Facebook steps up 'false news' crackdown with tips for spotting and reporting bogus storie...

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 39
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    spacekid said:
    What happens when groups report true news as false and fact checker agree with that false decision? Any way to refute or reverse bad judgements?
    I imagine those things are just flagged for human vetting; there are actual ways to find out if things are true or not in the real world. But, most people are seemingly not able to live in this reality...
  • Reply 22 of 39
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    frantisek said:
    As it was pointed out it is beginning of censorship that should diminish political or any other opponent of establishment in the name or protecting true, but often biased true.

    What is it true? When you have cube with 3 sides green and 3 red and two people ale looking from opposite sides, each see just one color. But they would be willing to start a war to push their true.
    True is point of view.

    How mass media could live in such new system when huge part of their reporting is just biased propaganda. It will be interesting to see how masses will react on this propaganda. It may be all flagged as fake news by people. And I hope so.

    Soli said:
    Independent fact checkers like Politifact, who rated John Kerry's statement that they got all the chemical weapons out of Syria a "mostly true"? Yeah, so reliable. 
    1) It's ironic that you complain about reliable facts and then fail to post a single source to back up your claims. At least your man Trump will say things like "people are saying" and "I'm hearing" when he makes unsubstantiated claims.

    2) If you had a bare minimum of research you would see that Politifact used to have a "Mostly True" rating for Kerry's 2014 statement, "We struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out," after citing a statement from director general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Ahmet Üzümcü, who stated, "The last of the remaining chemicals identified for removal from Syria were loaded this afternoon aboard the Danish ship Ark Futura." Despite those comments, Politifact still only gave it a "Mostly True" rating because there were still discrepancies between how many chemical weapons Syria claimed to have and how many outside observers claimed the country had. It was only 3 years later—which is why you bring it up now—that Politifact removed the statement and stated, "we don't know key details about the reported chemical attack in Syria on April 4, 2017, but it raises two clear possibilities: Either Syria never fully complied with its 2013 promise to reveal all of its chemical weapons; or it did, but then converted otherwise non-lethal chemicals to military uses. One way or another, subsequent events have proved Kerry wrong," Funny how you left out Politifact's statement.
    Syria can be good example. Nobody know anything but everybody is claiming its agenda. Kerry could be true. It is possible that all chemical weapons were removed from Syria but.... just from Assad controlled territory. You can hardly see any discussion in mass media talking about possibility of chemical weapons in hands of those Al-kaida jihadi "rebels". It would not fit into biased propaganda.
    There is so many interests from all superpowers and oil states in Syria that you can not believe nearby anything about it you read hear or see. It is good to watch local people reporting on twitter from all sides to get some conclusion.
    They discussed it and dismissed it. Local people are often part of the conflict and untrustworthy.
    Only trust actual real journalists.
    Most people suck at discerning good sources and corroborating evidence. That's why journalism actually existed as a field of study and it wasn't something you pulled form a box of cracker jacks.
  • Reply 23 of 39
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    maestro64 said:
    Soli said:
    spice-boy said:
    Independent fact checkers like Politifact, who rated John Kerry's statement that they got all the chemical weapons out of Syria a "mostly true"? Yeah, so reliable. 
    You're right Kerry should not have bothered getting out the large amounts that he did. It's 100% or nothing right?
    Is there evidence he got *any* out? Kerry has a history of lying, particularly before Congress. Maybe he decided to lie in "a manner reminiscent of Genghis Khan"?
    Search engines are helpful. You should try one sometime.


    search engines are fine until you realize google and others push you to information sources which google and other make the most ad money. Don't you think there is just a little bit of a conflict of interest. Is Google push you to what they know as being 100% true or pushing you to what they know to make them more money.

     Plus any politic by definition is a lie, who side to you believe, it hard to fact check lies based on non data or made up data, unless you know the data to be 100% accurate you have to assume it is all bad.

