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.

Comments

Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[goombah99]

"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

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

They investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing.

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[rahvin112]

So what? Again a non-fucking story. He can run that trending thing however the fucking company wants under current law.

The GOP wants to reinstate the fairness doctrine in broadcast mediums if they want this fixed. Course that's a double edge sword that results in people getting both sides of every story and THAT would mean the end of the GOP. The entire party and it's doctrine relies on people being misinformed by an echo chamber constantly reinforcing the same idea over and over until the consumers believe it.

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[neilo_1701D]

Yes, Prime Minister: https://youtu.be/vKer_nMOIZ8?t...

PM: I told them that I hadn't found any evidence
Bernard: That's because you haven't been looking
Sir Humphry: And we haven't shown you any
PM: Yes, well done!

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what's funny?

When's the last time you saw a headline like "so and so suppressed Liberal/Progressive viewpoints"? Or "IRS directed to target outspoken Liberal/Progressive organizations"? Yeah, neither have I. It's always the Conservative viewpoints targeted by censorship or intimidation of some kind. Those are techniques people use when they are not secure in their own views and feel threatened by opposing views.

Why it's as if one side plays dirtier than the other. Must be the same reason that vote fraud (especially when illegal immigrants vote) overwhelmingly favors Democrats. Understand, I think both parties are toxic and this government is a cancer on the nation, and like all cancers it just doesn't want to stop growing, but still I cannot help but notice these things.

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[mellon]

I have plenty of evidence that the report is false, in the form of people bloviating on my timeline.

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[mellon]

It would be the salvation of the GOP. The GOP was actually a useful party back when we had the fairness doctrine. Bunch of stuffed shirts, but they got shit done and cooperated with Democrats.

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[bigfinger76]

The IRS targeted conservative groups, not liberal ones.
IRS Targeting Controversy

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[zugmeister]

Hey... if it's good enough for the police it should be good enough for Facebook, right?

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[LoyalOpposition]

"He can run that trending thing however the fucking company wants under current law."

Perhaps not. Suppose someone offers you a deal where you agree to read the advertisements he promotes, and in return you get to see the most popular stories from everyone in his group. Suppose you agree to that deal. Then, if you read the advertisements, but he only offers you the most popular liberal stories, then he's in breach of contract.

I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm just saying that it may be more than merely a case of freedom of speech on Facebook's part.

~Loyal

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[Mashiki]

Uh. You might want to go back and re-read some stuff...like facts. It's the democrats who liked the fairness doctrine, and it was them most recently who tried to get it back in several times in fact. I picked two left-leaning sources. So have some right leaning sources as well. The GOP has been fundamentally against that.

One also can't forget that it was Zuckerburg that threw the hissyfit over "all lives matter" because people think that "black lives matter" is BS.

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[epyT-R]

No, they're the words of someone trying to hide his political views. of course, it's his site, he can do what he wants, but it's a dickish move to feign objectivity. I mean, the guy started fwd.us after all.

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[Tablizer]

The GOP was actually a useful party back when we had the fairness doctrine...they got shit done and cooperated with Democrats

Indeed. They now have a conspiratorial narrative whereby Democrats are plotting to take away their guns and Christmas trees, while Obamacare doctors turn their kids gay by vaccinating them with secret Sharia sauce.

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[SchroedingersCat]

This is non-denial denial: "we cannot confirm that report is true".

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[ShanghaiBill]

Bunch of stuffed shirts, but they got shit done and cooperated with Democrats.

Do you mean when they cooperated, and ran up $18 trillion in debt? Or when they cooperated and launched the dumbest war in history, with bipartisan support? I think I prefer gridlock.

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[epyT-R]

Actually, there can be multilateral sides to a story. A 'fairness' doctrine would not be any friendlier to the truth because the truth is usually not 'fair.' Also, the GOP does not have a monopoly on echo chambers and hugboxes. Your post is proof of that.

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[epyT-R]

Well, I hope not. Individual rights are important. Without them, citizens end up receiving inhuman treatment in manufactured 'class struggles' as we've seen in the various 'people's republics' during the cold war.

