1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Should "Fake News" be surpressed on social media?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by MojoMan, Nov 17, 2016.

  1. RocketsLegend

    RocketsLegend Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    6,619
    Likes Received:
    1,529
    So who decides what's fake news? I see this as a desperate attempt by the failing MSM to silence independent news sites.
     
    AroundTheWorld and cml750 like this.
  2. shastarocket

    shastarocket Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Messages:
    13,773
    Likes Received:
    1,082
    Considering your posting history, definitely not you! Lmao
     
  3. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,814
    Likes Received:
    20,473
    Fake news is annoying and requires some amount of work in order to sort through the bogus stories. But I don't like censoring things. People should learn to be selective in what sources they trust. There are books that are full of crap and they aren't nor should they be banned. So why put social media to different standards?
     
  4. MojoMan

    MojoMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,746
    Likes Received:
    2,153
    Good post, FB.
     
  5. Haymitch

    Haymitch Custom Title

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    28,371
    Likes Received:
    24,021
    This isn't a silencing free speech issue. This is a private company doing something because they want to.

    Is your position that a private company shouldn't be allowed to do something like this?
     
    RedRedemption likes this.
  6. London'sBurning

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    4,817
    Could just let the market decide. Some other clever coder could make a non-suppressed social media site just like Facebook, except without suppression of "fake news." Doubtful many people would migrate over on account of this issue but if it's really such a big deal then it opens up a potential market for someone ambitious enough to create an unsuppressed social media platform.

    That said, I'm against censorship. If someone gets their news from an unreliable source and treats their source as fact, that's on them.
     
  7. RocketsLegend

    RocketsLegend Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    6,619
    Likes Received:
    1,529
  8. DonnyMost

    DonnyMost Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    48,993
    Likes Received:
    19,938
    If private companies don't want what they see as disreputable sites getting eyeballs through their services, then more power to them.
     
    Rashmon likes this.
  9. BigDog63

    BigDog63 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,166
    Likes Received:
    1,543
    The fact that it is the 'the media' now, and not 'news organizations' says it all. We don't have news organizations anymore, only media outlets. Media outlets are there for one reason...to promote certain media. We let this happen, so it seems to be what we, the public want.

    I would love it if such stuff weren't out there. But even when established previously high reputation outlets like the New York Times have been caught, repeatedly, publishing false stories, and that we have effectively no control over things like twitter, google, etc. I don't see any way it could be curtailed even if that were the goal. Bringing it back, inevitably, to letting people figure it out on their own.
     
  10. Haymitch

    Haymitch Custom Title

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    28,371
    Likes Received:
    24,021
    Agreed. Someone should start a social media site for people who have no concept of free speech or property, and all its users can rage about stories made up by some guy trolling for clicks.

    It'll be those alarmist conservative chain emails made modern.
     
  11. BigDog63

    BigDog63 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,166
    Likes Received:
    1,543
    No, not at all. We expect it. But we let it happen anyway. Because the solutions are generally worse.

    It also comes off as elitist. Who, for example, gets to decide who isn't capable of filtering such stuff, and who is? Who decides what to filter? Who decides who these who's are?

    A great deal of what politicians say is false. Do they get censored in mid speech? By who? What about what anybody says? If we are going to filter media content, do we filter people talking on the street? If not....why not?

    Too problematic. If people fall for the dumbest ****, then they do. They deserved it, and they got it. It all works out.

    Clutchfans is a media out, btw. Who would censor/filter here....and how much content would disappear if they did?
     
  12. Dei

    Dei Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2006
    Messages:
    7,362
    Likes Received:
    335
    How the heck are Breitbart and InfoWars fake news? They covered the election more accurately than the mainstream media.
     
    cml750 likes this.
  13. PhiSlammaJamma

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 1999
    Messages:
    29,969
    Likes Received:
    8,053
    This could be what triggers the search engines to become sentient. I'm worried.
     
  14. Air Langhi

    Air Langhi Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2000
    Messages:
    21,946
    Likes Received:
    6,696
    No it shouldn't, but Facebook, google, twitter etc. are free to do what they want to do. I guess they are mad they got Trump elected.
     
  15. DonnyMost

    DonnyMost Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    48,993
    Likes Received:
    19,938
    inorite?

    Life in Obama's FEMA camps is rough.
     
  16. RedRedemption

    RedRedemption Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    32,542
    Likes Received:
    7,752
    People in this thread are confusing fake news with biased news. Biased curation is fine, complete rumors and fake BS is not.
    Breitbart is biased, but so is Huff Post, Mother Jones, Salon, etc.

    We are talking about blatantly fake news. InfoWars is pretty close to that line. I'd consider it on the side of "Fake News" after pushing that dumb Jade Helm conspiracy.

    Regardless, its not like the government is curating anything. This is all on Google, Facebook, etc.
     
    #36 RedRedemption, Nov 17, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2016
  17. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    45,954
    Likes Received:
    28,050
    It might be a classification thing. Those feeds can be labeled satire.

    Fake news isn't really news and imo it shouldn't being there. I don't know what to call it without being offensive.

    Oliver and the like generally winds up in entertainment or tailored lib feeds.

    It's like those warnings on the cigarette packages, it might not amount to ****, but at least when I read zero hedge,I know what in getting.
     
  18. Dei

    Dei Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2006
    Messages:
    7,362
    Likes Received:
    335
    Not any more fake than the polls CNN and co. were putting out during the election.
     
  19. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    39,206
    Likes Received:
    20,353
    Fake news is not news - it's propaganda.

    I think FB should ban all propaganda as news no matter the source. Nothing wrong with something from the Wall Street Journal or well respected conservative or liberal media source. But time to throw out the sources that just outright lie.
     
  20. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    39,206
    Likes Received:
    20,353
    Does google censor because it doesn't show fake news in its news section? I think a media outlet as a right to control what it publishes to its readers as "news".
     

Share This Page