselves figure it out? Rather than censorship, there must be other avenues these platforms can pursue to encourage people to question news stories or see things from a variety of perspectives.
I defend the right of someone to have free speech while not forgetting property rights. Spoiler: Human Rights are Property Rights Much is heard these days of the distinction between human rights and property rights, and many who claim to champion the one turn with scorn upon any defender of the other. They fail to see that property rights, far from being in conflict, are in fact the most basic of all human rights. The human right of every man to his own life implies the right to find and transform resources: to produce that which sustains and advances life. That product is a man’s property. That is why property rights are foremost among human rights and why any loss of one endangers the others. For example, how can the human right of freedom of the press be preserved if the government owns all the newsprint and has the power to decide who may use it and how much? The human right of a free press depends on the human right of private property in newsprint and in the other essentials for newspaper production. In short, there is no conflict of rights here because property rights are themselves human rights. What is more, human rights are also property rights! There are several aspects of this important truth. In the first place, each individual, according to our understanding of the natural order of things, is the owner of himself, the ruler of his own person. Preservation of this self-ownership is essential for the proper development and well-being of man. The human rights of the person are, in effect, a recognition of each man’s inalienable property right over his own being; and from this property right stems his right to the material goods that he has produced. A man’s right to personal freedom, then, is his property right in himself. But there is another sense in which human rights are really property rights, a sense which is much obscured in our time. Take, for example, the human right of freedom of assembly. Suppose that a certain group wants to demonstrate for a particular idea or bill in a street meeting. This is an expression of the right of assembly. On the other hand, suppose that the police break up the meeting on the ground that traffic is being disrupted. Now, it is not sufficient simply to say that the right of assembly has been abridged by the police for political reasons. Possibly, this was the case. But there is a real problem here, for maybe traffic was disrupted. In that case, how is one to decide between the human right of free assembly and the "public policy" or "public good" of clear and unobstructed traffic? In the face of this apparent conflict, many people conclude that rights must be relative rather than absolute and have to be curbed sometimes for the common good. A Question of Ownership But the real problem here is that the government owns the streets, which means that they are in a virtual state of no-ownership. This causes not only traffic jams, but also confusion and conflict over who should use the streets at any given time. The taxpayers? In the last analysis, we are all taxpayers. Should the taxpayers who want to demonstrate be allowed to use the street for that purpose at the time they choose, or should it be reserved for use by other groups of taxpayers as motorists or pedestrians? Who is to decide? Only government can decide; and whatever it does, its decision is bound to be a wholly arbitrary one that can only aggravate, and never resolve, the conflict between the opposed forces. Consider, however, a situation where the streets are owned by private individuals. In this case, we see clearly that the whole question is one of property rights. If Jones owns a street and the Citizens United want to use it for a demonstration, they may offer to hire the street for that purpose. Then it is up to Jones to decide whether he will rent it out and at what price he will agree to the deal. We see that this is not really a question of the human right of the Citizens United to freedom of assembly ; what is involved is their property right to use their money to offer to hire the street for the demonstration. But, in a free society, they cannot force Jones to agree; the ultimate decision is Jones’, in accordance with his property right to dispose of the street as he sees fit. Thus, we see how government ownership obscures the real issue—how it creates vague and spurious "human rights" that seemingly conflict with each other and with the "public good." In situations where all the factors involved are owned privately, it is clear that there is no problem or conflict of human rights; on the contrary, only property rights are involved, and there is no vagueness or conflict in deciding who owns what or what is permissible in any particular case. Property Rights Are Clear In short, there are no human rights that are separable from property rights. The human right of free speech is only the property right to hire an assembly hall from the owners, to speak to those who are willing to listen, to buy materials and then print leaflets or books and sell them to those who are willing to buy. There is no extra right of free speech beyond the property rights that we can enumerate in any given case. In all seeming cases of human rights, then, the proper