Soros bankrolling Facebook

[kimmy]

7 hours 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. Politicians say things all of the time which are completely false.

Whether Obama was telling the truth or not, it is a verifiable event that he said it. Whether the President was telling the truth or not, the fact that those words came from his mouth is an objective fact.

There is a world of difference between reporting a verifiable event-- even if one of the people involved is conveying a falsehood-- and reporting pure fiction.  I think it's ludicrous to attempt to equate the two. 

At present we have people who contend that Russian hacking is "fake news", because they believe that James Comey and John Brennan and Dick Clapper are all lying.  No, it's verifiable that Comey and Brennan and Clapper have all stated that Russia was involved in politically motivated hacking. Now, if the reader wishes to conclude that the FBI and CIA and National Intelligence directors are all lying to them, that's up to the reader, but the statements from the 3 of them are all verifiable from many independent sources.

By contrast, we have something like #PizzaGate, which exists because a bunch of deranged basement-dwellers at 4chan decided that since they use the phrase "cheese pizza" when talking about their child porn, John Podesta's favorite pizza shop must actually be a haven for pedophiles. And with the help of some script-bots and some "alt right" Twitter celebrities, this becomes a Twitter Trending Topic, and that's how fake news is made.

To put utter fiction on an even playing field with real news because sometimes real news includes real political figures telling lies is completely inane.  Some people have apparently decided that since real news sources have been used to promote lies, they're going to put their trust in psychopaths like Alex Jones, or the basement dwellers at 4chan, or whatever crap their friends "like" on Facebook.

 -k

[cybercoma]

On 12/16/2016 at 10:16 PM, TimG said:

a lot of news is spin

Spin is not fake.

[cybercoma]

16 hours ago, Argus said:

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.

Argus covered it.

[cybercoma]

16 hours ago, Argus said:

You can say anything about someone provided it's true. If not, you get sued.

Actually, slander laws are such that you can say untrue things about someone else, provided that you don't know that it's untrue. Slander, libel, and defamation are predicated on knowingly spreading lies that have some sort of impact on the person or organization that you're lying about.

[cybercoma]

10 hours ago, TimG said:

Therefore any regime designed to stop 'fake news' will end up censoring honestly held opinions.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you in this thread alone that there's a difference between fact and opinion. Saying Hillary Clinton was running a child sex ring out of some pizza shack is a statement of fact. It's not an opinion. The issue with fake news is that it's untrue, not that the people spreading the nonsense believe it to be true.

[Michael Hardner]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy

 

Also, the difference in actions when MSM is caught spreading misinformation versus anonymous sites, or even people like Alex Jones.  His site InfoWars posted the Pizzagate rumour which has no evidence, so will they be held to the same standard ?

[TimG]

8 hours ago, kimmy said:

To put utter fiction on an even playing field with real news because sometimes real news includes real political figures telling lies is completely inane.  Some people have apparently decided that since real news sources have been used to promote lies, they're going to put their trust in psychopaths like Alex Jones, or the basement dwellers at 4chan, or whatever crap their friends "like" on Facebook.

The problem is I see no way to set up a system that can filter those sources which we can all agree are spreading lies without creating a system that will inevitably be used to suppress legitimate expressions of opinions - even if those opinions are based on falsehoods. If the distinction you are trying to make was added as a "rule" it would create loopholes that are easily exploited. i.e. if it is OK to report someone else saying lies then the fake news purveyors will find someone to say what they want and simply quote them. You could try to plug that loophole by creating more complex "rules" but that would leave either more loopholes or be a basis to suppress legitimate expression. 

To re-iterate: I do not disagree that the "fake news" providers exist and they are quite odious. I don't have enough confidence in our government to trust that a system set up to deal with these easily identifiable dissemblers that would not, as a consequence, suppress honestly held opinions. My question to you is: why should I trust government to do such a thing? (hint: look at how Erdoğan is using the fake news argument to round up people who do not dutifully parrot his pet narrative on the reasons for the coupe). 

Edited December 18, 2016 by TimG

[GostHacked]

11 hours ago, TimG said:

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. 

