• 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!

George Soros Finances Group Helping Facebook Flag ‘Disputed’ Stories

I think Facebook is the last place I would ever use to find news. In fact it is the last place I would use for anything. The internet has always been wild and wooly as it should be. Leave it alone.

Unfortunately, facebook seems to have replaced lying chain emails sent to the gullible in a more expedient fashion.
 
I would expect nothing less. ;)

And the rest of you are all about the messenger rather than the message.

That's because your messenger constantly lies.
 
Soros Finances Group Helping Facebook Flag ‘Disputed’ Stories

I'm really glad the Obama, Hillary, and the rest will be wandering in the political forest for the foreseeable future, or they would have surely given these "one truth'ers" enforcement privileges. I hope Facebook is smarter than this. I never went to face book for news in the first place, and I wouldn't know where to find "news". This is really stupid. California stupid. That special stupid that they get in this state that they seem to think everyone agrees with them. Facebook is going to get burned and spit roasted.

Wrong subforum for crap news sources.
 
I would expect nothing less. ;)

And the rest of you are all about the messenger rather than the message.

Well when the messenger is a proven liar, it's hard to trust them. But if the message is carried by other messengers, then let's see it. I mean, the message might become believable if it is substantiated by other, more reputable sources. Got any of those, or is a conspiracy rag the only place that you can get this information?

But let's look at the message, because the message is retarded and based on nothing but supposition with zero evidence or fact behind it.

The IFCN has come up with 5 guidelines for news organizations in order to ensure some amount of journalistic integrity. Those guidelines are:

1. A COMMITMENT TO NONPARTISANSHIP AND FAIRNESS

We fact-check claims using the same standard for every fact check. We do not concentrate our fact-checking on any one side. We follow the same process for every fact check and let the evidence dictate our conclusions. We do not advocate or take policy positions on the issues we fact-check.

2. A COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY OF SOURCES

We want our readers to be able to verify our findings themselves. We provide all sources in enough detail that readers can replicate our work, except in cases where a source’s personal security could be compromised. In such cases, we provide as much detail as possible.

3. A COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY OF FUNDING & ORGANIZATION

We are transparent about our funding sources. If we accept funding from other organizations, we ensure that funders have no influence over the conclusions we reach in our reports. We detail the professional background of all key figures in our organization and explain our organizational structure and legal status. We clearly indicate a way for readers to communicate with us.

4. A COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY OF METHODOLOGY

We explain the methodology we use to select, research, write, edit, publish and correct our fact checks. We encourage readers to send us claims to fact-check and are transparent on why and how we fact-check.

5. A COMMITMENT TO OPEN AND HONEST CORRECTIONS

We publish our corrections policy and follow it scrupulously. We correct clearly and transparently in line with our corrections policy, seeking so far as possible to ensure that readers see the corrected version.

So...what's wrong with this? Are these guidelines unreasonable? Biased? Partisan? They seem fairly OK to me.

So Facebook is going to work with...whom? Did you read the article?

“third-party fact checking organizations” that are signatories to the code of principles.

So Facebook is going to work, not with the IFCN directly, but with other groups which have agreed to abide by those 5 guidelines. What's wrong with that? Is that biased? Is that partisan?

Now we have that George Soros has contributed to the IFCN. What of it? He's a liberal, he funds other things, blah blah blah. OK. But what about here? Have those 5 principals changed? Has the fact that Facebook is working with third party organizations changed? Are those third party organizations also funded by Soros and if so, does that have an effect?

What is the significance of Soros here? A rich jerk who throws his money around, OK fine. But how is that affecting things here?

You have no evidence that anything is affected. You've just reached for some straws. Oh Facebook is going to work with third party organizations who agree to be Committed to nonpartisanship and fairness, transparency of sources, transparency of funding & organization, transparency of methodology, and open & honest corrections. But you're grasping at Soros and throwing him into the mix as if the mere mention of his name means that none of this commitment is happening. Do you have proof that those principles are not being followed? No you don't. This is mindless accusation, baseless supposition, blind partisan attacking.

So let's forget that Breitbart is a worthless, partisan, pile of hot steaming **** for a second and look at the "message". The "message" is full of **** as well. Come back when you have better sources and proof.
 
I think Facebook is the last place I would ever use to find news. In fact it is the last place I would use for anything. The internet has always been wild and wooly as it should be. Leave it alone.

Many millions do use it as one of their sources for news...especially local. It's just a sounding board for everything that's happening in the world.

