Soros bankrolling Facebook

[Topaz]

It seem Soros is going to help Facebook, get rid of untrue articles OR is he wanting to get rid of any articles against the Dems or any topic that make HIM look bad? The guy can't be trusted and I don't care how much money he has!                                                                  http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/12/16/soros-finances-group-helping-facebook-flag-disputed-stories/           

[kimmy]

We live in a world where a mental retard with an assault rifle stormed a pizza shop to free child sex slaves because a bunch of other mental retards made up a ridiculous story and posted it on Twitter. But it's no surprise that Breitbart would consider attempts to flag fake content as an attack on their readership. Alex Jones is no doubt equally angry.

 -k

[TimG]

2 hours ago, kimmy said:

We live in a world where a mental retard with an assault rifle stormed a pizza shop to free child sex slaves because a bunch of other mental retards made up a ridiculous story and posted it on Twitter. But it's no surprise that Breitbart would consider attempts to flag fake content as an attack on their readership. Alex Jones is no doubt equally angry.

Well, the trouble with the "fake news" meme is a lot of news is spin - even news that comes from so called "respectable" sources. So the question is who gets to decides when the bias inherent in any news coverage makes it "fake". The answer that the WaPo has provided is that any news with a bias that disagrees with liberal preconceptions of the world is "fake". So I don't really care how many truly egregious examples of fake news exist like the pizza story. We live in a world where anyone appointed to be the arbiter of "fake news" cannot be trusted to do their job objectively. This means no one should be an arbiter.

Edited December 17, 2016 by TimG

[Omni]

5 hours ago, TimG said:

Well, the trouble with the "fake news" meme is a lot of news is spin - even news that comes from so called "respectable" sources. So the question is who gets to decides when the bias inherent in any news coverage makes it "fake". The answer that the WaPo has provided is that any news with a bias that disagrees with liberal preconceptions of the world is "fake". So I don't really care how many truly egregious examples of fake news exist like the pizza story. We live in a world where anyone appointed to be the arbiter of "fake news" cannot be trusted to do their job objectively. This means no one should be an arbiter.

Fake news is quite simply lies. Like the one Megyn Kelly got caught in with regard to a Hillary speech. Or then there's the one that nobody got shot in Orlando because we didn't see any body pictures. News sources you can trust sometimes get it wrong when the headlines come out, but usually they correct as the details emerge. Totally made us shyte is what it is. Breitbart for example.

[Michael Hardner]

12 hours ago, TimG said:

We live in a world where anyone appointed to be the arbiter of "fake news" cannot be trusted to do their job objectively. This means no one should be an arbiter.

I think that the catch-22 here is that you are right, and also that such a process is actually necessary.  We are watching some kind of collapse of political dialogue, whether or not you believe it's cyclical or not.  

We have been working with a political system that was built on trusts and institutions that predate us, so we don't appreciate how hard it was for the people of that time to set this up.  But when things are difficult to do, they make something of value so we have to start this again.

TimG - If there were a group of people to arbitrate fake news I would absolutely trust you to be part of it and that's exactly the kind of agreement that such a group would need to be based on.

[TimG]

25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

TimG - If there were a group of people to arbitrate fake news I would absolutely trust you to be part of it and that's exactly the kind of agreement that such a group would need to be based on.

I am not sure their needs to be any 'group'. I rather see that people learn that stuff they hear on the news is often BS and they have no way to learn to the 'real story'. They information we have on any topic is, at best, a distorted sub section of reality. I work with some companies that now routinely send out 'fake' phishing spam to their employees. If an employee gets fooled they get a page warning them about phishing spam. Over time I would assume these companies are training their employees to spot phishing attacks.  If you want to "solve" the problem with "fake news" the solution begins and ends with the consumers of the news - not the distributors or makers.

Edited December 17, 2016 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

I am also not sure that there needs to be a 'group'.  I am making the point, though, that democracy is difficult.  If individuals aren't able to discern fake news from real then the population will come up with a response of some kind, something will have to emerge.  The fact that this issue has come up is the first step in whatever response will come.

[TimG]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I am also not sure that there needs to be a 'group'.  I am making the point, though, that democracy is difficult.  If individuals aren't able to discern fake news from real then the population will come up with a response of some kind, something will have to emerge.  The fact that this issue has come up is the first step in whatever response will come.

Cries that their 'outta be a law' occur whenever something like this gets in the media. The fake news meme is not different except there is a population of people that truly believe that government should stop people from saying  things they disagree with.  It is those people that will be driving whatever process is created which is why it is necessary to absolutely oppose any such efforts at censorship.