Like Clinton coming under sniper fire that one time...  i am sure she believed it when the video of her arrival proved that sniper fire narrative to be false. This is what we call lying.

[kimmy]

1 hour ago, TimG said:

To re-iterate: I do not disagree that the "fake news" providers exist and they are quite odious. I don't have enough confidence in our government to trust that a system set up to deal with these easily identifiable dissemblers that would not, as a consequence, suppress honestly held opinions. My question to you is: why should I trust government to do such a thing? (hint: look at how Erdoğan is using the fake news argument to round up people who do not dutifully parrot his pet narrative on the reasons for the coupe). 

I agree with this much...  I don't see an answer either.  Putting a "disputed content advisory label" on fake news stories won't help, because the consumers of fake news stories don't have any trust in the people who'd be issuing that label no matter who that might be.

 

A Donald Trump surrogate, Scottie Nell Hughes, said a couple of weeks ago that "There's no such thing anymore as facts."  It sounds like a ridiculous comment, but after she elaborated, what she was talking about is hard to disagree with:

“And so Mr. Trump’s tweet amongst a certain crowd, a large — a large part of the population, are truth. When he says that millions of people illegally voted, he has some — in his — amongst him and his supporters, and people believe they have facts to back that up. Those that do not like Mr. Trump, they say that those are lies, and there’s no facts to back it up. So … ”

In other words, people are picking and choosing what information they want to listen to, based on their preconceptions:

“One thing that has been interesting this entire campaign season to watch is that people that say facts are facts, they’re not really facts. Everybody has a way, it’s kind of like looking at ratings or looking at a glass of half-full water. Everybody has a way of interpreting them to be the truth or not true.”

 -k

[TimG]

56 minutes ago, kimmy said:

In other words, people are picking and choosing what information they want to listen to, based on their preconceptions:

This is not new. I read a study that claimed that scientifically literate right wing people are much more skeptical of climate change claims than scientifically literate left wing people. This difference cannot be based on the facts because the assumption is that scientifically literate people make an effort to determine what the facts are. The difference is entirely due to relative importance placed on different facts which, in turns. depends on the prejudices of the observer.  I have lost track of the number of times I see outright falsehoods reported in the media when it comes to ridiculous climate change claim. Yet the left is up in arms because people they disagree with won a election based, in part, on a belief in things that are not true. Why are these false beliefs any different than the laundry list of left wing beliefs which are simply not true? Why is the demonization of Hillary by Briebart any worse than the demonization of Harper by the Tyee?

The hypocrisy of the left is what really annoys me. If the partisans whinging about "fake news" had the self awareness to admit that they too rely on "fake news" to push their partisan causes then maybe I would be more sympathetic the to concerns. But the lack of self awareness leads me to conclude that it is just another attempt at partisan politicking rather than a serious concern about social problem.

Edited December 18, 2016 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, kimmy said:

....In other words, people are picking and choosing what information they want to listen to, based on their preconceptions:

 

The most obvious spinners always preface their biased/fake perspectives with, "The fact of the matter is....".

The other logical fail for the "champions of truth" is the assumption that people will behave and respond the same as them once the "truth" is revealed to them.   Not the case at all, as seen in the invasion of Iraq.   A majority of Americans wanted to "take out" Saddam regardless of WMD claims being true or false.

 

[kimmy]

1 hour ago, TimG said:

Why is the demonization of Hillary by Briebart any worse than the demonization of Harper by the Tyee?

So, first off, I check what's up on Breitbart fairly regularly, just to see what "those people" are on about now. And while I do feel that it's the most slanted news source in the United States, and on the brink of becoming just a press-organ of the Trump Administration, I don't think I have seen anything there that I would describe as "fake news". Their decisions about what to cover seem to be extremely biased. Their decisions about what not to cover seem extremely biased. Their editorial pieces are all heavily slanted in the same direction.  But I can't recall seeing anything that I would describe as out-and-out "fake".  They publish stuff that I would describe as "that's true but they're leaving out important information", as opposed to stuff that's outright fiction. (I am not a reader of The Tyee, but I imagine you'd describe them in the same way.)

