Facebook on its Fake News Problem: 'There's So Much More We Need To Do' (theverge.com)

dont censor by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-10 06:48 · Score: 1

don't censor -- maybe just flag or have a "truth" meter.

Re:dont censor by jellomizer · 2016-11-10 08:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

Well one thing we learned about the election.
We were seeing all the polls showing Clinton had a near certain victory. And we assumed trump was lying when he said that his polls are showing something different. Unfortunately that raises the question how good are the sources to figure out truthfulness.
Now Trump could had been lying about his sources, and gotten lucky. However the fact that he was saying that he was winning and the media is lying about that and actually won. Does bring up questions, on the fact checkers and truthfulness.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:dont censor by amicusNYCL · 2016-11-10 09:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

The problem is that people think that polls are accurate, because they use terms like "sample size" and "margin of error" to give the illusion that they are scientific. They aren't scientific. A poll is asking a bunch of people what they think, and assuming that all of them tell the truth. Guess what? They don't all tell the truth. When Nate Silver was publishing his numbers he showed 12% of people saying they were "undecided", but for some reason the margin of error was not +/- 12. How many of those "undecided" people do you actually think had already made up their minds, and didn't want to tell anyone because they wanted to avoid how people would react to their choice? How many of those "undecided" people walked into the polling booth and chose an actual candidate? Those polls are going to say that Hillary has a lead, and that the margin of error is low, and that Trump has a 16% chance of winning, and none of those things are correct but since they list the sample size and bother to come up with a number for "margin of error" then people whose job it is to talk or write for companies that say they publish news (pardon me if I don't want to refer to those people as journalists) will say that all of the polls show that Hillary is in the lead, and this is what's going to happen, and here are the states where there is going to be a real contest, and no one has any idea what they're talking about. But it sounds good, until none of the things that people predicted actually happen.
The real stupid thing is that this same crap happened over and over during the primaries and all of the news talking people still acted like they knew what was going on at the end.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:dont censor by Rakarra · 2016-11-10 10:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

We were seeing all the polls showing Clinton had a near certain victory. And we assumed trump was lying when he said that his polls are showing something different. Unfortunately that raises the question how good are the sources to figure out truthfulness.
Now Trump could had been lying about his sources, and gotten lucky. However the fact that he was saying that he was winning and the media is lying about that and actually won. Does bring up questions, on the fact checkers and truthfulness.
Clinton actually gained roughly the amount of votes that were expected. But what happened is the overwhelming majority of "undecided" voters voted for Trump. What we all forgot about, but should never forget about, is The Bradley Effect. People didn't want to admit to a pollster that they were voting for Trump. It's a key example of Social Desirability Bias where respondents answer questions in a manner which will be viewed favorably by those around them.
Re:dont censor by Rakarra · 2016-11-10 10:10 · Score: 4, Informative

No it doesn't. It says that the polls are using flawed means that don't end up being accurate. People have complained about the way polls are conducted being skewed for a long time now. Polls only measure people who agree to be measured. They only measure what people say, rather than what they do in privacy.
There was a pretty decent interview on NPR last weekend where the interviewer sat down the heads of a view polling agencies to discuss how polling works and the challenges involved in getting accurate polling. The fact of the matter is that each year it has been more difficult getting an accurate cross-sample of people. 30 years ago, it was far easier -- everyone had a public land-line. Everyone picked it up on a ring. No one had caller id. Now it's far more self-selected, and it's easier to get penned in to one demographic.

The last time I checked they still only polled people who had land lines.
No, they use cell phones now. I received a poll call on my cell phone this election, the first time in 15 years I had been randomly polled about anything.
Re:dont censor by budgenator · 2016-11-10 10:19 · Score: 1

I was kind of confused by the various reported poll numbers, but when you actually got to see the number of poll participants to population, then when I compared it to what I had learned was necessary polling wise to get a valid result, there were vast differences. Now I'm not a statistician and I went to College a few decades ago, so I suppose the numbers have changed over the years, but not by a factor of 2! So It's easy to see how most of the pollsters got trapped in their own echo chambers.
It's one thing to take a statistically valid poll and add some secret sauce to tweek the results a bit with historical knowledge ,but most of the pollsters were just shaking beads and chanting incantations.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:dont censor by budgenator · 2016-11-10 10:23 · Score: 1

I never heard of a voting machine changing a vote for Trump to Clinton, but I heard of several instances of votes for Trump getting changed to Clinton. Theoretically just a few vote can make a big difference, but looking at the result it didn't seem like the errors made much difference in the real world.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re: dont censor by Rakarra · 2016-11-10 10:52 · Score: 1

Why does Facebook need to do anything? Why shouldn't people be able to share what they want? Why do we assume alternative sources of information are less accurate than large news monopolies?
Because the large news companies are usually BETTER at curating what is and is not accurate than your grandmother forwarding chain mail.
Re:dont censor by bickerdyke · 2016-11-10 11:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

And you're even leaving out the probably largest reason why polls divert from actual results. For the sake of the argument, assume all your assumptions and correction factors would be spot on and you could predict the outcome perfectly.
Now publish your prediction:
What happens? People who were bound to vote for the leading candidate stay at home because they think their candidate won't need their votes anymore, but people who want to support the second place candidate (by polls) are activated to actually vote.
Publishing a poll has a huge effect on election results.

--
bickerdyke
Re: dont censor by bestweasel · 2016-11-10 12:05 · Score: 1

The lies came from those Trump supporters being polled. Trump was so vilified by all the clever people that some of them were too ashamed to admit being supporters to those same clever people's pollsters. However when someone says, "I'm conducting a poll on behalf of Donald Trump ...", they were more likely to admit to it. I didn't think Clinton was safe when her lead dropped below 7%. See also Brexit.
Re:dont censor by ArcherB · 2016-11-10 15:23 · Score: 1

All the videos I saw looked to be the result of old and poorly calibrated touch screens. These things happen with older monitors.
Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

--
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Re:dont censor by RuffMasterD · 2016-11-10 15:32 · Score: 1

Margin of error != undecided. Not even close. 'Undecided' is a valid response, along with 'Republican', 'Democrat', 'other', and 'no vote'. Margin of error is an estimate of the range of possible values the true population mean could have relative to the sample mean. So when someone says the 95% confidence interval of a value is between x+y and x-y, that means they are 95% certain that the true population mean is within x +/- y of their estimate. Or if they ran the experiment 100 times, then they would expect to be reasonably close around 95 times, and fuck it up about 5 time. Scientists also use the confidence intervals to decide if the results are 'significantly' different or not. For example Clinton 47%, Trump 46%, margin of error 2%, means that the true values could be Clinton anywhere from 45% to 49%, and Trump anywhere from 44% to 48%, thus the confidence intervals overlap and the difference is not significant. True values could be 47% vs 46%, or 45% vs 47%, or 46% vs 46%...
I am sure most polls use statistically rigorous and valid methods. It's just really hard to get a truly representative sample. It's not feasible to poll the whole population, so you try to take a random sub-sample. Where do you even get a truly representative random sample of people? Many people don't answer the polls, but do vote. Some people answer the polls, but don't vote. Some people change their minds between polling and voting. Some people are simply not contactable (I don't have a phone for example). Some people lie to mess with the poll.
And when you add the electoral college system to a tight race, then all bets are off, because who most people vote for != who receives most votes!

--
Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
Re:dont censor by goose-incarnated · 2016-11-10 18:10 · Score: 1

We were seeing all the polls showing Clinton had a near certain victory. And we assumed trump was lying when he said that his polls are showing something different. Unfortunately that raises the question how good are the sources to figure out truthfulness.
Now Trump could had been lying about his sources, and gotten lucky. However the fact that he was saying that he was winning and the media is lying about that and actually won. Does bring up questions, on the fact checkers and truthfulness.
Clinton actually gained roughly the amount of votes that were expected. But what happened is the overwhelming majority of "undecided" voters voted for Trump. What we all forgot about, but should never forget about, is The Bradley Effect. People didn't want to admit to a pollster that they were voting for Trump. It's a key example of Social Desirability Bias where respondents answer questions in a manner which will be viewed favorably by those around them.
The blame for that lies squarely with the hardcore left - as we see regularly on /. itself, the hardcore left prefers to use shaming language in lieu of arguments. Stop using shaming language and perhaps people will listen to you. Keep calling Trump misogynist because women let him grope them, see how that turns out for you.

--
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Re:dont censor by silentcoder · 2016-11-10 23:14 · Score: 1

>Unfortunately this is true. The only way to know how the populace will vote is to hold the election. Various polls come with various levels of Truthiness, but there are a great number of reasons that they can't accurately predict results.
Frankly, if they really could, there would be no reason to actually hold an expensive election now would there ?

--
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Re:dont censor by amicusNYCL · 2016-11-11 05:29 · Score: 1

But to assume a priori that all those undecideds must be closet Trumpists - that would have been abandoning any attempt at science and just making up the results to suit a preconceived agenda.
Yeah, I know. I wasn't suggesting that. I was suggesting adjusting your margin of error to reflect the undecided count. If your margin of error is less than the undecided percentage then that's a problem. Maybe add another choice - "I don't want to tell you", that will also give you more insight.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:dont censor by amicusNYCL · 2016-11-11 05:41 · Score: 1

'Undecided' is a valid response, along with 'Republican', 'Democrat', 'other', and 'no vote'.
Yeah, it sure is a valid response. So what happens when I'm planning to vote Democrat, but I tell them I'm going to vote Republican instead? Haven't I introduced an error into their data? What if I've made up my mind already, but I tell them I'm undecided? That's an error in the data, right? But they don't take that kind of thing into consideration, and how can they? How can they quantify lies in a data set when they look exactly like the rest of the data? It doesn't matter, because as long as they say what the sample size is, and calculate a margin of error, then everything sounds scientific and all of the reporters on the radio and TV will tell people exactly what's going to happen, and it's all wrong. That's my point, they try to make this stuff look scientific and it is not scientific at all. Take into account how many people are lying to you and maybe people will start to listen to "pollsters" again, but the news services are not doing themselves any favors by relying on this crap. Polls don't mean anything, and we saw that over and over again during the primaries and election, but for some reason everyone was so surprised that Trump won.

For example Clinton 47%, Trump 46%, margin of error 2%, means that the true values could be Clinton anywhere from 45% to 49%, and Trump anywhere from 44% to 48%, thus the confidence intervals overlap and the difference is not significant.
Well, significant how? To a statistician, or a reporter, or a voter? A reporter is going to look at those numbers and say that Clinton is in the lead. Reality could mean that Trump is up by 3 points. That's exactly the opposite of what the reporter said. I would say that's significant.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:dont censor by Rakarra · 2016-11-11 10:05 · Score: 1

The blame for that lies squarely with the hardcore left - as we see regularly on /. itself, the hardcore left prefers to use shaming language in lieu of arguments. Stop using shaming language and perhaps people will listen to you. Keep calling Trump misogynist because women let him grope them, see how that turns out for you.
What? Is this a variant on the old "she was just asking for it" defense?
Did you speak with them? Unless you have information that goes against their statements that these were uninvited and unwanted advances, I'll go with their public statements.

Don't use Facebook by lgw · 2016-11-10 06:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

I have a simple and 100% effective strategy for avoiding fake news on Facebook. I think it's a fairly common strategy for Slashdotters.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.

Re:Don't use Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-10 06:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Agree.
Also it wouldn't hurt to have much greater emphasis on critical thinking skills in public education. That's hard to do though, because some people really hate it and seem to have a deficiency there, and many parents hate it when their kids start asking really trenchant questions about their religious beliefs.
Re:Don't use Facebook by NatasRevol · 2016-11-10 06:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, until Facebook goes back to less than 1 billion monthly users, your idea sucks for not impacting American politics.

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:Don't use Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-10 07:13 · Score: 1

trump was the perfect candidate for the facebook masses (well, and 4chan, and reddit, and etc etc). so instead of GOOD candidates, i think we'll see more "viral" candidates, not fewer.
Re:Don't use Facebook by lgw · 2016-11-10 07:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

Well, until Facebook goes back to less than 1 billion monthly users, your idea sucks for not impacting American politics.
It's not just Facebook.
US elections were very different before TV. When voter made a decision based on mostly written information and the candidates actual policy positions, plus maybe seeing a candidate once address a crowd, elections weren't about sound bites and hot takes. But the Nixon-Kennedy debate marked the beginning of a new era.
This way the same sort of "state change in voting", 56 years later. Trump was a master at getting free press in a world of 24-hour news coverage and social media and one-liners and tweets. Even less information being looked at than the TV era. Trump demonstrated that "any press is good press" as he rode the wave of "talking heads just can't stop talking about how bad he is" to victory. That's the new era - 140-character attention spans.
The content hasn't mattered much for 56 years, and matters less now. People aren't persuaded by "fake news", they've already decided based on the world around them, and grab any quote that looks good to defend that position. Clearly the media had very little actual influence this election. I doubt social media did either - people decide first, based on the real world ("it's the economy, stupid"), then talk about it on social media.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Don't use Facebook by lgw · 2016-11-10 08:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

Populism never leads to responsible government or prosperity.
It's never pretty when the demos seizes the kratos. But it's worth remembering that democracy is primarily a circuit breaker. When the government ignores the concerns of the people too long, something ugly will certainly happen. I'll take Trump over Madam Guillotine any day.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Don't use Facebook by Sir_Eptishous · 2016-11-10 08:22 · Score: 2

You beat me to it.
FB is a wasteland of contrived "keeping up with the joneses", people trying to make their lives look larger-than-life, weirdo political rants, cat pictures, endless posts about nothing or anything, and most importantly, almost nothing of any substantive value.
Actually, no, the worst part about FB is the time wasted scrolling through it...

--
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Re:Don't use Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-10 08:39 · Score: 1

Before I choose between replying with 'mod parent up' or insinuating half of your parentage is registered by the Kennel Club, I need to know if this mockery of America is something done by my team or the hitler team.
Re:Don't use Facebook by gnick · 2016-11-10 08:57 · Score: 2

I think it's a fairly common strategy for Slashdotters.
I doubt that's true. My guess is that the abstainers are just a very vocal minority. Like how people without TV love periodically announcing that they don't have TV and those of us that haven't cut the cable just keep our yaps shut.

--
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Re:Don't use Facebook by Mashiki · 2016-11-10 09:13 · Score: 2

trump was the perfect candidate for the facebook masses
You know, it wasn't Trump or the media supporting Trump that turned around and said shit like "Looking at wikileaks is illegal." That was CNN, there was also similar views being pushed in a very vague way NBC, ABC, and CBS. Those networks were all supporting Clinton, so were newspapers like WAPO, USA Today, Boston Globe, NY Times. All with a variety of messages like "well those leaks are because RUSSIA" now believe what we're telling you! Oddly it was organizations facebook and twitter as well, that was removing or blocking content and/or stopping trending data that hurt the DNC.
Strange how that all seemed to work in Hillary's favor right?

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:Don't use Facebook by DerekLyons · 2016-11-10 10:44 · Score: 1

FB is a wasteland of contrived "keeping up with the joneses", people trying to make their lives look larger-than-life, weirdo political rants, cat pictures, endless posts about nothing or anything, and most importantly, almost nothing of any substantive value.
That's not caused by Facebook - that's caused by you having shit taste in friends. My feed is almost exactly the opposite. (Well, modulo the cat pictures but I have a lot of cat people among my friends.)
Re:Don't use Facebook by Rakarra · 2016-11-10 10:55 · Score: 1

TV and Twitter have taken over not by force, by by virtue of giving people the soundbites and one-liners that they want.
They give ENTERTAINMENT. Or infotainment if you want to call it that. It's not informative. It's not thoughtful. It's salacious. It's shocking. It's also all about taking one sentence outside of the context that it was given in.
Re:Don't use Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-10 12:35 · Score: 1

"many parents hate it when their kids start asking really trenchant questions about their religious beliefs."
no we don't, I expect my kids to ask questions so that they can learn and I also suggest to my kids to do research as well. Let me guess you are not a parent because if you were you would know that kids ask questions constantly.
-geekpoet
Re: Don't use Facebook by bestweasel · 2016-11-10 12:46 · Score: 1

If you believe this unreliable, unscientific, self-selecting poll from July, half of us don't use Facebook.
Re:Don't use Facebook by Rakarra · 2016-11-10 13:15 · Score: 1

You are correct, it's giving people what they want, not what they need.
Re:Don't use Facebook by XxtraLarGe · 2016-11-11 01:57 · Score: 1

Also it wouldn't hurt to have much greater emphasis on critical thinking skills in public education.
"Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason why so few engage in it." - Henry Ford

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Re:Don't use Facebook by michael_wojcik · 2016-11-11 06:00 · Score: 1

US elections were very different before TV. When voter made a decision based on mostly written information and the candidates actual policy positions
Care to provide any evidence that this is something more than a prelapsarian fantasy?
Anyone with a passing familiarity with the history of US Presidential elections knows that, after the first two (where no one really dared challenge the Washington hagiography), they've generally been pretty vile. It's conceivable that back in some Golden Age before Great Devil Television corrupted us, a majority of voters decided things based on "candidates [sic] actual policy positions", since it's difficult to prove otherwise, but it seems highly implausible. Certainly people at the time didn't seem to think that was the case, given the vast amount of invective and innuendo they spread.
(If you're not familiar with the history, Kevin Underhill has an entertaining summary.)
New media certainly make it easier and faster to spread misrepresentations and illogical arguments, but I've seen no credible historical arguments that anything beyond that has changed.
Re:Don't use Facebook by wdnspoon · 2016-11-11 07:56 · Score: 1

No doubt, so I think the focus needs to be around the electoral system that rewards populism as a viable strategy. There were more than two options available this election than Clinton or Trump: you could vote for a third party, or you could stay home. This is the worst thing about first past the post voting, which rewards strategies like Trump's. He can win with only a quarter of voter support, by fostering apathy so those who don't want Trump to win, but don't feel strongly pro-Clinton, won't be motivated to stand in line and vote. We saw this happen on a smaller scale with Ford in Toronto. 30% of the voters supported him, and 70% would absolutely never in their lives cast a vote his way. He could still compete, since populists can rally a broad base, while the remaining 70% could fracture in to groups where no one is > 30%, as they debate policy and ideas. It's awful that there's a voting system in place where reasonable discourse and dissent are actually losing strategies.
Re: Don't use Facebook by bestweasel · 2016-11-11 15:53 · Score: 1

49% do use Facebook. The only minority in that poll was the 3% other.
Re:Don't use Facebook by ayesnymous · 2016-11-12 07:13 · Score: 1

Except that I subscribe to the Slashdot Facebook page. So all these slashdot posts are fake?

WE FAILED!! by CajunArson · 2016-11-10 06:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

Commit Sepuku in your hoodie Zuckerberg.

The platform that you built to limit the flow of information to the population and as a way to make advertising revenue for yourself and Hillary backfired on you.

Incidentally, Trump's expenditures per vote were about half of Hillary's.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/09...

That's a story that Slashdot doesn't want to cover since they still want to paint this as Trump "buying" the election.

--
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.

Re:WE FAILED!! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-10 07:11 · Score: 1

>That's a story that Slashdot doesn't want to cover since they still want to paint this as Trump "buying" the election.
Citation needed.
Who said Trump bought the election? Seriously, that's some heavy persecution complex there if you think Slashdot is pushing the agenda.
Re:WE FAILED!! by bfpierce · 2016-11-10 08:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

Wait, there's stories on slashdot saying Trump 'bought' the election? Did I miss something, or did you just post false tin foil hat bullshit in an article about false fucking news stories.
Re:WE FAILED!! by sinij · 2016-11-10 08:43 · Score: 4, Funny

This just in: "Trump bought the election".

Here, now there is.
Re:WE FAILED!! by jbmartin6 · 2016-11-10 09:46 · Score: 1

+1 Funny

--
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Re:WE FAILED!! by DavidMZ · 2016-11-10 10:23 · Score: 1

Incidentally, Trump's expenditures per vote were about half of Hillary's. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/09...
That's a story that Slashdot doesn't want to cover since they still want to paint this as Trump "buying" the election.
Trump didn't have to spend as much: he got free media coverage.
If you want your story to make the frontpage of /., you are welcome to submit it. There are enough Republicans here to promote it if they find it newsworthy for the /.ers. And if it doesn't make it to the front page, you don't have to turn it into a conspiracy theory, there is a much simpler explanation: sometimes /. is still "News for nerds".
Re:WE FAILED!! by Orgasmatron · 2016-11-10 11:50 · Score: 1

They can't, for two reasons. The first is that their message is utter garbage to the core, and has been ever since Marx wrote it. This was recognized instantly by, among others, Bastiat, who wrote an excellent rebuttal which shouldn't take anyone more than an hour or so to read. The translation from economic terms to cultural terms by the Frankfurt School didn't make it any better.
The second is that they don't possess the equipment necessary for thinking.
And no, I don't mean brains. I mean introspection, self awareness, curiosity, etc. Well, maybe I do mean brains too, a little bit. The people "protesting" the election results, to pick one example, probably aren't ditching their local Mensa meetings to be there.

--
See that "Preview" button?
Re:WE FAILED!! by Orgasmatron · 2016-11-10 11:53 · Score: 1

Two days of nonstop "Trump is evil and he's going to kill us all" stories makes me think that maybe it is going to take /. a while to settle down.

--
See that "Preview" button?
Re:WE FAILED!! by Tailhook · 2016-11-10 12:04 · Score: 1

That tells me that Democrats are having a much harder time selling their message than Republicans. Maybe they need to re-think their message?
There are more interesting depths to plumb here as well. Trump won spending only $285 million. If that wasn't reality it would be pure crazy talk. That's a 1995 presidential campaign budget.
Hillary spent $609 million. The bulk of that was large donors; banks, IT companies and other corporate interests. Hillary took full advantage of the state of campaign finance post Citizen's United.
It is the best example in a long list of good examples that our recently obviated campaign finance laws are pointless. When you're dealing with pairs of establishment candidates campaign financing might be significant around the margins, but who really cares? All your going to get is more establishment regardless of the outcome. When you're dealing with an outsider, however, and that outsider has any appeal at all, they can overcome very large finance deficits just fine.

--
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Re:WE FAILED!! by pnutjam · 2016-11-11 02:40 · Score: 1

Democrats aren't Marxists, but thanks for playing. Last year I would have said Republicans aren't Fascists.

--
Cheap storage VM.

It's not just Facebook by zifnabxar · 2016-11-10 06:51 · Score: 2

This is a problem with any social media or news aggregation site that allows for unchecked echo chambers. It's an issue for people of all politics and will crop up anywhere someone can consume media and news unchecked. "Fixing" this on Facebook will only push it elsewhere. Can we fix human nature? Should we?

Re:It's not just Facebook by MightyMartian · 2016-11-10 07:20 · Score: 3, Informative

I've seen news outlets do that my entire life. You'll always see the front page story "Local soccer coach accused of child molestation!", but the story six months later that all charges were dropped is buried somewhere on page four below a story about how a Suffolk County family's cat had nine conjoined kittens.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:It's not just Facebook by Hognoxious · 2016-11-10 07:34 · Score: 3, Funny

6 across (5,7) - Not a kiddly diddler.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

The problem is not Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-10 06:53 · Score: 1

The problem is that there are lots of stupid people.

The problem is that a stupid person's vote is worth as much as a smart person's vote.

Unlike money, a "democratic" vote has very little correlation with competence.

Re:The problem is not Facebook by nospam007 · 2016-11-10 07:22 · Score: 3, Funny

"The problem is that there are lots of stupid people."
And they are all on Facebook, go figure.

Great idea! by Orgasmatron · 2016-11-10 06:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

Congratulations to Facebook for stepping up against the spreaders of fake news and kicking CNN, (MS)NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, BBC and Fox off their platform! Oh, and all of the polling organizations that got everything 100% wrong for the last 18 months. Very happy to see them go too.

Enjoy your CSPAN and Breitbart News, facebook users.

--
See that "Preview" button?

Re:Great idea! by BradMajors · 2016-11-11 04:40 · Score: 1

Breitbart is the number one source of news on Facebook.
THAT is the issue the Facebook is talking about.
Re:Great idea! by michael_wojcik · 2016-11-11 06:21 · Score: 1

all of the polling organizations that got everything 100% wrong for the last 18 months
The polls weren't far off, generally speaking. There are any number of actual analyses of the recent polls that demonstrate this. The US Presidential election system - with most states being winner-take-all and the Electoral College - amplifies small differences. That's exactly what happened here. The good polls were close to the actual outcome, even if many fell on the wrong side of the line.
The problem is people who think "ahead within the margin of error" means "definitely gonna win".
And, of course, we'd love a polling organization that was always completely wrong, since you could simply invert their results. A maximally bad poll would be statistically random.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by NatasRevol · 2016-11-10 06:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

Are you aware that saying 'why' something happened isn't the same as blaming someone else for that 'why'?

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure

Bro Zuck by fubarrr · 2016-11-10 07:00 · Score: 1

Mark, you can't beat Russian clickfarmers. Russian clickfarms are undefeatable!

You can't fix stupid by zifn4b · 2016-11-10 07:00 · Score: 1

The old saying "don't believe everything you hear/read/see" hasn't changed even in today's age of social media. If you don't fact check or correlate your sources and go around regurgitating everything you hear/read/see, you will get a collective consciousness not even remotely based in reality. This is a PEBKAC error not a Facebook problem.

--
We'll make great pets

Let me tell you why this is a non-issue by chispito · 2016-11-10 07:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

If Facebook were to censor these stories, people who fall for them would assume Facebook was controlled by the "liberal media" and go elsewhere for their news. It would not keep the stories from spreading virally.

Also, I like the implication that Trump won due to FUD but the Democratic FUD is of no concern--like the incredibly stupid story posted right here about Trump's server secretly communicating with a Russian bank.

It was so obviously a non-story... but read through the comments here and you'll see how eager people were to lap it up. (I linked Snopes as it contains a variety of credible sources debunking the article).

--
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!

Re:Let me tell you why this is a non-issue by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-10 07:05 · Score: 1

It isn't so black and white. I'm glad you linked snopes because that shows exactly the right approach.
Guess what, genius. Facebook does exactly that now! It is a great move, but it is not obvious enough. The snopes link shows up in the "You may also like" section which most people have tuned out completely. Fact checking like that should be more prominently displayed.
No censorship needed.
Re:Let me tell you why this is a non-issue by ScentCone · 2016-11-10 07:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Also, I like the implication that Trump won due to FUD but the Democratic FUD is of no concern
Yes. My own FB feed is curated a bit by my un-follows and follows, and no doubt skews a bit towards the conservative/libertarian bent - though I am FB friends with at least as many dyed-in-the-wool liberals who post to FB (or memegurgitate) about as often as they breathe. So while I saw no small number of silly re-posts and likes/shares of breathless fake/shallow news meant to draw in clicks from conservative types, I saw FAR more FUD-ish content from liberals trying to actually shame/change minds through the use of preposterously overblown fear mongering and outright lies.

So, yes: fake news on FB is a problem, or at least a significant annoyance. But the notion that somehow this is limited to stuff from and aimed at right-leaning people in some proportion that, compared to its lefty counterparts, cost Hillary Clinton the election... I call bullshit. The biggest purveyors and apparent consumers of that crap that I saw were outspoken Clinton supporters. So even if I'm wrong by a lot and the amount of it was roughly equal, that DOES NOT explain away the DNC/Clinton-Machine's huge loss. This is just another example of liberals - especially in the media - refusing to look in the mirror and understand that they're not nearly as clever and persuasive as they think they are, and that a whole lot of other people were just sick to death of the condescension, the holier-than-thou presumption of a Clinton coronation, and the deploying of finger-wagging celebrities telling people how to think.

And for those who are mystified that yelling at their non-racist, non-homophic, non-misogynistic friends about how racist, homophobic, and misogynistic they are didn't somehow make them vote for Hillary or feel apologetic following the election: maybe it's time to rethink what you were sure would get people to see things your way.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Let me tell you why this is a non-issue by meta-monkey · 2016-11-10 07:50 · Score: 4, Funny

And for those who are mystified that yelling at their non-racist, non-homophic, non-misogynistic friends about how racist, homophobic, and misogynistic they are didn't somehow make them vote for Hillary or feel apologetic following the election: maybe it's time to rethink what you were sure would get people to see things your way.
I so close to voting for Hillary. If only someone had called Trump Hitler just two or three hundred more times I would have been right there.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re: Let me tell you why this is a non-issue by chispito · 2016-11-10 08:19 · Score: 1

At the last check I made, Hillary Clinton was leading Donald Trump by roughly a quarter million votes.
And it looks like less than 30 electoral votes. Is calling it a huge loss really accurate?
Yes. Hillary Clinton losing the Presidency to Donald Trump and all his craziness is a "huge loss" for the Democrats, even if she had 0.2% more of the popular vote.

The only reason this doesn't seem cataclysmic to you is that you've already become acclimated. Put yourself in your shoes from 2, 4--heck, even 10 years ago, and you'd agree.

--
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Re:Let me tell you why this is a non-issue by sinij · 2016-11-10 08:31 · Score: 1

As a fellow libertarian-leaning individual, you are doing intellectual disservice to yourself by intentionally creating echo chamber of like-minded people. Thing is, we are not likely to object to mutual agreed views. So there isn't true marketplace for ideas when you central-plan demand.

100% of Sinijs agreed with the above post as the only valid opinion on this subject.
Re:Let me tell you why this is a non-issue by sinij · 2016-11-10 08:34 · Score: 1

I so close to voting for Hillary. If only someone had called Trump Hitler just two or three hundred more times I would have been right there.
To turn this on you, clearly electoral system isn't rigged. That is, if Clinton could rig the elections, do you have any doubt that she would? So if we were demonstrably wrong with this, what else you are not getting?
Re:Let me tell you why this is a non-issue by ZenShadow · 2016-11-10 08:40 · Score: 1

Who fact-checks the fact-checkers?

--
-- sigs cause cancer.
Re:Let me tell you why this is a non-issue by meta-monkey · 2016-11-10 08:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

The system is rigged. We read the DNC leaks. They rigged the primary against Bernie, the debates are rigged, the news coverage is propaganda, this article is about how clearly the problem is they haven't rigged social media enough for the establishment. Oh and the congressional districts are gerrymandered by the Republicans. This is also a form of rigging.
If you're just talking about voting machines and such, there's analysis going into that right now, so we'll see. There are certain precincts of PA and Ohio where it looks like they were flipping votes, but they didn't do it enough to effect the outcome. Nobody cares much about this kind of stuff after your team wins though.
I would also not be shocked if some of the more blatantly fraudulent plans were stopped because of the spotlight O'Keefe and Trump shined on it. Foval and Creamer were smoked out and knew they were being watched, so that took out their men on the ground who would have actually been doing the dirty work.
Beating the rigged system doesn't mean the system isn't rigged.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:Let me tell you why this is a non-issue by chispito · 2016-11-10 09:25 · Score: 2

If you voted for Trump, no matter what the reason, no matter what you believe, you have condoned racism, bigotry, misogyny, and homophobia making you no better then those people.
I think you may have been trolled by the next President. The media sure were.

--
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Re:Let me tell you why this is a non-issue by jbmartin6 · 2016-11-10 09:53 · Score: 1

It's a very human tendency very much on display during this US election. Their candidate is a monster whose every eyebrow twitch displays a lack of ethics or even basic humanity. My candidate gets a free pass for even the most outrageous behavior.

--
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Re:Let me tell you why this is a non-issue by ScentCone · 2016-11-10 10:43 · Score: 2

he ran on racism, bigotry, misogyny, and homophobia. That is what you voted for. That is what you support. That is what you are.
And your swallowing of that liberal meme, hook line and sinker, and believing it to be true, is exactly why the Democrats lost the White House and failed to get either house of congress. Because telling people who didn't want to see the Clinton family once again having the sort of power and influence selling access they so desperately craved that they're racists for thinking so, when you know that's not true, shows you to be EXACTLY the sort of lying, hypocritical, disingenuous phony that millions of people saw right through this time around, and were sick enough of to repudiate.

If you really cared about misogyny, why weren't you railing about Hillary Clinton's career-long defense of her sexual predator of a husband and her own actual hiring of people to go out and smear his rape victims' reputations? If you really cared about homophobia, why weren't you noting the fact that Trump was happily applauding gay marriage a decade ago while Hillary Clinton was still insisting that the government should prevent it? I know ... because you're a flaming hypocrite, that's why. You're probably also one of those people who's pretending to be too dim to understand that "illegal" isn't a race.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Let me tell you why this is a non-issue by bickerdyke · 2016-11-10 10:55 · Score: 1

You.
If so called fact checkers don't give links to reliable sources, they're not worth being called fact-checkers.