[Michael Hardner]

You must agree, though, that beyond a certain point misinformation becomes more than a political problem.  I take pains to point out to my mostly-left facebook friends that their posts about 'miracle natural cures' are false.  People don't like it, but without some kind of shared collective morality we are doomed, and confronted with having to take other actions.

[TimG]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You must agree, though, that beyond a certain point misinformation becomes more than a political problem.  I take pains to point out to my mostly-left facebook friends that their posts about 'miracle natural cures' are false.  People don't like it, but without some kind of shared collective morality we are doomed, and confronted with having to take other actions.

You 'taking pains' to inform friends about fake news is how it should work. i.e. grassroots education of the consumers of news. That is not a justification for government involvement. Note that agreeing that something is a problem does not mean agreement on how the problem should be addressed. The latter is usually the bigger source disagreement however a lot of people make the mistake of trying to argue 'if you agree it is problem you must agree with my solution'. 

[Michael Hardner]

Of course it's not justification - that is how it should work.  I don't even know that "it" is a problem - but everybody needs to ask themselves when it objectively becomes a problem.  By that point, there will already be solutions proposed.  

[Michael Hardner]

A note on challenging sources, for those of us who don't buy this kind of thing. This is worth a repost:

 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Of course it's not justification - that is how it should work.  I don't even know that "it" is a problem - but everybody needs to ask themselves when it objectively becomes a problem.  By that point, there will already be solutions proposed.  

 

It is not a problem unless government is used to suppress free speech/expression.   So called "fake news" is neither new or remarkable.   It pre-dates new media by many generations.   The best counter is probably education, multiple sources, and a healthy dose of skepticism / cynicism.   News is now content, and it doesn't get a "safe space".

Edited December 17, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

18 hours ago, TimG said:

So the question is who gets to decides when the bias inherent in any news coverage makes it "fake". The answer that the WaPo has provided is that any news with a bias that disagrees with liberal preconceptions of the world is "fake".

Did the Washington Post actually say this word for word, or did you just make it up? 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

It is not a problem unless government is used to suppress free speech/expression.   So called "fake news" is neither new or remarkable.   It pre-dates new media by many generations.   The best counter is probably education, multiple sources, and a healthy dose of skepticism / cynicism.   News is now content, and it doesn't get a "safe space".

I agree with what you wrote here, except that... news has been a 'safe space' for decades now.  When I was a kid, I remember seeing public service messages telling people not to trust 'rumours'.  Those disappeared as the quality of our information improved.  We need to re-learn skepticism.

You are right, though, in your view of the issues IMO.  I am curious, though, how you would ever see the amount of 'fake news' passing a tipping point: where that point would be for you, and what if anything you would expect to happen, as well as whether you would ever support a 'public' response.  I am asking these things honestly, not trying to trip you up on your philosophy.  ( I think testing your philosophy is perfectly in-bounds for discussion, but I am sincerely wondering about hypotheticals here not testing anything. )

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

I agree with what you wrote here, except that... news has been a 'safe space' for decades now.  When I was a kid, I remember seeing public service messages telling people not to trust 'rumours'.  Those disappeared as the quality of our information improved.  We need to re-learn skepticism.

 

I'm not convinced...governments have sponsored "fake news" forever with public messaging (propaganda).  Modern MSM has been busted so many times with fake news they probably long for the halcyon days of just "yellow journalism".   The pressure is on to compete with click worthy content or become financially irrelevant.   In decades past, we could at least use newsprint to house train a puppy, line a bird cage, or wrap some fish for the freezer.

 

Quote

You are right, though, in your view of the issues IMO.  I am curious, though, how you would ever see the amount of 'fake news' passing a tipping point: where that point would be for you, and what if anything you would expect to happen, as well as whether you would ever support a 'public' response.  I am asking these things honestly, not trying to trip you up on your philosophy.  ( I think testing your philosophy is perfectly in-bounds for discussion, but I am sincerely wondering about hypotheticals here not testing anything. )

 

This is not a test for my "philosophy".   Like most things on any continuum, what you describe just becomes like any other fiction that is readily consumed.  There is no tipping point if you mean a call for action of some kind to stop "fake news".    

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."  - British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli

[Michael Hardner]

Quote

There is no tipping point if you mean a call for action of some kind to stop "fake news".    

I think that is what I was wondering.  In the end, your answer also aligned with how you view things anyway, I suppose.

Thanks for the answer.  I guess if you believe change is unavoidable and natural then almost anything that happens needs to be accepted.  It's consistent, at least, and I respect that.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Thanks for the answer.  I guess if you believe change is unavoidable and natural then almost anything that happens needs to be accepted.  It's consistent, at least, and I respect that.

 

All that has changed is the medium and digital democratization of "news", real or otherwise.    The issue is not really fake news, but the reaction and support it may attract, just as it has been for centuries.  

[Argus]

19 hours ago, TimG said:

Well, the trouble with the "fake news" meme is a lot of news is spin - even news that comes from so called "respectable" sources. So the question is who gets to decides when the bias inherent in any news coverage makes it "fake".

If we can recognize it then we can define it. Bias does not make news fake. Untruthfulness makes it fake. I'm willing to concede that while the news put out by the likes of FOX is deeply slanted and often lies by omission it does not qualify as 'fake'. The same goes for left wing spin from the CBC.

Statements of FACT which are verifiably false, however, such as that Obama was born in Kenya, or Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring from a pizza parlor cannot be described as biased. They are fake. They are open lies. They are not mistakes. The people who write them know they're lies to begin with. This is the distinction made by our society with regard to slander and libel. You can say anything about someone provided it's true. If not, you get sued.

 

19 hours ago, TimG said:

The answer that the WaPo has provided is that any news with a bias that disagrees with liberal preconceptions of the world is "fake".

Yeah, I don't believe you. I think that's your slanted interpretation on what they said.

 

 

[Argus]

5 hours ago, TimG said:

Cries that their 'outta be a law' occur whenever something like this gets in the media. The fake news meme is not different except there is a population of people that truly believe that government should stop people from saying  things they disagree with.

That's crap. I read and hear stuff I disagree with all the time and have for the last several decades. This is not opinion, it is lies. It is not slanted. It is insanity. People who say, for example, that the attack on parliament and the killing of the soldier at the Ottawa war memorial was a government operation. Or people who say that the murders of all those kids at the Sandy Hook elementary school didn't happen or was a 'false flag' operation are people with poisoned, diseased minds. Prior to the internet they would have been allowed to rot in their welfare tenement screaming out the window through the tinfoil curtains. Now they create web sites with fake supporting evidence and collude with each other to propagate this garbage to the gullible and stupid.

People who make statements of fact (as opposed to opinion) should be prepared to back it up with actual verfiable facts. If they can't, why should they have the right to continue to make them? We let people say what they want, but not to shout fire in a crowded theater, right?

Edited December 17, 2016 by Argus

[TimG]

52 minutes ago, Argus said:

That's crap. I read and hear stuff I disagree with all the time and have for the last several decades. This is not opinion, it is lies. It is not slanted. It is insanity. People who say, for example, that the attack on parliament and the killing of the soldier at the Ottawa war memorial was a government operation.

So when Obama said that Benghazi was motivated by a you tube video should that have been called "fake news"? It was veritably false. Politicians say things all of the time which are completely false. Would you want to see these politicians censored or just the media that reports what politicians say? What about news sources that break stories important that later turned out to be false? Do you have  some magic machine that would tell you if the writer was deliberately lying or simply misinformed?

The trouble with your argument is you assume there is a credible arbiter of truth out there. I don't believe there is one even though I agree that some claims are clearly false. 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, TimG said:

So when Obama said that Benghazi was motivated by a you tube video should that have been called "fake news"? It was veritably false.

Don't give me that garbage. People say stuff that's mistaken all the time. There is no way to prove she didn't believe it at the time. It was an easy assumption to make. When the mainstream media screws up they admit it. When you confront one of these fakers they ignore the evidence and keep lying. How many lunatic 9/11 truthers have been willing to change their minds in the face of mountains of evidence?

 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

17 minutes ago, Argus said:

When the mainstream media screws up they admit it

 

Sometimes, but other times they only admit it when forced to do so after being caught in a big fat lie (e.g. Dan Rather and CBS News...even had fake documents).  

Doesn't get any more MSM than that.

Edited December 18, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

Some people can't understand the difference between a mistake and inventing crap.

[TimG]

2 hours ago, Wilber said:

Some people can't understand the difference between a mistake and inventing crap.

My point is it is impossible to know if someone says untrue things because they honestly believe them to be true or because they wish to spread deliberate falsehoods. Therefore any regime designed to stop 'fake news' will end up censoring honestly held opinions. I do not want to live in as society where one's right to free speech is determined by the biases and prejudices of the gatekeepers.