• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [3:30 PM CDT] - in 25 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Facebook is Slowly Fixing Fake News

Checkerboard Strangler said:
You're ignoring what I said W.R.T. money being defined as speech.
But I understand, because liberty is so important to "libertarians" that they think actually getting to exercise liberty should be a privilege that is overwhelmingly rationed in favor of the rich.
Recognizing this ought to tell us what we are dealing with.
Click to expand...

Strawman.
 
camlok said:
If you think that is what US media is all about you have much to learn.

Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media. -- Noam Chomsky
Click to expand...

I think I understand it well enough...but I'm not sure you do.
 
Oborosen said:
I guess you haven't been watching the mainstream news lately then?

Because this crap is anything but objective.
Click to expand...

I get most of my news from newspapers and the radio, not Facebook or news commentary shows.
 
KLATTU said:
I'll mock it.Why does Facebook even care what's posted on Facebook? It's not their problem.
I mean it's almost if they were liberals trying to shut down opposing views. ( Derisive smirk)
Click to expand...

They care because they're losing business.
 
Moot said:
Your comment suggests that you don't know the difference between editorial opinion and news.
Click to expand...

Oh yes I do, I believe in freedom of speech and don’t understand why conservative sites are being censored. Be it opinion or news, don’t we have the right to choose who we believe, we have to decide what to believe even when talking to anyone don’t we?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jonny5 said:
Strawman.
Click to expand...

No, because by saying what you said, you CONFIRMED that you agree that money is speech.

jonny5 said:
According to journalists. Govt has and should have nothing to do with it. The purpose of govt is to protect your life and liberty so that you can speak or not speak. Its not to ensure your speech gets heard. The purpose of the bill of rights was to make sure govt didnt interfere and stop speech or the press, not to assist it in getting out.
Click to expand...

Once money is speech, nothing else can BE heard EXCEPT FOR money.
Therefore, organized money as speech is organized tyranny by money.
 
Moot said:
I think I understand it well enough...but I'm not sure you do.
Click to expand...

You are equivocating on both ends. Not all that sure, are you?
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
I am so happy to be seeing this. This type of viral crap website whether they be conservative or liberal, suck and are annoying for anyone who has an attention span longer than five seconds. They hurt everything that the internet was built and intended for.


https://mediapost.com/publications/...ative-site-rareus-to-shutter-couldnt-sur.html

Some graphs here: https://theoutline.com/post/3599/co...by-facebook-news-feed-change?zd=2&zi=d3yobbtj

The sites that used Facebook the most:



https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathle...tes-that-stand-to-lose-the-most/#497f28d234ec

This should be applauded, but for some reason I think it will be mostly mocked here. Let's see.
Click to expand...

The house has already burned to the ground and the whip out they garden hose... :roll:

Money money money

It's gonna kill us all.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
I am so happy to be seeing this. This type of viral crap website whether they be conservative or liberal, suck and are annoying for anyone who has an attention span longer than five seconds. They hurt everything that the internet was built and intended for.


https://mediapost.com/publications/...ative-site-rareus-to-shutter-couldnt-sur.html

Some graphs here: https://theoutline.com/post/3599/co...by-facebook-news-feed-change?zd=2&zi=d3yobbtj

The sites that used Facebook the most:



https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathle...tes-that-stand-to-lose-the-most/#497f28d234ec

This should be applauded, but for some reason I think it will be mostly mocked here. Let's see.
Click to expand...

They will fix it the same way you fix a cat or a dog.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Not fond of them deciding what is and isn't "fake news". They're supposed to be a social media site, not a site that determines what is and isn't fake. But its their site. :shrug:
Click to expand...

They would have done themselves a favor by reducing the news feature altogether.
 
calamity said:
Lol....I bet I know exactly what you posted. And, why it got you banned.
Click to expand...

Then care to hazard a guess, because I would actually like to see if there is an actual bottom to the depths of this idiocy you keep waving around.
 
Moot said:
I get most of my news from newspapers and the radio, not Facebook or news commentary shows.
Click to expand...

Good because CNN, MSNBC and FOX haven't been news for over a year now.

...but the fear mongering has to stop at least. Because even my local print is putting out stuff that has not actual facts associated with it. Nor do they have a means of proving it.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I'd say that 1984 would arguably be the last year in which the Fairness Doctrine/Ed Murrow journalism method dominated the news industry. When Reagan first began the process of killing off the Fairness Doctrine around 1985, Murrow's methods and standards pretty much began to die with it. You can't have one without the other, I'm afraid.