I post breaking news etc. there all the time as do my friends and relatives. Having some left learners decide what is relevant or not is not going to fly. People don't need filter.
 
Last edited:
Similar thing happened with #gamergate, when it was flooded with basically illegal doxxing and threats, people had to work with Twitter to help them improve their ability to track and remove/moderate in a more timely fashion with higher volume.

I sort of get social media, but I still have almost no part in any of it. I don't count this, this is like a public BBS from days of old.
 
About the person who wrote those guidelines:

Poynter’s IFCN is also funded by the Omidyar Network, which is the nonprofit for liberal billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. The Omidyar Network has partnered with the Open Society on numerous projects and it has given grants to third parties using the Soros-funded Tides Foundation. Tides is one of the largest donors to left-wing causes in the U.S.

Another significant Poynter Institute donor is the Craig Newmark Foundation, the charitable organization established by Craigslist Founder Craig Newmark. On Monday, just days before the announcement of the Facebook partnership, Poynter issued a press release revealing that Newmark donated $1 million to the group to fund a faculty chair in journalism ethics.
 
I sort of get social media, but I still have almost no part in any of it. I don't count this, this is like a public BBS from days of old.

Apt analogy, it is just a message board, anyone can put up anything. Facebook now is trying to regulate that somewhat and make sure what appears as news can be trusted as actually being news. But at the same accord, you could never truly trust it, and there will be fake stories to get through. So one should not get their news solely from social media, it's laughable to do so. You have to go to many sources to try to ferret out the actual story. No one should implicitly trust the stuff on social media.
 
Why does Breitbart count as "mainstream media"? It's just a partisan as **** tabloid rag. The Onion is more accurate than Breitbart.

That's not fair. The Onion over the years has been pretty accurate if the reporting of future events is considered. Reading The Onion is like sitting before a modern day prophet. What they say may sound ridiculous today, but one day you'll look back and say, "dang, they were right."
 
It's breitbart. If you don't believe it to be true then the odds are in your favor.

I don't determine the truth based upon the source, I'll leave that to the partisans.
 
Then by all means, enjoy your breitbart.

I wasn't even aware it was Breitbart and it along with the rest of the sources are not mine. Did you comment on the story or are you just a drive-by on mine?
 
I wasn't even aware it was Breitbart and it along with the rest of the sources are not mine. Did you comment on the story or are you just a drive-by on mine?

Somebody is awfully thenthative. I said breitbart is unreliable garbage. You said you dont judge sources. I said, enjoy breitbart then. Don't know why that'd piss you off.
 
Somebody is awfully thenthative. I said breitbart is unreliable garbage. You said you dont judge sources. I said, enjoy breitbart then. Don't know why that'd piss you off.

You included me on your "attack the messenger" post. I had to look back to all of your posts and I don't see where you say it is unreliable garbage, but I get the hint. As I indicated you are a drive-by on my comment which you clearly didn't understand, which is fine. I assume all sources are suspect so I read and consider those articles for those posts I show interest.

Now please move along and comment to others about your observations on the source and not the content. I'm not interested.

Have a nice day :golf
 
Wrong subforum for crap news sources.

We need to modify the sub forum. We need Breaking News-MSM, Breaking News-Non-MSM, and Breaking News-Complete Bull****. This thread would be in the latter.
 
You included me on your "attack the messenger" post. I had to look back to all of your posts and I don't see where you say it is unreliable garbage, but I get the hint. As I indicated you are a drive-by on my comment which you clearly didn't understand, which is fine. I assume all sources are suspect so I read and consider those articles for those posts I show interest.

Now please move along and comment to others about your observations on the source and not the content. I'm not interested.

Have a nice day :golf

Actually when I quoted you the first time in this thread I had thought we were somewhat in agreement. Never intended to be confrontational. But so be it.
 
Fake news is fake news. What is your point?

Take another hit from your pipe and stare at my response again, and I believe you'll eventually figure it out on your own.
 
That's because your messenger constantly lies.

no worse than salon, dailykos, huffpo, mediamatters, motherjones etc ...
yet I don't see the same level of vitriol slammed at those.

in fact they are posted non-stop by liberals all the time.
 
no worse than salon, dailykos, huffpo, mediamatters, motherjones etc ...
yet I don't see the same level of vitriol slammed at those.

in fact they are posted non-stop by liberals all the time.

No worse my ass. Having a bias isn't quite the same as fabricating and propagating outright lies. That's another fail at false equivelence from you. Seems to be a pattern.
 
Back
Top Bottom