That's altogether different from "fake news".  #PizzaGate... or Alex Jones getting on his microphone and literally claiming that Hillary Clinton personally chops children into pieces.

2 hours ago, TimG said:

The hypocrisy of the left is what really annoys me. If the partisans whinging about "fake news" had the self awareness to admit that they too rely on "fake news" to push their partisan causes then maybe I would be more sympathetic the to concerns. But the lack of self awareness leads me to conclude that it is just another attempt at partisan politicking rather than a serious concern about social problem.

People have been concerned for a long time... from the 9/11 Truthies to the Sandy Hook truthies, to the anti-vax movement, people from all over the political spectrum have been concerned and annoyed about the increasing ability of bullshit to cause real-world harm. The concern isn't new, but if the role of fake news in electing that guy President has caused people to become concerned enough to do something about it, then it's about time.

 

Facts don't matter anymore. Newt Gingrich explains.  We now live in a world where people apparently  feel justified in discarding information they disagree with and inventing their own facts instead.The flat earthers, the anti-vax movement, Sheriff Joe and the "birthers", the Sandy Hook truthers, the 9/11 truthers, the #PizzaGate imbeciles, it's all part of the same phenomenon.

 -k

[TimG]

1 hour ago, kimmy said:

People have been concerned for a long time... from the 9/11 Truthies to the Sandy Hook truthies, to the anti-vax movement, people from all over the political spectrum have been concerned and annoyed about the increasing ability of bullshit to cause real-world harm. The concern isn't new, but if the role of fake news in electing that guy President has caused people to become concerned enough to do something about it, then it's about time.

I am not convinced it was a significant factor when compared to all of the "real news" that was out there. For example, Clinton was heading for a comfortable win despite the "fake news" and the "Russian hacking". What did her in was the FBI announcing, yet again, that it was investigating her emails and that was real news based on real mistakes that Clinton had made. So you will need more than your "gut feel" to establish that the fake news was relevant to the ultimate election result.

[kimmy]

1 hour ago, TimG said:

I am not convinced it was a significant factor when compared to all of the "real news" that was out there. For example, Clinton was heading for a comfortable win despite the "fake news" and the "Russian hacking". What did her in was the FBI announcing, yet again, that it was investigating her emails and that was real news based on real mistakes that Clinton had made. So you will need more than your "gut feel" to establish that the fake news was relevant to the ultimate election result.

There's been a lot of debate on how much impact "fake news" had on the election.  But let's leave that issue aside for the moment.

As I said before, I've been concerned about this for a while. Before it was a partisan political issue, and before anybody used the term "fake news" to describe it.  I thought the 9/11 truthies were mostly harmless, and pretty funny.  The Obama "birther" crowd, likewise.  But with the arrival of the Sandy Hook conspiracy believers, things took a really sinister turn. Not only are these nutjobs convinced that the entire thing was a hoax, but they're also harassing and threatening parents whose children were murdered. How disgusting is that? Even now, 4 years later, these psychopaths are still harassing the parents. Just last week a woman was arrested for sending death threats to a Sandy Hook parent.   Concurrent with that, we've had numerous outbreaks of disease linked directly to people refusing to vaccinate their kids. The anti-vaxx movement has spread, in large measure, thanks to gullible idiots sharing "news" on social media. Once again we have real people being harmed because of fake news.

I recall some time ago you were quite agitated because a company was facing a boycott because its CEO was seen kicking a puppy on security video, and the news spread via social media. Later on you were agitated because the dentist who illegally poached a lion was being harassed on social media.  You felt that was extremely unfair... but that wasn't even "fake news"... that CEO really did kick the puppy, that dentist really did poach the lion and he had a history of illegal poaching as well. How do you feel sorry for guys like that, and not feel equally upset for the Sandy Hook parents, or for the owners of Comet Pizza and the neighboring businesses, who are all receiving hundreds of death threats every day, thanks to fiction being spread by deranged individuals?