    Basically you just pushed a fake news here (a small one), "all politics is a lie" is the kind of false equivalency that sounds right (feels right...) but in fact is not right at all when actually looking at facts.  Kind of thing that was pushed hard as part of the "con" by mister agent orange ("drain the swamp" (sic)). Its "truthy" rather than true.

    In fact, by pushing hard the "they're all liars" narrative, the right were able to normalize lying behavior that would have sunk any campaign in the past.
    He's only "acceptable" in independent swing voters if they actually feel it is true (even if it is not true in actuality).

    Also,you're not supposed to do a fact check in real time. You're supposed to listen to a candidate who you have investigated in the past (and know their trustworthiness) and then later do the actual research going to actual many reputable sources (not just one and not just ones that keep citing each others in a circle jerk) adjust your evaluation of that person using the new data.

    But, there are other factors at work there. Something akin to endoctrinment on both extreme sides of most political spectrum, where they do not trust any sources that aren't agreeing with them; they are cognitive dissonance suppressors. Such fabulator sources have emerged mostly from the right side of the equation (there are a few on the left side too). Or course, conduits that offer no check and produce huge echo chambers have exacerbated this whole tendency.

    Past a certainly point though. It's getting in cult like areas; when something is a straight up lie, recorded on video! and yet you see people resisting the sources as "fake", you know we're going way past just lying into "alternative reality building". All the lies are no longer separate, but are all in support of each others to build an ideological edifice; that's the kind of thing that can lead to very dangerous situation.

    Trustworthiness is supposed to be built through this feedback loop so eventually you can trust most of what someone says. There is always a difference between distorsion, lies and framing. In framing, you're putting a positive spin on actual news, sometimes through omission and embellishments; that's not what mister conman is doing. He's shamelessly straight up doing gaslighting and overt lying.

    All this is not new, Truthyness (sic) was what the right wing media was pushing years ago (see Colbert's skits of almost a decade ago) before they went into complete fabrication in what better way to make a news "feel right" than actually building this narrative through straight up disinformation campaigns. 

    Most "news" and "knowledge" about Clinton fit in that category. Seemingly the boogeyman Clinton (or Obama) in a certain segment of the population. She's not the perfect candidate, but definitely not "killed" Vince Foster or any other opponent or doing human trafficing from the back of a pizza place (yeah, that's the most blatant fake news ever)... Yeah, that's something that's still doing the rounds on FB.

    edited April 2017
  • Reply 24 of 39
    monstrositymonstrosity Posts: 2,204member
    Closed my FB account this week. I cannot support any company that does not allow free speech.  Apple, take heed, you are not exempt.
  • Reply 25 of 39
    sphericspheric Posts: 1,767member
    Closed my FB account this week. I cannot support any company that does not allow free speech.  Apple, take heed, you are not exempt.
    When are you closing your account here? 

    This place doesn't allow "free speech", either - virtually no businesses do, nor could they. 

    Incidentally, the protection of free speech means that the government may not prosecute you for saying or writing what you think. It does not mean that you are free to do so anywhere, anytime, on anybody's platform - nor, that you don't have to deal with the consequences of your expression. 
    Soli
  • Reply 26 of 39
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    spheric said:
    Closed my FB account this week. I cannot support any company that does not allow free speech.  Apple, take heed, you are not exempt.
    When are you closing your account here? 

    This place doesn't allow "free speech", either - virtually no businesses do, nor could they. 

    Incidentally, the protection of free speech means that the government may not prosecute you for saying or writing what you think. It does not mean that you are free to do so anywhere, anytime, on anybody's platform - nor, that you don't have to deal with the consequences of your expression. 
    That's true, complete freedom from consequence never existed, at the minimum we should be free from state sponsored consequences. This is a lot harder than it seems since corporations, through lobbying can get some free speach suppression tactics enacted.

    Getting corporations to live the consequence of their public actions is one of the only power an individual or group of individual has versus their considerable and asymmetric power.
  • Reply 27 of 39
    Well this 

    'false news' crackdown 

    I never tried this yet so I wouldn't know how it works. :) 
  • Reply 28 of 39
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,603member
    gatorguy said:
    maestro64 said:
    Soli said:
    spice-boy said:
    Independent fact checkers like Politifact, who rated John Kerry's statement that they got all the chemical weapons out of Syria a "mostly true"? Yeah, so reliable. 
    You're right Kerry should not have bothered getting out the large amounts that he did. It's 100% or nothing right?
    Is there evidence he got *any* out? Kerry has a history of lying, particularly before Congress. Maybe he decided to lie in "a manner reminiscent of Genghis Khan"?
    Search engines are helpful. You should try one sometime.


    search engines are fine until you realize google and others push you to information sources which google and other make the most ad money.

    For news? Bull. Why post FUD when there's so many legitimate issues you could bring up about "Google and others". 


    it is simple to test, does Google show you news sites which do not use advertising, or adverting which does not have ad sense. It is not FUD, it is call healthy skepticism, and today everyone should have skepticism of anything which is called News. It all goes back to never believe what you are told (remember the kindergarten game of telegraph) , only half of what you read and everything you directly experience (meaning you were there).

    I come from a world of engineering and science, and when we find a bad piece of data it calls into question all the data. Since modern news is fill with bad data and obvious bad data how can you trust the balance of what they are saying.

    edited April 2017
  • Reply 29 of 39
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,764member
    maestro64 said:
    gatorguy said:
    maestro64 said:
    Soli said:
    spice-boy said:
    Independent fact checkers like Politifact, who rated John Kerry's statement that they got all the chemical weapons out of Syria a "mostly true"? Yeah, so reliable. 
    You're right Kerry should not have bothered getting out the large amounts that he did. It's 100% or nothing right?
    Is there evidence he got *any* out? Kerry has a history of lying, particularly before Congress. Maybe he decided to lie in "a manner reminiscent of Genghis Khan"?
    Search engines are helpful. You should try one sometime.


    search engines are fine until you realize google and others push you to information sources which google and other make the most ad money.

    For news? Bull. Why post FUD when there's so many legitimate issues you could bring up about "Google and others". 


    it is simple to test, does Google show you news sites which do not use advertising, or adverting which does not have ad sense. It is not FUD,

    Do a Google search for "IP news" and see if any of the top results meant your challenge. As far as I can tell there are a few there that do not use Google AdSense. So yeah your claim is false.
  • Reply 30 of 39
    auxioauxio Posts: 1,998member
    sflocal said:
    If our government does it, I'd maybe be concerned.  When shops like Facebook want to crack down on it, by all means do it.
    I find the fact that people are skeptical of government but not corporations troubling.

    In a time where political campaigns are funded heavily by corporate donors, corporations spend massive amounts on lobbying to influence government policy, government itself is made up of people who are also involved in industry, and a few large companies own the majority of news sources, what's the difference between the government doing it and large corporations?

    I'm all for trying to reduce the amount of fake (unjustified) news, but I'd rather it be done by having news sources register to be "validated" by a set of standards created by a group which has no vested interests.  Those sources could then have some way of identifying themselves as a validated source of news which other sources couldn't.  There'd also need to be regular audits to ensure they continue to hold that status.
    edited April 2017
  • Reply 31 of 39
    sphericspheric Posts: 1,767member
    I think having a set of "validated sources" is difficult, since it would by default exclude any new, independent source, in addition to posing the question of what happens with non-validated sources' articles. Are they just deleted, or flagged by default - automatically putting a legitimate third-party site's article citing a legit Reuters source at the same level as a completely made-up Breitbart article?

    I don't trust Facebook as far as I can throw them, but this strikes me as a legitimate attempt at striking a balance between corporate interest and transparent and independent handling: 

    "Facebook's efforts are done in partnership with The News Literacy Project, Arizona State University's Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, and the News Literacy Lessons for Digital Citizens."
  • Reply 32 of 39
    auxioauxio Posts: 1,998member
    spheric said:
    I think having a set of "validated sources" is difficult, since it would by default exclude any new, independent source,
    And if that independent new source could be validated the same way any other big news source is, in a reasonable amount of time which is the same for everyone, I don't really see a problem with it.

    in addition to posing the question of what happens with non-validated sources' articles. Are they just deleted, or flagged by default - automatically putting a legitimate third-party site's article citing a legit Reuters source at the same level as a completely made-up Breitbart article?
    I was thinking that there'd be some visual indication on the article showing that it comes from a validated source.  And you could click on that to get more details.  Similar to how, when you visit a secure website, you can find out details about the signing certificate to validate that it's authentic.  Articles from non-validated sources wouldn't have that (but aren't removed).

    I don't trust Facebook as far as I can throw them, but this strikes me as a legitimate attempt at striking a balance between corporate interest and transparent and independent handling: 

    "Facebook's efforts are done in partnership with The News Literacy Project, Arizona State University's Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, and the News Literacy Lessons for Digital Citizens."
    And those all sound like great organizations, the trouble is that I'm not seeing a clear path to getting at the standards they're using.  The more complicated you make it to really see what's going on, the more people are going to simply dismiss or distrust things.  That's why I think adding an easy-to-spot visual indication which you can click to get details about would be better.  Also, continuing to allow other sources to publish (just without the indicator), ensures that people can see exactly what is and isn't included and feel better about the transparency.
  • Reply 33 of 39
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Soli said:
    1) It's ironic that you complain about reliable facts and then fail to post a single source to back up your claims.
    He’s obviously busy. I’ll do it, though.



    The First Amendment to the US Constitution is an acknowledgement of the existence of freedom of expression. It is acknowledged explicitly for the purpose of mentioning that the government, in any of its forms, may not restrict it in any way. The government. Protections on freedom of expression within the United States refer to the government’s inability to stop you from having it (as the government is a servant of the people, not the other way around). As such, anywhere the government has any involvement whatsoever–be it a government body itself, a contractor receiving government funds, or any institution receiving a grant or other direct government funding or support–your freedom of expression cannot be limited.

    A private institution–with NO government support or intervention at any level–may choose exactly what it allows on its platform. AppleInsider doesn’t allow Dell discussion, for example. Not just Dell fanboyism, but any at all. A history website wouldn’t allow cooking discussion. An economics website wouldn’t allow equestrian husbandry. This isn’t a violation of freedom of speech. But I’ll say it again, anywhere the government has any involvement whatsoever–be it a government body itself, a contractor receiving government funds, or any institution receiving a grant or other direct government funding or support–your freedom of expression cannot be limited.

    The connection to this specific story is as follows: Facebook, assuming it has no government funding, can hide or ban anything it wants from its website. It can lie about whatever it wants to lie about. It can make whatever claim it wants about whatever source or content it wants. It is on the user to have the intelligence and responsibility to discern fact from fiction. And that’s the crux of the matter. People are too stupid, too lazy, or too uninformed to do this work at all. Many of them, at least. As such, lies can be passed off as fact, simply because no one questions them. Couple this with many institutions designed to spread truthful information (or information in general) being owned, collectively, by the same group/interests, and you start to see how a narrative can be fabricated out of thin air and become nigh impossible to question.
    edited April 2017
  • Reply 34 of 39
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,603member
    foggyhill said:
    maestro64 said:
    Soli said:
    spice-boy said:
    Independent fact checkers like Politifact, who rated John Kerry's statement that they got all the chemical weapons out of Syria a "mostly true"? Yeah, so reliable. 
    You're right Kerry should not have bothered getting out the large amounts that he did. It's 100% or nothing right?
    Is there evidence he got *any* out? Kerry has a history of lying, particularly before Congress. Maybe he decided to lie in "a manner reminiscent of Genghis Khan"?
    Search engines are helpful. You should try one sometime.


    search engines are fine until you realize google and others push you to information sources which google and other make the most ad money. Don't you think there is just a little bit of a conflict of interest. Is Google push you to what they know as being 100% true or pushing you to what they know to make them more money.

     Plus any politic by definition is a lie, who side to you believe, it hard to fact check lies based on non data or made up data, unless you know the data to be 100% accurate you have to assume it is all bad.

    Basically you just pushed a fake news here (a small one), "all politics is a lie" is the kind of false equivalency that sounds right (feels right...) but in fact is not right at all when actually looking at facts.  Kind of thing that was pushed hard as part of the "con" by mister agent orange ("drain the swamp" (sic)). Its "truthy" rather than true.

    In fact, by pushing hard the "they're all liars" narrative, the right were able to normalize lying behavior that would have sunk any campaign in the past.
    He's only "acceptable" in independent swing voters if they actually feel it is true (even if it is not true in actuality).

    Also,you're not supposed to do a fact check in real time. You're supposed to listen to a candidate who you have investigated in the past (and know their trustworthiness) and then later do the actual research going to actual many reputable sources (not just one and not just ones that keep citing each others in a circle jerk) adjust your evaluation of that person using the new data.

    But, there are other factors at work there. Something akin to endoctrinment on both extreme sides of most political spectrum, where they do not trust any sources that aren't agreeing with them; they are cognitive dissonance suppressors. Such fabulator sources have emerged mostly from the right side of the equation (there are a few on the left side too). Or course, conduits that offer no check and produce huge echo chambers have exacerbated this whole tendency.

    Past a certainly point though. It's getting in cult like areas; when something is a straight up lie, recorded on video! and yet you see people resisting the sources as "fake", you know we're going way past just lying into "alternative reality building". All the lies are no longer separate, but are all in support of each others to build an ideological edifice; that's the kind of thing that can lead to very dangerous situation.

    Trustworthiness is supposed to be built through this feedback loop so eventually you can trust most of what someone says. There is always a difference between distorsion, lies and framing. In framing, you're putting a positive spin on actual news, sometimes through omission and embellishments; that's not what mister conman is doing. He's shamelessly straight up doing gaslighting and overt lying.

    All this is not new, Truthyness (sic) was what the right wing media was pushing years ago (see Colbert's skits of almost a decade ago) before they went into complete fabrication in what better way to make a news "feel right" than actually building this narrative through straight up disinformation campaigns. 

    Most "news" and "knowledge" about Clinton fit in that category. Seemingly the boogeyman Clinton (or Obama) in a certain segment of the population. She's not the perfect candidate, but definitely not "killed" Vince Foster or any other opponent or doing human trafficing from the back of a pizza place (yeah, that's the most blatant fake news ever)... Yeah, that's something that's still doing the rounds on FB.

    Yes, I agree with your analysis


    I will make this real simple. We all see it everday, and thus the reason most people do not trust politics and the politician. They all stand up in front of us and tell us facts, or half facts, or pull out one piece of data which support their point of view, then make promises which they know full well they can not keep since it take 535 other people in the federal government to all agree to get anything done. If a politician stands up and really thinks what they are saying is fact and they will make a difference they are delusional and that is the bigger issue.  

    The problem FB has, they are some how granting some third party as the knower of all that is true. I have seen a few example where the media has come out with statement of fact and most would agree those statement were correct base on what everyone knew at the time, but as time move forward the real truth came out and the original fact were found to be false, but no one would believe the truth since it was not what was first heard by everyone. How are these fact checker going to know what it fact, as these people who come from all known disciplines and they have years of knowledge and experience to rely on.

    This is life lesson for everyone, The person who gets to the authority figure first with their story will always get the benefit of the doubt as being one in the right or more truthful. An example Suzy come running to mom screaming saying Johnny her, so mom yells at Johnny, but in reality Johnny did not hit Suzy only threat to hit Suzy for something she did to Johnny and Johnny said he was going to tell mom. Suzy has figure out he who gets to mom first win. Even if Mom figures out Johnny never touch Suzy she still yells at Johnny for not knowing better for threating Suzy. Suzy wins and John looses for not getting to mom first. Anyone who has kids know this and kids learn the get there first with your story so not to get in trouble.

    The news media is like this today, it is the media source who gets the story out first who seem to have the most creditability in the end and everyone forget what really happen.

  • Reply 35 of 39
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    maestro64 said:
    foggyhill said:
    maestro64 said:
    Soli said:
    spice-boy said:
    Independent fact checkers like Politifact, who rated John Kerry's statement that they got all the chemical weapons out of Syria a "mostly true"? Yeah, so reliable. 
    You're right Kerry should not have bothered getting out the large amounts that he did. It's 100% or nothing right?
    Is there evidence he got *any* out? Kerry has a history of lying, particularly before Congress. Maybe he decided to lie in "a manner reminiscent of Genghis Khan"?
    Search engines are helpful. You should try one sometime.


    search engines are fine until you realize google and others push you to information sources which google and other make the most ad money. Don't you think there is just a little bit of a conflict of interest. Is Google push you to what they know as being 100% true or pushing you to what they know to make them more money.

     Plus any politic by definition is a lie, who side to you believe, it hard to fact check lies based on non data or made up data, unless you know the data to be 100% accurate you have to assume it is all bad.

    Basically you just pushed a fake news here (a small one), "all politics is a lie" is the kind of false equivalency that sounds right (feels right...) but in fact is not right at all when actually looking at facts.  Kind of thing that was pushed hard as part of the "con" by mister agent orange ("drain the swamp" (sic)). Its "truthy" rather than true.

    In fact, by pushing hard the "they're all liars" narrative, the right were able to normalize lying behavior that would have sunk any campaign in the past.
    He's only "acceptable" in independent swing voters if they actually feel it is true (even if it is not true in actuality).

    Also,you're not supposed to do a fact check in real time. You're supposed to listen to a candidate who you have investigated in the past (and know their trustworthiness) and then later do the actual research going to actual many reputable sources (not just one and not just ones that keep citing each others in a circle jerk) adjust your evaluation of that person using the new data.

    But, there are other factors at work there. Something akin to endoctrinment on both extreme sides of most political spectrum, where they do not trust any sources that aren't agreeing with them; they are cognitive dissonance suppressors. Such fabulator sources have emerged mostly from the right side of the equation (there are a few on the left side too). Or course, conduits that offer no check and produce huge echo chambers have exacerbated this whole tendency.

    Past a certainly point though. It's getting in cult like areas; when something is a straight up lie, recorded on video! and yet you see people resisting the sources as "fake", you know we're going way past just lying into "alternative reality building". All the lies are no longer separate, but are all in support of each others to build an ideological edifice; that's the kind of thing that can lead to very dangerous situation.

    Trustworthiness is supposed to be built through this feedback loop so eventually you can trust most of what someone says. There is always a difference between distorsion, lies and framing. In framing, you're putting a positive spin on actual news, sometimes through omission and embellishments; that's not what mister conman is doing. He's shamelessly straight up doing gaslighting and overt lying.

    All this is not new, Truthyness (sic) was what the right wing media was pushing years ago (see Colbert's skits of almost a decade ago) before they went into complete fabrication in what better way to make a news "feel right" than actually building this narrative through straight up disinformation campaigns. 

    Most "news" and "knowledge" about Clinton fit in that category. Seemingly the boogeyman Clinton (or Obama) in a certain segment of the population. She's not the perfect candidate, but definitely not "killed" Vince Foster or any other opponent or doing human trafficing from the back of a pizza place (yeah, that's the most blatant fake news ever)... Yeah, that's something that's still doing the rounds on FB.

    Yes, I agree with your analysis


    I will make this real simple. We all see it everday, and thus the reason most people do not trust politics and the politician. They all stand up in front of us and tell us facts, or half facts, or pull out one piece of data which support their point of view, then make promises which they know full well they can not keep since it take 535 other people in the federal government to all agree to get anything done. If a politician stands up and really thinks what they are saying is fact and they will make a difference they are delusional and that is the bigger issue.  

    The problem FB has, they are some how granting some third party as the knower of all that is true. I have seen a few example where the media has come out with statement of fact and most would agree those statement were correct base on what everyone knew at the time, but as time move forward the real truth came out and the original fact were found to be false, but no one would believe the truth since it was not what was first heard by everyone. How are these fact checker going to know what it fact, as these people who come from all known disciplines and they have years of knowledge and experience to rely on.

    This is life lesson for everyone, The person who gets to the authority figure first with their story will always get the benefit of the doubt as being one in the right or more truthful. An example Suzy come running to mom screaming saying Johnny her, so mom yells at Johnny, but in reality Johnny did not hit Suzy only threat to hit Suzy for something she did to Johnny and Johnny said he was going to tell mom. Suzy has figure out he who gets to mom first win. Even if Mom figures out Johnny never touch Suzy she still yells at Johnny for not knowing better for threating Suzy. Suzy wins and John looses for not getting to mom first. Anyone who has kids know this and kids learn the get there first with your story so not to get in trouble.

    The news media is like this today, it is the media source who gets the story out first who seem to have the most creditability in the end and everyone forget what really happen.

    That's how it is, but there is an ACTUAL truth. You're pushing the fact that all media are the same, and they're often wrong. In fact, there are plenty of reputable media that are almost never wrong. There are some though, like Fox, which are almost ALWAYS WRONG or DO FRAMING THEMSELVES. Think about that, a purported media who hides or distorts news

    Clinton lied almost never, that's the god damn fact. That people judged her differently because they felt she lied, well that's their own ignorance and gullibility at work there. They are mostly lazy and seemingly incapable of knowing how their government works (civics has failed).

    Politicians are mostly just people trying to get things done (they got many motivations of course), and there are many. They state what they want to be done (their program) and they try to get it done. It's people responsibility, if they believe in this program, to vote for it! But still 45% of people don't vote.
    People must know that these politicians need help to get things done; the politicians cannot assume voters will not give it to them (by not voting senators in for example, in advance).
    Its people that VOTE that can get this program actually through. The reason nothing gets done is because of the VOTERs, not the god damn politicians.
    Approval of congress was 20%, yet they mostly voted the fuckers in charge more power!! Think about this!!
  • Reply 36 of 39
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    foggyhill said:
    Think about that, a purported media who hides or distorts news
    Yeah, think about it.
    Clinton lied almost never, that's the god damn fact.
    You’re not even funny anymore. You’re just a fucking joke.
    They are mostly lazy and seemingly incapable of knowing how their government works (civics has failed).
    Correct, that’s the only way that the Democrat party exists today.
    Politicians are mostly just people trying to get things done
    Yeah? Are they? Really? “Get things done”, huh? “Working for the country,” “bettering their fellow man,” that sort of thing?
    They state what they want to be done (their program) and they try to get it done.
    And they would never lie about it. Ever.
     It's people responsibility, if they believe in this program, to vote for it! But still 45% of people don't vote.
    The only problem with this percentage is that some people who should vote don’t and many who shouldn’t do.
    People must know that these politicians need help to get things done
    Ooh, looks like my quotation marks above are ACTUALLY how you think this shit works…
    (by not voting senators in for example, in advance)
    Repeal the 17th amendment.
    The reason nothing gets done is because of the VOTERs, not the god damn politicians.
    For fuck’s sake. Your delusional beliefs are the reason the world is the way it is.
  • Reply 37 of 39
    sphericspheric Posts: 1,767member
    auxio said:
    And those all sound like great organizations, the trouble is that I'm not seeing a clear path to getting at the standards they're using.  The more complicated you make it to really see what's going on, the more people are going to simply dismiss or distrust things.  That's why I think adding an easy-to-spot visual indication which you can click to get details about would be better.  Also, continuing to allow other sources to publish (just without the indicator), ensures that people can see exactly what is and isn't included and feel better about the transparency.
    The point is that it requires education to be able to distinguish credible reporting from bullshit, how to tell credible sources from made-up ones, and to know when a claim is unverifiable because the veracity of a source cannot be ascertained. This is precisely what journalists do — it's their job. And the ethical ones are supposed to filter material and pass this knowledge on to their readers. 

    (This process is more obvious when you think of science: anti-vaxxers, climate change denialists, creationists all use transparently bullshit arguments readily apparent to anybody with a sixth-grade level of science education. Reputable journals rely upon verifiable sources, peer-reviewed data, and easily validated logic.) 

    For those who lack the necessary education, these organisations (whose mission statements are readily accessible on their webpages) will do exactly what you ask, by adding an easy-to-spot visual indication to those articles whose veracity is, er, less than stellar. 
    tallest skil
  • Reply 38 of 39
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    spheric said:
    This is precisely what journalists do — it's their job.
    Supposed to do. Doesn’t happen too much anymore.
    peer-reviewed data
    Fun fact, your appeal to majority/authority is bullshit. “Peer review” is literally nothing more than YouTube’s “SUB4SUB” exchange to bolster “credibility.”
  • Reply 39 of 39
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,603member
    foggyhill said:
    That's how it is, but there is an ACTUAL truth. You're pushing the fact that all media are the same, and they're often wrong. In fact, there are plenty of reputable media that are almost never wrong. There are some though, like Fox, which are almost ALWAYS WRONG or DO FRAMING THEMSELVES. Think about that, a purported media who hides or distorts news

    Clinton lied almost never, that's the god damn fact. That people judged her differently because they felt she lied, well that's their own ignorance and gullibility at work there. They are mostly lazy and seemingly incapable of knowing how their government works (civics has failed).

    Politicians are mostly just people trying to get things done (they got many motivations of course), and there are many. They state what they want to be done (their program) and they try to get it done. It's people responsibility, if they believe in this program, to vote for it! But still 45% of people don't vote.
    People must know that these politicians need help to get things done; the politicians cannot assume voters will not give it to them (by not voting senators in for example, in advance).
    Its people that VOTE that can get this program actually through. The reason nothing gets done is because of the VOTERs, not the god damn politicians.
    Approval of congress was 20%, yet they mostly voted the fuckers in charge more power!! Think about this!!

    I will not challenge that statement, I will only say this.

    She is a lawyer by profession, by education as well as experience. I have worked with lots of lawyers both with and against them. Here is what I know about Lawyers, they have a real good command of the English language and understand the meaning of words far better than most people. When they start choosing their words very carefully and purposefully, you need to pay attention. Why, there is lots of reasons why, one is they know something to be true, but do not want to share the truth, and nor do they want to get caught in a blatant lie or miss truth. When you work with lawyer all the time you begin to learn when they are saying things in a certain way there is more to what is being said and they not sharing that information and you're not going to get them to share it. Long and short you can not take lawyer statements at face value, it may be far more complicated than anyone is aware.

    Here is a very good example Clinton said no one in the Government said she was not allow to use a private email server. The important part of the statement was "no one in the government," which was true, but others had in fact told her. Then when confidential emails were found she said she was never trained on the proper handling of email, she relied on her staff to do the right thing. The important statement here was "never trained" (why government offers formal training on how to handle confidential information) again true she was not specifically trained (She claimed she did not understand what the big bold C was on emails since they was part of the training) which may have been true but she was also told she was not allow to have confidential email outside the government system. So all of her statement are factual, but she choose her words to keep her outside of lying.

    tallest skil
Sign In or Register to comment.