course is to find and identify the property rights involved. And this procedure will resolve any apparent conflicts of rights; for property rights are always precise and legally recognizable. Consider the classic case where "freedom of speech" is supposed to be curbed in "the public interest": Justice Holmes’ famous dictum that there is no right to cry "fire" in a crowded theater. Holmes and his followers have used this illustration over and over to proclaim the supposed necessity for rights to be relative and tentative rather than absolute and eternal. But let us further analyze this problem. The fellow who brings on a riot by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is, necessarily, either the owner of the theater or a paying patron. If he is the owner, then he has committed fraud on his customers. He has taken their money in exchange for a promise to put on a movie; and now, instead, he disrupts the movie by falsely shouting "fire" and breaking up the performance. He has thus welshed on this contractual obligation, in violation of the property rights of his patrons. Suppose, on the other hand, that the shouter is a patron and not the owner. In that case, he is violating the owner’s property right. As a guest, he has access to the property on certain terms, including an obligation not to violate the owner’s property or disrupt the performance that the owner is putting on for his guests. His malicious act, therefore, violates the property rights of the theater owner and of all other patrons. If we consider the problem in terms of property rights instead of the vague and woolly human right of free speech, we see that there is no conflict and no necessity of limiting or abridging rights in any way. The rights of the individual are still eternal and absolute; but they are property rights. The fellow who maliciously cries "fire" in a crowded theater is a criminal, not because his so-called right of free speech must be pragmatically restricted on behalf of the "public good"; he is a criminal because he has clearly and obviously violated the property right of another person.
Contradiction. You want Big Brother to step in and tell Facebook what they can and can't show on their website? You know ClutchFans sometimes blocks content of inappropriate posts? I have no problem with Clutch running his website as his website. Do you?
So if someone wants to market a vitamin that is dangerous for people with weak hearts but is legal because the FDA doesn't regulate supplements. That company could create a fake news story about a study showing that people who take this vitamin will age slower and gain all these health benefits. It's a total lie and no respected media outlet would allow such garbage. Yet you are saying FB should allow it as free speech? Why should FB have lower standards than other media outlets? Because that is what both of you are suggesting. You are also suggesting that a company should be allowed to create fake news to sell it's product. For example - a company could claim that everyone in Brazil has discovered product X and write stories about how it's blowing up there and people in the U.S. are now going crazy over it. SHOULD facebook allow that? You're opening a different kind of can of worms here without realizing it. So you are saying the NY times should allow fake news by companies passed off as legitimate content? Otherwise the NY Times is practicing censorship????? WTF?
You have to love it when people lose politically and suggest that the reason they lost was that there simply isn't enough censorship.
OK, but why do you think Facebook "should" be neutral anyway? Neutral toward things they believe to be lies?
I have no problem with Facebook labeling false news as false news as long as it was shown to be false. That would be better than censoring the story off of the site. Then every time the story appears it appears and is labeled as being false.
Would you have this opinion if the things being targeted were from the left? My guess is probably not. Anyway, if Facebook wants to start censoring things, it's up to them, but if they do they could go the way of Myspace. Any second the "new" Facebook could pop up and if they give people a reason to abandon Facebook for it, they will quickly be out of their jobs. It just makes business sense to not show political bias.
Gonna be near impossible to stop the spread of fake news when the lies originate from the president's twitter account. That Ford plant story has some long legs due to Trump. The way he is bypassing the press to spread lies should concern us all. This is all precedent. It will get worse.
While I agree, there is a big difference. If books can instantly be beamed to wide audience at low cost for mass consumption and can spread like wildfire within minutes, then this is a perfectly fair point. The more I think about this, the more I think fake news shouldn't be protected speech. Fake news is a deliberate intent to lie. That's different from being wrong or inaccurate. And certainly different from being bias. However, I don't know how you draw that line? So I'm still in the camp that it's up to each media social platform to decide for themselves and I would be concerned if government is involved in the decision. Perhaps what can help is simply a Twitter, Google or FB stamp of 'verified', 'unverifed' as fake or not fake and then leave it up to the consumer to decide.