You can question the reach of this sort of thing, but I know people in real life who believe the anti-vaxx nonsense they've been reading on Facebook.  There are at least 2 people on this forum who I would bet real money are #PizzaGate true believers.

What's more worrying long term is that this sort of phenomenon will be (if it's not already being) exploited by people who are malicious rather than merely stupid.  Combine the wisdom of P.T. Barnum and H.L. Menken with the propaganda genius of Jozef Goebbels, and you come up with a terrifying new possibility: weaponized stupidity.

Consider the potential of peoples' gullibility and willingness to believe anything they read, with the ease with which social media can be exploited to spread misinformation, and the potential benefits to some malicious actor of inflicting damage in one form or another, and it's an obvious conclusion that it's only a matter of time.

That might take the form of undermining a political candidate, as was allegedly the case in this election. It might take the form of undermining a war effort or destroying the reputation of some company to the benefit of a competitor.  At present, "the right" seem unconcerned, because it seems to have worked out in their favor this time. Next time, "their guy" might be the target. Or maybe Monsanto or Exxon or some other corporation.  Who knows where the wheel will stop next? But clearly, since this seems to be a winning strategy, "the other team" is going to learn to play the game too. And so will everybody else who thinks they can use this as a way of promoting their own agenda or attacking their enemies.

Today it might be the Democrats who are angry and crying foul. That might not be the case next time. Before long, I think we're all going to regret that (as Scottie Nell Hughes and Newt Gingrich explained) facts don't matter anymore.

 -k

[taxme]

On 12/16/2016 at 2:21 PM, Topaz said:

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/           

Soros runs everything that equates to liberalism,socialism, and communism. Facebook, Twitter and Goggle are now going to go after any website that he does not like: The Alternative news being most of them. They point him out as the scoundrel that he is. One has to wonder why someone like Soros who made his millions from living in free and democratic America does what he does, and appears to want to change things to suit his program and agendas..It's typical of his zio-ilk. It's all about them-them-them. They want it all, and the rest of us can go to hell. Hopefully, with Trump this will all change. We can only wait and see. 

[TimG]

3 hours ago, kimmy said:

I recall some time ago you were quite agitated because a company was facing a boycott because its CEO was seen kicking a puppy on security video, and the news spread via social media. Later on you were agitated because the dentist who illegally poached a lion was being harassed on social media.  You felt that was extremely unfair... but that wasn't even "fake news"...

The consistent theme is I object to things I see as having the effect of limiting free speech.  

3 hours ago, kimmy said:

That might take the form of undermining a political candidate, as was allegedly the case in this election. It might take the form of undermining a war effort or destroying the reputation of some company to the benefit of a competitor.  At present, "the right" seem unconcerned, because it seems to have worked out in their favor this time. Next time, "their guy" might be the target.

The left has mastered the art of character assassination for a long time. The use of terms like "racist" or "denier" are deliberate tools for preventing people from expressing ideas that vary from left wing ideology. They are toxic to public discourse because the destroy any chance of a rational conversation about difficult issues. How many people complaining about the corrosive effects fake news are that worried about the use of inflammatory language to paint your opponents an evil and prevent a rational discussion?

I also don't agree that "fake news" benefited only Trump. It was used to attack him as well (see http://www.snopes.com/1998-trump-people-quote/). 

But all of this is rather immaterial since we have no acceptable way to do something about "fake news" other than educating people. Free speech is the among the most important values our society has and that means we have to accept that a lot of people use free speech in ways we wish the would not.

Edited December 19, 2016 by TimG

[?Impact]

35 minutes ago, TimG said:

The use of terms like "racist" or "denier" are deliberate tools for preventing people from expressing ideas that vary from left wing ideology.

No, they use those terms to accurately describe the racists and deniers out there. The world is fairly clear cut, but there are people that hide behind "free speech" to spread hatred and falsehoods and they should be exposed. It is simply free speech to expose them.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Alt-Left can't control the voters....so the next best thing it to try and control the news.

[TimG]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

No, they use those terms to accurately describe the racists and deniers out there. The world is fairly clear cut, but there are people that hide behind "free speech" to spread hatred and falsehoods and they should be exposed. It is simply free speech to expose them.

