The way that Obama partnered with the press to spread lies should have alarmed us all. Apparently the difference for you is whether the press is complicit or not. If they are, then that makes it OK in your view.
Again with the false equivalence and team politics. This is how Trump takes over the RNC and becomes president. This is how Putin gets strings he can pull into the White House. Give me the equivalent lies Obama and the press told and I will condemn them. Just as I condemned his drone attack project. Just as I condemned his expansion of surveillance powers in the presidency. As I told you in the other thread, you are picking this argument with the wrong person. I don't do team politics. Country over party. Your responses show you are on auto-reply and have no idea of my posting history here. That's all I really need to know, at this point.
neutral in their willingness to let users discern that for themselves Facebook's value to the user is in facilitating communication, not as a centralized arbiter of what is true. Indeed, there is already a cottage industry of self proclaimed arbiters of truth (fact checkers!), which we are free to listen to or ignore as we see fit.
I think fb providing a 'rating' to news article to flag fake news is helpful and those that don't like it don't have to use Facebook. I see that as a value to folks that have no time to research. I hope they do this.
Do you remember what President George W. Bush did to partner with or directly influence the press? Is it partisan behavior or behavior symptomatic to the office?
That's the problem, too many folks are believing what they want to hear. I am not sure of the solution.
A lot of this "fake news" backlash sounds just a whole lot like fans who were upset at Rotten Tomatoes when Batman V Superman was receiving bad reviews.
Actually . . . most White Supremist stuff can hang on facebook forever and they never say a word If reported they say it is not worthy enough to take it down but one black power fist and they freezing your account Facebook is anything but left leaning Rocket River
Excuse my ignorance -- I'm not on Facebook. How does this "fake news" work on Facebook, anyway? Is it just a matter of people posting links to news articles, and it gets disseminated to their contacts? Or is there an automatic news aggregator built-in, like Google News?
Yeah for the most part it's people sharing bogus news with each other. There are some accounts that you can "like" and they'll fill your Facebook feed up with BS that you can spread to others like "Occupy Democrats", "Fake SportsCenter", "Urban Leak", or "The New York Times"
That is actually not correct. In FB when you post content, there are sponsored links associated with it. These are paid placements from advertisers - aka content marketing. many media publishers now do this - including the NY Times. So when you read an article on the NY Times, it might actually be an advertisement. But you can tell because it will say sponsored content - but most people don't notice. However, the publisher curates the content it allows just like any other piece of journalism. Of course, what Commodore and Bobby are saying is that this is actually censorship and not curation. In terms of user posts, FB has been censoring content for years now - it has over 1,000 people that go through every flagged post and review it - but they use foreigners who don't get the context and only have 15 seconds on average to look at a post - so there are a lot of mistakes.
Facebook and Google are private corporations so they have the right to censor what they want. That said I have a very difficult time with this. There certainly is a lot of misinformation out there and it would be nice to filter that but given how much and how easy it is create misleading content I think such an effort will be doomed to failures. What we need more than trying to filter news is to educate consumers to be more discriminating and skeptical. Also consider reading many news sources.
Here is a really good article on this topic from The Hill, which correctly identifies the sudden motivation behind this issue to be the panic of the traditional media at their declining ratings, the loss of Hillary Clinton and the sense of need the people associated with these groups have to stifle news that is not left leaning:
it all starts from a paternalistic view that people can't discern truth for themselves hell, the entire premise of Vox is that there is too much information for the rubes, and you need experts like them (20 something know-nothings) to explain what it all means
This is why conservatives b****ing about the mainstream media are so insulting to the American people.
Because the media is supposed to be unbiased but that ship sailed a long time ago. It is sad but true that some people get all of their news from the mainstream media. If you think the mainstream media doesn't have a left leaning bias then I have some ocean front property to sell you sight unseen. Fake news is what the Onion, John Olivier, The Daily Show, etc... are. They are completely fake news. What these social media sites want to censor is right biased news. If they wanted to censor any bias they should stop all news because ALL news is biased these days. Instead they target any news coming form right leaning sources. You do realize the goal is to silence only right wing bias and give the left bias a free pass as usual don't you?
That may not be a bad idea because if they start censoring right leaning news it will hurt them badly. They will lose people over this if they go through with it. These social media sites will just become the left wing echo chamber. Personally, i have never used Facebook, Twitter, or any social media except for LinkedIn.