I am confused by your choice of words and lack of context. You meant that as long as people have free speech, they can criticize the flaws in others' statements? That's a good thing. This right is needed for democracy to have a shot at functioning.

These days both sides are supporting fake 'religious liberty.' The neocons support christians as they always have, and the left supports muslims, even when they rape women. I guess islamophobia is a worse sin than rape in the oppression olympics.

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[davester666]

You need to immediately forward your message to the head of the RNC.

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are going to post a link to support your argument, you may want to make sure it actually supports your argument. That Wikipedia articles says it targeted both liberal and conservative non-profit corporations looking for violations of the laws governing non-profits.

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Conservative values are dead. But faux victimhood will keep pretend religious liberty and freedom to hate alive for a little longer.

And Venezuela, Greece, and Detroit didn't run out of other people's money.

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[Mashiki]

Read the article then. That was their "free speech wall" and he threw a hissyfit because people had a differing point of view.

Nope, none of the "all lives matter" complaints are logical, except racism. Black lives matter, but white lives matter more.

That sure explains why blacks kill more of their own then police do right? If those lives actually mattered then they be looking at home and trying to fix those severe culture and social issues, but nope they'd rather whine and cry. Especially after it was them, and their community leaders who pushed so very hard for this line of policing in the first place in the 1990's.

Secret spoiler: They pushed so hard because that was the time when crack started to become the scourge in black communities, and wanted the police to do something about it.

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[Feral Nerd]

Nah, the Liberals are so used to it, they stopped complaining. The conservatives own the media (the traditional media at least) and complain endlessly about how they cover themselves.

Must be the same reason that vote fraud (especially when illegal immigrants vote) overwhelmingly favors Democrats.

Yet it's always the Democrats that are pushing for vote fraud reduction, and Republicans putting in Diebold and such, while claiming there's no voter fraud..

The last time I looked it was Republicans who were whipping up a panic over voter fraud and demanding photo IDs to combat this even though study after study had shown that voter fraud is not a huge issue in the US. Then a few Republican functionaries went on record and explained in interviews how several conservatives running for office had benefited from the photo ID requirement because people less likely to vote Republican had been required to jump through flaming hoops to get a photo ID. Now, what is the real problem? Voter fraud which is pretty much non existent? Or is it Republicans making sure that people likely to vote Democrat have a hard time getting their hands on a photo ID? Not that this is a debate I even understand (in the sense: why is this even an issue?). Where I come from your photo ID is something you need to have to make use of public services so people usually get one in their very early teens. Kids get a social security card which they use until they learn how to drive a scooter at 15 or a car at 17 and after that everybody uses their drivers license as voter ID except for the 3% of or so of the population that does not have a driver's license, usually for some medical reason. I can relate much more to the discussions in the US about gerrymandering by means of things like the creation of ridiculously shaped voting districts because that is one shenanigan that political parties in my country practice with the same amount of enthusiasm as their counterparts in the US.

Re: Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[bursch-X]

Have you committed a crime that kept you from accessing the Internet for that last few years?

Re: Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[bursch-X]

The left replaces religion with other dogmas and collectivism like radical feminism, cis white male original sin, oppression Olympics and class struggle as in communism. Potato, potato. Same tactics.

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except this is absolutely catastrophically wrong. You might want to look up the Israeli Kibbutz systems as well as agrarian christianity for some examples of strongly left-leaning religious political movements and organizations.

The reason people get confused over this is confirmation bias. You have a chip on your shoulder about religion so you look only at those topics where religions tend to favor the rightwingers (family focus, traditionalism) and ignore the values they hold that have traditionally inspired the left before the left fractured into inter-warring tribes of people taking offense at everything (charity, wealth redistribution)

As to the last statement, look up the situation of Scandinavian state churches. You'll cook up some ad hoc hypothesis about why they are not true representations but that is because your definition is so biased as to not merit discussion.

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

And Chelsey Clinton is giving speeches about how her mother will finally outlaw guns now that Scalia is dead and there is an opening on the Supreme Court.

I don't think you can call it a conspiracy if they are telling people that is their plan.
Video Feel free to ignore the news article with it, just watch the video.

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[Mashiki]

I read it. It looked like the issue was people defacing BLM posts with ALM posts. It wasn't the message that was put up, but the destruction of what other's posted that was the specific objection. Perhaps you need to read your own links.

Read it again, you obviously missed the "We're supporting BLM cause reasons" bit. Or do you need me to draw the exact quote out for you? Reminder that those free speech walls mean that people can do whatever they want, and in turn are supposed to be free from repercussions?

At the peak of crack, it was more used by whites than blacks. The publicity around Blacks was vilifying Black people, not crack, and using that as excuse to target Blacks for a colorblind problem. That you reject reality doesn't change it.

We're not talking about peak. We're talking about what said culture created, that you don't even know what the reality of that period was or how loud those mouth pieces were is far more telling. I'll help you out though, go and start reading news paper articles on al sharpton and jessie jackson from 1993-1998 and their cries for more police. Don't worry when that reality bites you in the ass.

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[ScentCone]

You're (knowingly, of course) fighting a straw man, here. The GOP doesn't want it "fixed," they simply want them not to lie about it. The last thing anyone needs is the unconstitutional "fairness doctrine" back in the role of government control over speech.

Re: Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[jmac_the_man]

Regardless of what some dickhead wrote on Wikipedia, that's not what happened. Existing tax exempt liberal groups were investigated for violations of law, and either cleared or charged at the end of the investigation. Newly-formed conservative groups were subjected to "investigation" which were designed to be onerous and unending, thus preventing them from getting tax exemption in the first place. The conservative groups were "suspected of" being prone to violate laws WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN STRUCK DOWN AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL and thus were no longer in force.

Lumping the two together is a red herring used by the IRS and its liberal defenders to cover up the fact that the Obama Administration used the machinery of government to harass their political opponents.

Re: Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're American left, which is decidedly centrist. The European leftists, on the otherhand, are giving away their countries.

That isn't just the European leftists; the American left is giving away the U.S. by refusing to enforce any immigration laws.

Re: Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[jmac_the_man]

He can run that trending thing however the fucking company wants under current law.

You're correct on this point, although the rest of post is bullshit.

Statistically speaking, all conservatives realize that CBS, NBC, and ABC are biased against conservatives and Republicans at least 90% of the time. Also statistically speaking, no conservative wants some kind of government mandate for them to cut it out. They're private businesses and can do what they want. (PBS and NPR are different because they're taxpayer funded.)

Facebook is also a private business and also shouldn't be mandated by the government to change how Trending Topics work. The reason the story is important is because people need to know that Trending Topics are full of shit in the same way the network news is.

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[Gadget_Guy]

I'll leave this here.

Why is it that whenever anyone uses the phrase "I'll leave this here" it almost invariably links to an irrelevant video. I think that people do it to appear that they are answering a question or providing evidence in the hope that nobody will actually watch the video and realise that they have got nothing.

In this case the video did not even come close to providing the requested citation for the claim that "the left supports muslims, even when they rape women". In fact, all it showed was a video of someone asking "how can we fight an ideological war with weapons... how can you ever win this thing if you don't address it ideologically". Like you responding with an irrelevant video that mentions neither the left or rape, the panelist ignores the question and goes on a rant about how it doesn't matter that most Muslims are peaceful, aren't radical and that they aren't the enemy.

It seems to be a common school of thought in certain ideologies that you don't need to address the question or topic being discussed as long as you answer forcefully. If you can't convince people with a logical argument then do it with a loud one.

Re: Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[Gadget_Guy]

Have you committed a crime that kept you from accessing the Internet for that last few years?

Assuming that you haven't also committed a crime, you should be able to link to evidence that you have found on the Internet that the left supports rapist Muslims. That is unless you are just bluffing and going by your gut feeling instead of actual facts.

And if your argument is that "neocons support christians as they always have, and the left supports muslims, even when they rape women", does that mean that neocons support Christians even when they are pedophiles? It's not as if there hasn't been a lot of covering up of priests abusing alter boys over the years.

And no, that is not what I think. I just said it to point out the inconsistency of your statement. I believe that all people would condemn rapists and pedophiles no matter who they are (with the obvious exception of other rapists and pedophiles).

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[harrkev]

That Wikipedia articles says it targeted both liberal and conservative non-profit corporations

From the Wikipedia article:

Media Trackers, a conservative organization, applied to the IRS for recognition of tax-exempt status, and received no response after waiting 16 months. When the organization's founder, Drew Ryun, applied for permanent tax-exempt status for an existing tax-exempt organization with what he said was a "liberal-sounding name" ("Greenhouse Solutions"), that application was approved in three weeks.

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[JackieBrown]

Actually, it's because only Conservatives drum up bullshit stories like this. Go look up the facts - the IRS targeted both Conservative and Liberal organizations. But of course you didn't hear that in the Faux Noise echo chamber of hate.

First, the implementation is what was different. Second, I love when people "cleverly" misspell Fox, Conservative, Republican, or Tea Party. It lets me know I'm dealing with someone who is used to winning by name calling.

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[Alypius]

Everything about your post is wrong. Authoritarian != right wing.

Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence?

[david_thornley]

None of the leftists I know are even slightly in favor of Sharia law. They are in favor of treating Muslims like people.

The paradox of Muslim politics is that they can get accepted by the Left, but their values tend to align with the Right. The first Muslim in Congress is a leftist, despite the political leanings of most Muslims, since he had to run in a leftist district to get elected, and we don't elect anything similar to right-wing politicians.

The evidence was wiped, like with a cloth!

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

Supression no. Displacement, maybe?

[Dread_ed]

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.

Re:GOP has too much hateful speech

[Anonymous Coward]

If you define anything you disagree with as hate speech you get to the situation we have here. Self justification for dummies.

Re:GOP has too much hateful speech

[Rakshasa Taisab]

True, and everything our opponents say is hateful by definition.

He is....

[ExXter]

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.

Re:He is....

[Maritz]

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.

What does this mean? Can't figure it out.

We know Zuckerberg's principles

[phantomfive]

Zuckerberg's 'principles' involve stealing passwords and reading other people's email.

Re:We know Zuckerberg's principles

[Xest]

Is there evidence he's hacked into anyone elses account since, or are you basing that judgement entirely on unfounded speculation?

I'm not much a fan of Zuckerberg, but I'm even less a fan of unfounded assumption. I think when it's implied that something is wrong without evidence is detracts from legitimate discussion about things that are actually wrong. If enough wrong accusations are thrown at him he can hide behind those false accusations with dismissal of them to evade legitimate concern about real actual problems, such as his willingness to flagrantly and consistently breach European Data Protection Law with his European operations.

Don't give him the excuse of being able to dismiss criticism with the claim he always has unfounded accusations thrown at him by throwing unfounded accusations at him.

Re:We know Zuckerberg's principles

[phantomfive]

Oh yeah, I didn't mean that he still hacks into people's email, just that he doesn't seem particularly principled: just a self-serving guy (who might still hack people's email if he could get away with it). From time to time he says stuff that leads me to believe that.

Why is it important?

[damn_registrars]

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...

Re:Why is it important?

[Anonymous Coward]

It matters because they claimed that "trending" was determined by computer algorithms that analyzed what people were actually talking about, but that turned out to be a lie: they were instead determined by people, who necessarily have a bias.

It matters because it artificially shapes how people see the world. Facebook isn't just "a news site" it's also a site that - in theory - shows you how your friends view the world. Except it turns out that conservative views were being censored on Facebook.

They're not alone. Anyone who's seen how Twitter deals with its trends (which are also conceptually algorithmic but in reality are clearly curated as they'll block certain things from trending) and the new Twitter Moments feature will notice a distinct liberal bias there, as well.

If Facebook were like Slashdot where the entire point was people were explicitly picking certain stories, no one would care. But Facebook pretended that the "trending" feature was showing what people were actually talking about on Facebook, and that turned out to be false. It was instead a curated news feed with a liberal bias.

Re: Why is it important?

[Bartles]

Imagine if you had paid Facebook a lot of money to place ads in these popular trending stories, only to find out they aren't actually popular and trending, but selected for placement by Facebook employees.

Re:Why is it important?

[physicsphairy]

Microsoft bundling IE in its capacity as the by far dominant provider of desktop operating systems was considered an anti-trust violation.

Now what about the by far most dominant social network bundling a particular political platform for its users? Is there no ethical problem with that?

I agree that FB's actions are legal and even constitutionally protected. But if you find it unnerving when companies hire lobbyists to write laws in their favor, you should probably find it even more unnerving that FB may be surreptitiously packaging the specific issues and views on which people vote.

I wonder what the monetary value to Trump/Hillary would be to suppressing news helpful to their opponent, and what sort of favorable legislation that could buy FB in return.

"Anything against our principles"

[myowntrueself]

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.

Re:Of course it's true

[Z80a]

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.

Re:Of course it's true

[bigfinger76]

liberals tend to be concerned with facts and evidence

Until they start talking about guns. Then it's out the window.

BS 102

[Tablizer]

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

3 Seconds of google to debunk this

[Texmaize]

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.

Re:Of course it's true

[epyT-R]

Both sides trampled liberty to push their shit. Don't kid yourself.

Re:I'd tend to agree with Zuck

[DNS-and-BIND]

You discriminate, all right. You just do it and then lie to yourselves about it. I usually describe this as: "Do as I say, not as I do." It invariably creates a blind spot for the "invisible" activity, but also undermines the ability of the mind to see the truth in general because the mind has become used to lying to itself so it won't see the things it is not supposed to see. Obviously, at this point, the mind itself cannot detect truth and falsity, because the mind would have to see itself lying. A problem with highly intelligent people like this, is that they assume that their opinions are facts.

A lack of political diversity in psychology is said to lead to a number of pernicious outcomes, including biased research and active discrimination against conservatives. The authors of this study surveyed a large number (combined N = 800) of social and personality psychologists and discovered several interesting facts. First, although only 6% described themselves as conservative "overall," there was more diversity of political opinion on economic issues and foreign policy. Second, respondents significantly underestimated the proportion of conservatives among their colleagues. Third, conservatives fear negative consequences of revealing their political beliefs to their colleagues. Finally, they are right to do so: In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists said that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents were, the more they said they would discriminate.

Composite scores of perceived hostile climate for conservatives (! = .85) were significantly correlated with political orientation, r(263) = .28, p less than .0001: The more liberal respondents were, the less they believed that conservatives faced a hostile climate. This correlation was driven entirely by more conservative respondents' greater personal experience of a hostile climate: Controlling for personal experience, the relationship disappeared (r = â'.01), suggesting that the hostile climate reported by conservatives is invisible to those who do not experience it themselves.

At the end of our surveys, we gave room for comments. Many respondents wrote that they could not believe that anyone in the field would ever deliberately discriminate against conservatives. Yet at the same time we found clear examples of discrimination. One participant described how a colleague was denied tenure because of his political beliefs. Another wrote that if the department "could figure out who was a conservative they would be sure not to hire them."

-- Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers, "Political Diversity in Social and Personality Psychology" http://yoelinbar.net/papers/po...

Oh boohoo

[mvdwege]

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.

Re:Of course it's true

[AK Marc]

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.

When you've lost the Guardian. . . .

[Salgak1]

. . . .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...

Found nothing against FB principals

[WoodstockJeff]

"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.

Logical Liberal about Guns? haha

[s.petry]

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.

Re:Logical Liberal about Guns? haha

[david_thornley]

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.

Re:Logical Liberal about Guns? haha

[AK Marc]

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?