I realize you believe such things to be true but, as being discussed in this thread, many people believe things that are not true. You clearly are one of them. I also find it ironic that one of the reasons why Trump was able to get away with so much of his insane rhetoric is because the left had "cried wolf" too many times so when the real thing showed up no one listened. It is clear that you still wish to live in denial rather than face your contribution. 

BTW: I was not saying people should be stopped from making false accusations. Just that people who insist on throwing around such labels have no business complaining about "fake news" because there is no moral or logical distance between the two acts of "free speech".

[betsy]

On 12/16/2016 at 6:24 PM, 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.

 -k

 

That - and child porn/trafficking - are just some of the very serious downside of Facebook, and youtube, etc.,   We've had false, slanderous stuffs coming out of facebook's yin-yang for so long - what with all the vindictive shaming and bullying?  Did anyone managed to do anything about it? 

How did the creation of facebook got started in the first place?

What happened to violent video games and movies?  They don't count anymore?

 

 

Mental retards can't distinguished real from fiction. So, lump the retards along with the non-retards, who know enough how to fact-check?  Remove choices?  Have our "choices," chosen, dictated, and enforced to us?  By people who have the means and the power?  That's the best we've got?

 

Had Hillary won.....there wouldn't have been any grievous concern about facebook at all!

 

Btw, this must be the new "progressive" mentality this days -   lumping the insane along with the reasonable. 

 

Welcome to our new world.

 

 

Edited December 19, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

6 hours ago, ?Impact said:

No, they use those terms to accurately describe the racists and deniers out there. The world is fairly clear cut, but there are people that hide behind "free speech" to spread hatred and falsehoods and they should be exposed. It is simply free speech to expose them.

Censorship - if that's what they're planning to do - is not a component of free speech.

 

If someone gets defamed and slandered by fake news, or maybe even goaded into violence - we've already got the court to deal with those.

 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2016 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, TimG said:

But all of this is rather immaterial since we have no acceptable way to do something about "fake news" other than educating people. Free speech is the among the most important values our society has and that means we have to accept that a lot of people use free speech in ways we wish the would not.

True, but 'educating people' itself is the nut that has to be cracked, in that the new modes of information deny the authority of those who have educated us in the past.  Academia, venerated news institutions and individuals, and politicians and business people are now all suspect.

Snopes is an example of new institution that has arrived with all of the other new information sources - and it seems to be recognized by reasonable people as having some measure of objectivity.  If people start accepting Snopes above fake news then maybe we'll have an answer to this.

[bush_cheney2004]

42 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

True, but 'educating people' itself is the nut that has to be cracked, in that the new modes of information deny the authority of those who have educated us in the past.  Academia, venerated news institutions and individuals, and politicians and business people are now all suspect.

 

As well they should be....that is the entire point of the matter, far above any individual specifics of "fake news" incident.  

There is no such "authority" in new media.    The gatekeepers are no longer in "control".

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

There is no such "authority" in new media.    The gatekeepers are no longer in "control".

Indeed, it's a cycle.  TV News had to make a place for itself in the public consciousness, first by copying the venerable institutions of the day and then by finding ways to be different.  People do want 'truth', though, not just content.  This should mean the gnats of fake news will die off but we don't have any examples where a slough of fakes kept showing up again and again so it's hard to say.

[bush_cheney2004]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Indeed, it's a cycle.  TV News had to make a place for itself in the public consciousness, first by copying the venerable institutions of the day and then by finding ways to be different.  People do want 'truth', though, not just content.  This should mean the gnats of fake news will die off but we don't have any examples where a slough of fakes kept showing up again and again so it's hard to say.

 

Quite to the contrary, I applaud and welcome all manner of "fake news" to compete with the purveyors of approved "truth".   Broadcast television was subjected to censorship,  standards, and codes or risk losing licenses.   Canada has even made false news subject to regulatory retaliation.

Content rules over news now....and it will never go back to just the dry facts of who, what, when, why, and where.

Edited December 19, 2016 by bush_cheney2004