I first received my Associate degree in 1977, and by 1979 I was preparing for my Bachelor's in English with minors in History and journalism. That put me squarely in the crosshairs of the convergence of market forces and their influence in the newsgathering business.
And that ultimately dissuaded me from pursuing a career path in news at least from a journalism perspective.
I wound up going after the creative side in film-TV instead, and only did news coverage as a video photographer or videographer, doing freelance news stringer camera op assignments instead of attempting to be a reporter. The market wanted a different breed of reporter, someone considered for their attractiveness instead of their ability as a newshound.
I wasn't so ugly that I "had a face for radio" but I wasn't a clean cut varsity team preppie type either.

News used to be a nonprofit public service provided BY the for profit networks, and was under the umbrella of "News and Public Affairs" and the service of providing news was part of a station or network's FCC responsibility to the community and for the privilege of using "the public airwaves".

The decision that the Fairness Doctrine "interfered with the First Amendment" is only considered valid because we now seem to consider MONEY to be a form of SPEECH, as FURTHER CODIFIED in Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United and FEC vs. McCutcheon.

Personally, I see that as a massive distortion in our priorities and standards, because if money really is speech, then NO money equals NO SPEECH.

And one purpose of journalism is to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable".
Click to expand...

Ya I agree. The 24 hour new cycle made new, entertainment. And Citizens United screwed everyone.
 
I don't understand the hubbub. FB is a corporation. They own the hardware that they are making these decisions around. If you don't like it, go to Myspace. I'm sure they could use the traffic and wouldn't care what ass-wipery you put up there. Vote with your feet.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
No, because by saying what you said, you CONFIRMED that you agree that money is speech.



Once money is speech, nothing else can BE heard EXCEPT FOR money.
Therefore, organized money as speech is organized tyranny by money.
Click to expand...

The strawman was intentionally misrepresenting libertarianism and then claiming its proof of your argument. If you want to stay away from that, and debate a real argument, we can do that.

Furthermore, youre still missing the point. Whether or not money is speech doesnt matter. People have a right to speak. They have a right to use their time and property (money) in support of political ideas. Govt is specifically prohibited from infringing on these rights.

That you dont like that people with money have a better ability to support political ideas doesnt matter. They have a right to do so. The purpose of govt is not equal outcomes of speech, its just creating a free zone to allow people to speak. Which everyone has, rich or poor.
 
jonny5 said:
The strawman was intentionally misrepresenting libertarianism and then claiming its proof of your argument. If you want to stay away from that, and debate a real argument, we can do that.

Furthermore, youre still missing the point. Whether or not money is speech doesnt matter. People have a right to speak. They have a right to use their time and property (money) in support of political ideas. Govt is specifically prohibited from infringing on these rights.

That you dont like that people with money have a better ability to support political ideas doesnt matter. They have a right to do so. The purpose of govt is not equal outcomes of speech, its just creating a free zone to allow people to speak. Which everyone has, rich or poor.
Click to expand...

Oh congratulations for making this about me, I was wondering how long it would take you to resort to that. But it's not about me, did you realize that?

Government IS specifically prohibited from infringing on the rights of people to use time and property in support of political ideas but it also has no business enhancing the rights of the wealthy to the point where two classes of "persons" are created, namely those of flesh and bone, and "corporate" persons composed of steel, glass, lawyers and unlimited amounts of money.
The fact that you cannot see this imbalance is the reason why I included my 'straw man' quip about rationing liberty so that it can only be exercised by those who can afford it.

It wasn't an argument, it was my belief that libertarians aren't actually interested in liberty, or freedom, or rights. The biggest bully on the block wins. If the Constitution is there to preserve darwinian concepts, to the exclusion of all else, then it's not a document that preserves anything at all, it's a license to tyrants.

Citizens United is about elections, and elections are about votes. Votes can be influenced and controlled by tyrants and bullies who, in the exercise of their "rights", are trampling on the rights of others. This is where concepts like "tyranny of organized money" come into play.

But since this is really about Facebook, and not the government, or the Constitution, it really boils down to your opinion ("according to journalists") and mine.

I am not interested in attempting to alter your opinion, only defining it, which I already did when I said that liberty is so important to "libertarians" that they think actually getting to exercise liberty should be a privilege that is overwhelmingly rationed in favor of the rich.
May the biggest bully on the block soon learn the lesson of organized numbers and organized crowds. There is no amount of praetorian guards who will be able to hold back the masses.

A toast to Bastille Day in America, may it come soon.
It always does.
 
My dog has an active FB account!
 
MrShangles said:
Oh yes I do, I believe in freedom of speech and don’t understand why conservative sites are being censored. Be it opinion or news, don’t we have the right to choose who we believe, we have to decide what to believe even when talking to anyone don’t we?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If conservative sites are being censored it's probably because they're fake news. Of course you have the right to choose what to believe, but you don't have the right to force private companies to publish fake news.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom