Slashdot Mirror
Mark Zuckerberg: 'No Evidence' Facebook Staff Suppressed Stories With Conservative Viewpoints (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Mark Zuckerberg has issued a statement in response to the controversy alleging that Facebook staff intentionally prevented stories with a conservative viewpoint from appearing in the site's Trending Topics section. "We take this report very seriously and are conducting a full investigation to ensure our teams upheld the integrity of this product," Zuckerberg writes on Facebook. "We have found no evidence that this report is true. If we find anything against our principles, you have my commitment that we will take additional steps to address it." Zuckerberg says he will invite "leading conservatives and people from across the political spectrum" to discuss the matter in the coming weeks, with the aim of having a "direct conversation about what Facebook stands for and how we can be sure our platform stays as open as possible." Earlier today, more evidence surfaced to support Gawker's two recent reports that claimed editors manipulate the trending news. Facebook published a blog post explaining how Trending Topics on its platform works, insisting there's no discrimination against sources of any political origin.
"We have found no evidence that this report is true" may be the contrapositive of we have found evidence it is false but it's not the same thing
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Pedantic hair splitting and obfuscation.
Fucking liars.
"There's not a smidgen of evidence that (FB suppressed conservative stories|the IRS targeted conservative groups|Hillary Clinton leaked classified information to the Russians and Chinese through her insecure email server). We made sure to delete it all."
If you don't think these corporate media giants don't influence, frame or inject domestic and foreign policy agendas then you are still that little kid playing Farmville.
Nobody believes that.
If every institution has been so infiltrated, maybe it's because liberals tend to be concerned with facts and evidence, and institutions compete better when they don't consist solely of reality-challenged conservatives. just a possibility to consider.
Barber: there's no evidence that you don't need a haircut.
Maybe the Facebook news team didn't suppress any conservative stories. Maybe they just elevated other stories over all others. The effect may have been the same, but if that is the case he's technically not lying.
Not that equivocation of that level is commendable. Quite the opposite actually.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Look at the weasel words! "we have found no evidence" just means "the manager who is a big Clinton donator was competent at covering his ass, and, by extension, ours".
Captcha: "whiting"
If you define anything you disagree with as hate speech you get to the situation we have here. Self justification for dummies.
True, and everything our opponents say is hateful by definition.
- These characters were randomly selected.
a big liar. I know, being directly involved in an investigation against the German government and a process of censorship across Germany for all posts which are not aligned with German governmental thinking and political correctness that Facebook not just directly collaborates with the German government but also complies with their injustice and unjust requests to censor all posts which the government in Germany doesn't want nor allow. Topics which are censored are majorly involved in uncovering lies above lies in regard to the refugees scheming currently shacking all of Europe and the Muslim thread that it involves. America doesn't have this issue and Facebook does not need to fear peoples prosecution because Facebook cannot be prosecuted in Europe for censoring free speech and truth with a dictatorship that chancellor Merkel currently builds.
Zuckerberg's 'principles' involve stealing passwords and reading other people's email.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Actually the political stance don't end defining much how much a person care about facts or evidences.
I mean, if you look at the american colleges right now, there is this awful cult using the "liberal" as a base to create this horrible racist and sexist indoctrination.
But on other hand, you got GOP bible trumpers that are just as fanatic.
Unlike slashdot, which has been infiltrated by crybaby conservatives...
Donor:
Facebook Trending News Manager Is Major Clinton Donor
Facebook is a private website. They are free to post whatever they like. Why would it matter if stories of a particular political alignment are less likely than others to show up? There is no shortage of other places where you can get news, either...
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
That doesn't mean he is biased. It just means he is smart.
Just wait until you see how many rich assholes are major Clinton donors.
Trump just ended the GOP.
If they're going down, they're taking the Democrats with them. Which is what restoration of the fairness doctrine would do.
The lying weasel actually came out and said it in plain words:
If we find anything against our principles, you have my commitment that we will take additional steps to address it."
Conservatism is against their principles and they are addressing it.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Interesting. And which other underrepresented minorities or groups do you think that's true of? It's particularly weird when you consider that the more math used, the less leftist the college department tends to be. It isn't chemical engineers and physicists rioting on the campuses, it's mainly folks taking classes that end in -studies.
He's not exactly know as a liberal. This stuck me as more of that manufactured rage that billionaire funded think tanks have on offer. The sad thing is I'm sure my right wing friends will be repeating it as fact for years to come...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
But maybe everyone that works there is politically "liberal?"
With the wrong ideas on the right way you probably can make any group of people go stupid.
You probably can make the Doberman Pinscher Club of Greater Milwaukee suddenly turn into a nazi party by just implanting enough wrong ideas the right way.
Am I write fellow freetards?
640k liberals are twiggered, also my penis is long =====D>
...so what. It's a social media website, and a private company -- that doesn't make any claims about being "Fair and Balanced". There's also a big difference between actively suppressing something and showing preference to something that might garner more clicks (and revenue).
Most of my feeds are usually drivel anyway, 'pseudo celeb x does something silly/shocking/dumb'. There's also the old 'x' icon you can click to stop getting feeds on certain things.
And anyway, if you're getting most of your news from Facebook, well... lol and /facepalm
'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
There are a couple conservative radio shows, but none of them are nationally syndicated. Fake tears Beck and Limbaugh are not conservatives, they are controlled opposition. Oh yeah, they put out a fragment of truth here and there to give some inevitability to the ruse, but that's only because the best lies have a shred of truth.
It's all over. Facebook is trending to zero.
But on other hand, you got GOP bible trumpers that are just as fanatic.
Oh Noes! The deadly and dangerous modern Christians are going to tell people to "Turn the Other Cheek" and due to Government requirements never discuss politics for fear of losing tax exempt status! RUN AND HIDE!
Meanwhile the atheists ignore morality and wonder why Liberal/Progressives have been having a field day brainwashing kids in school.
Yeah, there is some dangerous ideologies out there but they are not in the GOP. I think you are inventing drama to push your beliefs. You know, just like you would claim of those University Liberals.
Zuckerberg might actually believe that load of hogwash.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The Nazi party also couldn't tolerate some speech. You might want to consider that in the US we have freedom of speech which SPECIFICALLY protects speech that you may not agree with and may not be popular. "hate speech" is just a label invented by progressives to try and do an end run around freedom of speech to enforce their agenda on dissidents. Truly hateful speech is fairly evenly spread across the spectrum, and so what? Grow a pair, put on your big boy/girl pants and ignore/shun it like an adult. The fanatics that get people fired over the exercise of free speech which they don't disagree with are just this side of the Nazi/Fascists that they so fear, and they have no fucking clue that thats where their at.
Just a couple days ago a photo of anti-government protesters including one of their polish executives was taken down from a facebook page(zelaznalogika), the page also being blocked. In the meantime the photo may still be seen on newsweeks page.
liberals tend to be concerned with facts and evidence
Until they start talking about guns. Then it's out the window.
Zuck doesn't quite know how to bullshit properly.
The BSC* answer is, "We found no specific evidence of politically-biased re-ranking of stories. However, we did discover that the ranking process was not carefully managed and monitored enough, and are now putting in place procedures and cross-checks to prevent any future bias".
In short, it blames any problems later discovered on rogue underlings who were not watched well enough.
I don't claim to be an intentional expert on bullshit, I just witnessed too much over the years in Dilbertville, often as the underling scapegoat.
* Bullshit-Correct
Table-ized A.I.
Sorry but this is provable bullshit i have seen it more than just a couple of times where stuff get delete because its politically incorrect but NOT against the rules on facebook, who are they even trying to fool themselves!?
If you Google Zuckerberg, liberal, you will find several articles evidencing that he is a liberal. Your conservative friends should give you crap for this...for years. Here is one:
http://www.politico.com/story/...
The sad thing is, this got modded up to a 3 in the first place.
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
That will result in only a few minor political edits over a million billion pieces of news that will be internally sanctioned. This is my USD 5.- bet. Anyone?
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
...is completely biased.
Think about it.
They outsourced those functions to cheap shitholes like India and Indonesia to save money.
So when one of those operators comes across a reported FB post insulting to the Lord Jesus Christ, and another one insulting to the moslem pedophile sex offender prophet, which one do you think gets deleted ?
No brainer huh ?
Capcha "bikinis" oh the irony.
And in other news:
Hillary says that she reviewed all her email and found no evidence that she sold and exposed state secrets.
AND
Trump says that reviewed his speeches and he found no evidence of anti-Latino Bias
AND
Various slashdot readers also reviewed their posts and found no evidence of knee-jerk political bias
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
The lastest internal FB Yellow Build App now includes LIKE LOVE HAHA WOW SUPPRESS REDACT IGNORE
Zucker is correct the contractors were not Facebook Staff. Sadly bias can go both ways.
The entire concept of the internet is biased anyway isn't it? It's about being mostly open and communicative surely? which is in stark contrast to restrictive conservative doctrines anyway. So if there are stories that are talking about how great a restrictive practice might be that would naturally be reduced in ranking in some way.
you are entitled to have your own opinions, but we all share the facts.
Both sides trampled liberty to push their shit. Don't kid yourself.
a minuscule minority group that wants to believe it is much bigger than it is and already gets too much airtime is whining that people can hear a point of view that isn't their own?
Why even bother to respond to this?
He's openly lobbying for given political positions that conflict with other people that are saying he is suppressing them. His statement of evidence merely means "HE" has said there is no suppression. But if there is suppression he would have a strong interest to lie about it. And what is more, he also has a motive to do it in the first place.
He saying at any given point... "oh I'm not doing it" doesn't really matter.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
For decades now the single largest block of media is controlled by a reactionary billionaire, and any attempt by non-reactionaries to point out that this may not be healthy for political discourse is shouted down or outright not reported on.
But God forbid a market party tries to use its freedom to present the news and not be a flaming reactionary; it will be plastered all over the media as a scandal.
Fuck you, you fucking reactionary shits. You made your bed of biased media, now lie in it and STFU.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
It's important when the premise is that these stories are "trending" due to popularity.
You are correct that it's a private company and he can do what he wants.
But the public has been sold on the idea of Facebook as a platform where stories organically rise to be trending due to popularity and momentum.
There's no law being broken if that's not the case. But it is extremely newsworthy and of major interest to readers that "Trending" does not mean what you think it means. And is in fact, a misrepresentation of reality.
It's not about legality. It's *newsworthy* because it's a radical shift from the perception of how FB operates. "Trending" doesn't mean "trending" at all. It means curated.
Everybody is out to get the right wing! Colleges, universities and all schools conspire against the right. All TV stations conspire as well. The Free Masons, the Mahi Shrine, the trilaterals, the Builderberger, Skull and Bones, Europe and all socialist nations as well as all communists are out to get them. Hollywood and the TV and movie industries are out to kill them. Planned Parenthood is after them. The Knights of Columbus, The Knights Templar, the porn industry, the mafia, liberals, and those traitors called democrats, and those nasty black folks and those baby making brown people and God knows who else are all dedicated to the destruction of the right wing. It is hard to think of any group that the right does not fear. They are the party of fear and cowardice.
"Trending: Hillary Clinton".. This is of course pure happenstance.
Yeah, they mention that you are more likely to be killed with your own gun by a stranger than use it against a stranger in self defense, and all the conservatives lose their shit. You are more likely to accidentally shoot someone than shoot it at someone in self defense. Someone that wants to lengthen their life would be better served by staying away from guns, than believing in the illogical belief they are "safer" with a gun than without.
The liberals are the logical ones around guns, and it's the conservatives who can't muster up logic.
Learn to love Alaska
Isn't it just the case that leftism is more amenable to posting idiotic posts on facebook and therefore are more likely to be trending?
"Fiscal responsibility rules OK!" isn't likely to be seen on twitter or fb.
I think that the analytics which decide these things are mislead into making misleading statement, not because they are faulty, but because most people try to avoid being perceived as dicks, in one form, or another.
"Angry Studies"
. . . .which is no defender of the Right (as it prides itself as Progressive), the argument of objectivity and algorithms pretty much fails.
To wit:
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
I believe him. I saw it in the Trending Topics box so it has to be true.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I would genuinely respect people more if they just owned up to fucking liking guns. I could understand that. But they never do. Always some bullshit 'self defence' fig leaf reason.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Mark Zuckerberg added: "They trust me -- dumb fucks".
Clinton is a square shooter
One cannot find what one does not look for. Why would Zuckerberg look for evidence specifically tailored to serve his opponents? It's all just a matter of opinion protected under the first amendment.
Evidence of his friendship with the Clintons shows. Deny, Deny, Deny - That is old news, What does it matter now?
Earlier today, more evidence surfaced to support Gawker's two recent reports that claimed editors manipulate the trending news.
So, when do we get a congressional hearing into Faux News suppressing liberal viewpoints?
Seriously folks, this is a First Amendment right. As in, Facebook has the right to publish what it damn well feels like, not what right-wing time-wasters think they should be publishing.
If conservative viewpoints offered something else than
Bengazi
Clintons e-mails
Bills affairs
And All Trump All the time that ALL media are focusing on.
"If we find anything against our principles, you have my commitment that we will take additional steps to address it."
So, it if wasn't against Zuckerman's principals, it wasn't wrong.
I see plenty of conspiracy theories, posts from Trump-supporting imbeciles, people praising for the GOP supporting "family values" (until the womb is breached at which point these same morons agree with the GOP in lock-step and say "f--- the poor"), uneducated nitwits who think socialism and soviet communism are the exact same thing (when in truth unregulated "free market" capitalism is more like soviet communism when you reach its end game), insane anti-vaxxing conspiracy theories, and other things that you would expect to come from someone in an insane asylum.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Just sayin': trying to justify your claim by citing Gawker is like trying to validate the existence of Big Foot because you saw him on the cover of The Inquirer in a grocery store checkout line.
-==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
I like my gun. I feel like I'd never be able to pull the trigger on another human for a variety of reasons. That isn't either a strong position to defend, nor is it an argument that lines up with legal precedent. So, when I verbally defend my ability to own a firearm, then I'm not going to go with I want a firearm because I like it. I do have a natural right to defend myself and my family from either individuals or tyrannical organizations. That is codified in the 2nd amendment as the right to protect my family from tyranny and has been affirmed by the supreme court as applying to me the individual and that purpose may be for defending against the individual. That I can have a firearm because I like firearms isn't part of US law. BTW, my father has hated firearms as long as I've been alive and yet now that he is no longer as physically capable, he has one for protection of himself and mom.
Gun nuts always shit themselves when the topic of mental health provisions comes up.
I wonder why ? :)
If someone accuses you of murder, just do an internal investigation and come to conclusion that the allegations are false. "I looked into these allegations of murder and it turns out I am innocent". I don't think that holds up ever.
The argument for the 2nd amendment is not about self defense, but liberals tend to frame it that way. They could read history, you know, like the Federalist Papers, Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution and frame the argument correctly. The people must be able to overthrow a tyrannical government, hence we must maintain the right to bear arms.
Libertarians understand the historical logic for the second amendment and further understand risk and responsibility. Meanwhile the progressives feverishly attempt to convince everyone that the nanny state is the only way to save humanity and that humans are incapable of making decisions or understanding risk.
Liberals are logical my ass, they like to play make believe. History repeatedly demonstrates that society is never fixed by massive governments. Never, ever, not one time has it happened.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I don't. I fully believe the firearm violence problem in the US has a firmly liberal answer. It just isn't the liberal answer that liberals want. We need better mental health care, better social safety nets, a better approach to street drugs.
Ugghh, conservatives lacking in logic. I hate it when they say that the fact that you don't have to fire a gun to use it in self-defense alters the statistics. Or when firearm safety has high conditional probability and raw statistics are unrepresentative given the poor gun safety measures in places with high gun violence. Or when they point out that using firearm homicide rates in the place of intentional homicide rates is skewed from the outset. Or when they point out a thing I only have for pleasure like a pool is far more dangerous to my children statistically than a firearm. Or when they say that mass shooting has multiple definitions that are chosen based on what is more relevant to the cause of gun control. Or when they point out that the mass shooting everyone is scared about is a small portion of the actual mass shootings in the US. Or when they point out that the original reason for gun control was racist and Democrats are still using it to feel safe from some non-white youth randomly targeting them for violence. Or when they bring up that the international gun control statistics R-square values means that the statistics can't be predictive. God, what uniformed idiots. I wish they would listen to logic.
There IS "Evidence" here Mark, now how much that evidence proves is the question being asked. So your statement is really a lie, or, to be charitable about this, just not true.
What you should have said is there is "no proof" or even "no evidence that proves" but I guess because you are really involved in a PR conflict, you need to keep saying what your Public Relations folks are telling you to say. However, in this case, your PR folks need to mince your words a bit more carefully.
Not that I care about the allegations anyway. Who really cares if Facebook manipulates the news I see or not? It's a free country and they are free to conduct their business as they see fit.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Hillary Clinton did another self investigation of her private email server and found NO evidence of any classified documents (oops...I mean documents that were still clearly marked CLASSIFIED after her staff did some routine maintenance).
....if I used Facebook, and if I had any preconceived notions that Facebook had redeeming social value.
Any fact-based reporting is bound to conflict with ideology-based views, regardless of which of such views are involved. The ideologues will claim bias, as with global warming, and try to twist the facts around their agenda. Reality, however, often has other plans. This is not to say Facebook is innocent, but under the circumstances, they may deserve the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, FB has a history of acting badly to advance their own programs. .
I don't really care what facebook does with its website, but it was kind of disturbing to see so many people say "Even if Facebook did this in the most malicious way, then they were right to do so, because everything a conservative could possibly say is hate speech and needs to be censored." Even presuming that the proposition that everything they say is hate speech is true, it is a terrible idea to suppress political speech rather than have things be discussed openly and let people openly see the reasoning behind the problems of the topic. Suppression of speech is the sign of a weak position not a position so strong it must be defended at all costs.
It's not about legality. It's *newsworthy* because it's a radical shift from the perception of how FB operates. "Trending" doesn't mean "trending" at all. It means curated.
I'm surprised anyone though otherwise. Can you believe the the news stories in the "News and buzz" section on CNN.com do not actually have any measurable 'buzz' about them?
Can you believe that when a chain restaurant prints "CUSTOMER FAVORITE!" next to a random item on their menu, that it is not, in fact, the results of some rigorous study of their customer base, but instead what some marketing or executive type decided to print next to a more profitable menu item?
Probably because it's not true that you're more likely to be killed with your own gun. The study that claimed that was seriously flawed, as in it didn't actually check that the gun you were killed with was your own. Plus there is a notorious under-reporting of the use of guns against a stranger in self-defense. I mean, it isn't a crime, so there often isn't a need to report it, especially if you don't actually have to shoot anyone. Often the mere existence of a gun and/or a warning shot can be sufficient, and the person defending himself is unlikely to report such an incident to the police.
Watching from a distance, it's the left that is averse to logic and reason. Read the wildly successful Assault Weapons Ban of '94 for a primer on just how 'logical' liberals are with regard to guns.
Simply proclaiming that one's group has a monopoly on logic or reason doesn't magically make it so.
Facts will make no difference to anybody who viewed this as a problem in the first place. Once the right wing whackadoos think they are maligned, they will whine about it ad nauseum. FB could produce a mountain of evidence showing what exactly what stories were "trending" on FB vs how many posts were actually posted on those topics. The response would be "see! now they're covering it up." I think the real problem is that most right-wingers really believe that they're in the vast majority, despite just about every election ever proving that false. So they think anytime they don't see their specific opinion echoed in teh lamestream media that it's a personal attack against them.
I have an employee who works for me who constantly complains about how hard it is being a white male, and how frequently he is mistreated because of it. When I ask him for a specific example, he pulls a Trump/Palin non-answer about how it's so obvious. As if the very fact that I'm asking for a smidge of evidence would somehow prove my prejudice against his ideas. When I list several studies that show blacks, females and latinos (why does FF want to auto-correct to "Latinos," but not "Blacks"?) consistently receive fewer interview calls, less pay, more police stops, etc., he says it's just the liberal elite academics who are trying to skew the facts. But the obvious truth is that any facts that don't align with his worldview are automatically discounted.
Not all conservatives are this way, and a large number of liberals are. But the fact of the matter is that Fox News and the like consistently complain about the "victim culture" in America, while trumpeting such nonsense as the "War on Christmas." Do they not grok the irony?
I asked my dog and he didn't say anything so we're good, right?
I'd say that minorities are in a much better position today due to the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, to give one example of government intervention. The leftist governments of Western Europe do a much better job of providing equal opportunity, and have higher social mobility.
It seems to really bother right-wingers when I point out that personal weapons wielded by people not trained in military action and not accustomed to their unit are going to do absolutely nothing to overthrow a government.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
In the US, "hate speech" is not a legal concept. If I hear it, I may criticize it, which is my right. A "hate crime", in the US, is one of various possible aggravating conditions that can increase the sentence for an already defined crime.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The argument for the 2nd amendment is not about self defense, but liberals tend to frame it that way.
I see the conservatives framing it that way. They want to avoid statements like "I distrust all people and need to be able to shoot them if I want." "The police don't help anyone, so I need to be able to defend myself when they aren't around." "I need a gun to take out the government if they overreach, just like the Forefathers said."
History repeatedly demonstrates that society is never fixed by massive governments. Never, ever, not one time has it happened.
And when has it been "fixed" by small government?
Learn to love Alaska
A functional government. If you think that whatever issue is going to throw conservatives off the deep end and not disrupt the government entities that you are counting on continuing the government, you either don't understand conservatives or don't understand the regulations of the government entities or both.
Yeh, they are shitting themselves as they become a smaller minority, bad luck assholes.
That the overall user base of facebook will be more liberal leaning because it's a younger user base?
Is it possible that people have made a "news" story out of nothing?
Stop feeding the trolls!
And there you are. Mark Zuckerberg personally took steps, well, a step, to address it by making this announcement. Mission accomplished.
The argument for the 2nd amendment is not about self defense, but liberals tend to frame it that way.
I see the conservatives framing it that way. They want to avoid statements like "I distrust all people and need to be able to shoot them if I want." "The police don't help anyone, so I need to be able to defend myself when they aren't around." "I need a gun to take out the government if they overreach, just like the Forefathers said."
No, you don't hear conservatives framing it that way. I hate to break it to you, but you are confusing people who call themselves conservatives to get votes (and the people pandering to them) with a real Conservative. Ron Paul is one of those people. Ron Paul was let in by accident, and that was "corrected" if you had not noticed. The current lot of "Conservatives" are all extremely liberal. From Christie to Trump they all want more Government and less freedom for the public. Every single candidate has used fear mongering rhetoric as part of their campaign. They have all said that the Feds should have open access to all your stuff anytime the Government wants, etc.. etc....
What you hear is progressives framing the argument. No matter what the T-Shirt says, they do not behave as Conservatives.
And when has it been "fixed" by small government?
Every single a Republic that has been created starts small and works very well. Bloat and corruption occur, and there is a reset. Again, history is your friend here.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Perhaps you should consider the reason people being "bothered" is simply because your opinion has little basis in fact.
Government did not save minorities or even help them. The Government you claim helped them created Jim Crow laws and legalized discrimination, after the People demanded that the Government remove laws allowing Slavery and counting certain persons as less than others. It took a whole lot of people in the streets protesting violently to change things. People forced laws to change, the "Government" did not do that on it's own. Police did not stop all of the riots, because the people had guns and could defend themselves if needed.
You probably don't bother anyone. You repeating propaganda which warps history to fit a progressive agenda may, but it has nothing to do with you and an unqualified opinion.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
. I hate to break it to you, but you are confusing people who call themselves conservatives to get votes (and the people pandering to them) with a real Conservative.
No true conservative. What do the true conservative say the reason for the 2nd Amendment is, and how that's relevant in today's society?
Every single a Republic that has been created starts small and works very well. Bloat and corruption occur, and there is a reset. Again, history is your friend here.
So armed revolution is the only means to create an efficient government? Then Somalia should have the most efficient government, with armed revolts daily. You are also saying that a small government is inherently unstable and collapses eventually. So why shouldn't we try something different? Can you even define "republic"?
Learn to love Alaska
It is not a crime depending on local laws but reporting it carries the risk of being persecuted or prosecuted anyway with no upside; what you say and report can and will be used against you in a court of law. Overzealous local law enforcement and prosecutors were a major reason for the push for castle doctrine and stand your ground laws.
Not sure if serious.
Sure, just like zero rating selected internet traffic instead of rate limiting other internet traffic to produce the same result is network neutral. And taxing everybody and then returning the tax selected individuals who did not sin accomplishes the same thing as a fine but is not a fine.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It just means he was relatively effective at covering it up... so far.
Error: NSE - No Signature Error
I previously answered the first question, and you claimed "nuh uh" once. No do-overs.
The second question part 1. No, I never said armed revolution was necessary. Historically it's been the only way to insight change and remove entrenched power, but in theory a working Republic provides the means for a soft revolution. Part 2. No, you are omitting a particular form of Government called a Republic. A series of dictators killing each other is not efficient, nor is it a Republic. I suggest you read the book of the same name, and recommend the "Cambridge Text" version since it's a historical linguistic translation.
The second question, part 3+. When humans are no longer humans we may be able to expect a perfect government which always remains perfect. Until such time as we are not humans, we have to deal with people who can be anything between greedy and psychopathic, to completely evil. Many people are not even born with a specific immoral trait, but due to life end up deficient.
I never said a small government was unstable, you made that up. I said that governments all succumb to corruption. That is not because Government is small, it's because human nature. The larger "Government" is the more corrupt it is. Have doubts, look at the US, Russia, China, anywhere in Europe, etc... Germany is an example of Government growing massively and behaving at least as poorly to its citizens as the US has. Progressives try to point there claiming it's a paradise, which it surely isn't.
Liberal Progressives in the US live in a fantasy land that pretends that at least some people are perfect and infallible. Namely themselves, and of course they will happily take your money to solve all of your problems. As long as you do what they say of course.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
If you have seen my news-feed from some of my wacko Republican and "libertarian" friends, you would know this is bull shit!
Or like affirmative action hires don't discriminate against applicants that are better qualified...
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
“I did not have statistical relations with that data.”
-- Mark Zuckerberg
Now, we just have to wait for the little black memory stick to surface.
we demand that the government intervene to require companies to devote equal time and effort to publicizing the conservative point of view that the government has no right to intervene to require companies to do things they don't want to do.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
The argument for the 2nd amendment is not about self defense, but liberals tend to frame it that way. They could read history, you know, like the Federalist Papers, Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution and frame the argument correctly. The people must be able to overthrow a tyrannical government, hence we must maintain the right to bear arms.
Libertarians understand the historical logic for the second amendment and further understand risk and responsibility. Meanwhile the progressives feverishly attempt to convince everyone that the nanny state is the only way to save humanity and that humans are incapable of making decisions or understanding risk.
Liberals are logical my ass, they like to play make believe. History repeatedly demonstrates that society is never fixed by massive governments. Never, ever, not one time has it happened.
and yet, second amendmenters do nothing except rant continuously about how our government has become a tyranny. i venture to say if "the people" didn't use the right to bear arms to oppose internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry, let alone states defying federal orders to allow black kids to attend schools, the government allowing Pinkertons to massacre the unarmed families of striking miners, the National Guard shooting college kids who were not threatening them, local government's tacit approval of lynching of blacks and civil rights workers, the Trail of Tears, etc etc etc, there's pretty much nothing that they will rise up to oppose, with the possible exception of having to register as firearm owners.
But, as you demonstrate, the Walter Mittys among them can't help but "play make believe" that they are all that stands between us and Obama's savage Negro army implementing sharia; plus, as a bonus, they keep criminals at bay.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Huh? Failbook censors Conservative bullshit?
WHERE?
Last time I checked (this morning), Kevin Sorbo, FUX News, Ass Talk Radio ass clowns, my GF and her folks could post just fine. She and my future in laws are SOOO conservative, they are one death camp away from being Nazis!
Zuckerberg has no choice but to keep his ethics in and do te RIGHT thing. He has no choice :)
1) We're not talking censorship here, we're talking stories that facebook actively promotes as "suggestions" to people.
2) I never said all right wing political statements (there is many valid position I don't agree with, that's fine)
3) Example: "Families of terror suspects must be tortured", is that a valid political position?
For a private company to choose not to actively promote such statement seems within their discretion.
Note: we're not talking free speech, merely "active promotion", you don't have any right to have your speech promoted equally..
It's not who votes that matters, it's who COUNTS the votes.
In this case, if you setup a scheme where in order to be "trending" it must be covered by the majority of 10 (example) news sources THAT sounds reasonable..... until you notice that 8 of the 10 sources are liberal Democrat sources. That's a recipe to automatically only cover as "trending" stories that liberal journalists want to cover and to not covering stories that liberal journalists choose to spike.
The reason most Facebookers never took the Benghazi story, or the Planned Parenthood videos story, or the Fast&Furious story or the IRS vs TEA Party story, or many other similar stories seriously is that these stories ran contrary to the groupthink at WaPo, HuffPo, the NYT, etc who all chose to ignore them or play them down or excuse them away because they were all harmful to Democrats. If a Republican president had blamed a foreign policy screwup on a YouTube video and arranged for the filmmaker to be jailed for over a year, all those news outlets would have gone insane, it would have been a hot item "trending" on Facebook, and Hollywood sorts would have protested the action on live TV at the Oscars. The Fact that Obama and Hillary did this meant that all the left-wing media swept it under the carpet. Many of the details went unreported in many of these outlets for MONTHS and then when grudgingly reported in a trickle on these sites it was not enough to be a "trend".
Of course, it's a whole other issue that Zuck has investigated himself and found himself innocent..... just Like Hillary on the E-Mail server, and Nixon on Watergate. Hell, with Hillary there's even more "erased" evidence than there was in Watergate. We did not accept this self-examination and self-exoneration from Nixon, why from Hillary or Zuck? Is it purely that they have the proper politics and the ends justify the means?
Oh my, how long did the Z spend with the Killary? How many millions did he give to that killer of freedom? Dang, its so funny when the progressives are repeatedly caught in the same style of lies. Monica, what have you been doing for the Zuck?
Life is in a state of dynamic equilibrium, it both blows and sucks
Bzzzzt, she does not say that. Gun control is not outright outlawing all guns, but rather banning assault weapons and better background checks.
Table-ized A.I.
You don't know much about the 1960s, do you?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I actually do, but you seem to lack knowledge in every conceivable area. Including the 60s by the way.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
down the memory hole. When you control all the content, and have monetized the very ability to select, guide and remove content, you will do so. And have done so.
Who was it that, when "net neutrality" was a voting issue, who made a personal call to the President of the United States and the President eventually answered? Do you think that sort of contact comes from anything less than SERIOUS MONEY and SERIOUS INFLUENCE?
We determine lobbyist effectiveness by how far "up the pipe" they have access to. Zuckerberg has publicly demonstrated levels of access most Disney lobbyists only dream of. Before that it took the money and oil influence of the Royal Saud to get this sort of audience.
That's before we get into the $5K a plate "fundraisers" in the Bay Area, sponsored by the Hearts And Minds Media.