--
bickerdyke
Re:Let me tell you why this is a non-issue by Solandri · 2016-11-10 11:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

Oh and the congressional districts are gerrymandered by the Republicans. This is also a form of rigging.
I used to care about this back in the 1980s. Only back then it was the Democrats who gerrymandered the districts in their favor to control the House for 40 years. I admit a slight political bias (I tend to vote conservative). But it was mostly the principle of the thing - gerrymandering is bad regardless of your political beliefs since it manipulates that essential link between voter and representative.

In the 1990 election in California, a fix for this came up as a ballot initiative. It simply required a 2/3 majority vote of the legislature for redrawn districts to be approved, thus preventing a 50%+1 majority from leveraging their slim advantage into a bigger one in future elections. I helped spread the word about it, the problem it tried to solve, why it was good for everyone. I was delighted that once I explained the problem and how this fixed it, even diehard liberals grudgingly agreed it was the right thing to do and said they would vote for it. Early polls showed it passing.

That's when two groups I had up til then respected (if not always agreed with) stepped in. A bunch of environmental groups led by the Sierra Club and the National Organization for Women realized Prop 118, regardless of how fair it was, would reduce the number of legislators sympathetic to their cause in both the State and Federal government. They flooded TV and radio with ads telling people it was bad and to vote against it, without even explaining what it was or how it was bad. It ended up losing by a 2:1 margin.

The Republicans took the time to figure out how to undo the Democrat gerrymandering. First they worked on winning the governorships so they could veto the gerrymandered redistricting. That usually kicked the matter into the courts, who usually took it upon themselves to redraw the districts (since the had to be redrawn to reflect population shifts, and the legislature/governor were deadlocked). Which allowed more Republicans (or rather, the correct number of Republicans) to win office as state legislators. Which gave them more control over future redistricting. Which combined with the governorship allowed them to eventually gerrymander things in their favor.

I suppose I should still be concerned about this on principle. But the whole thing scarred my young, optimistic self and my belief that people are inherently good and fair, and will make the right decision if they're properly informed. I tried to help fix gerrymandering for all people, only to see my hard work shot down by unrpincipled groups who were only interested in their own benefit regardless of how unfair it was. Screw them. The shoe's on the other foot now. They made their bed. They can lie in it. If another ballot initiative comes up which makes gerrymandering harder, yeah I'll vote for it. But I'm not going to put additional effort into helping people out of a gerrymandered hole they put themselves into.
Re:Let me tell you why this is a non-issue by Orgasmatron · 2016-11-10 12:00 · Score: 1

But, but, muh vast right wing conspiracy!

--
See that "Preview" button?
Re:Let me tell you why this is a non-issue by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-10 14:37 · Score: 1

I used to care about this back in the 1980s. Only back then it was the Democrats who gerrymandered the districts in their favor to control the House for 40 years. I admit a slight political bias (I tend to vote conservative). But it was mostly the principle of the thing - gerrymandering is bad regardless of your political beliefs since it manipulates that essential link between voter and representative.
Oddly, and you may be surprised by this, the most gerrymandering was by the conservatives. Especially in the South. There was a reason why Baker v. Carr and Reyonds v. Sims involved Southern states. Don't be confused that it was Democrats, it was Conservative Democrats, who had little, if anything, in common with the party as you probably have known it.

In the 1990 election in California, a fix for this came up as a ballot initiative. It simply required a 2/3 majority vote of the legislature for redrawn districts to be approved, thus preventing a 50%+1 majority from leveraging their slim advantage into a bigger one in future elections. I helped spread the word about it, the problem it tried to solve, why it was good for everyone. I was delighted that once I explained the problem and how this fixed it, even diehard liberals grudgingly agreed it was the right thing to do and said they would vote for it. Early polls showed it passing.
That is a bloody complicated Christmas Tree of an Amendment. I'd ban it for not focusing on a narrow subject, but being way too complicated. I'll get more into the real problem later, but I just wanted to say that.

That's when two groups I had up til then respected (if not always agreed with) stepped in. A bunch of environmental groups led by the Sierra Club and the National Organization for Women realized Prop 118, regardless of how fair it was, would reduce the number of legislators sympathetic to their cause in both the State and Federal government. They flooded TV and radio with ads telling people it was bad and to vote against it, without even explaining what it was or how it was bad. It ended up losing by a 2:1 margin.
The Republicans took the time to figure out how to undo the Democrat gerrymandering. First they worked on winning the governorships so they could veto the gerrymandered redistricting. That usually kicked the matter into the courts, who usually took it upon themselves to redraw the districts (since the had to be redrawn to reflect population shifts, and the legislature/governor were deadlocked). Which allowed more Republicans (or rather, the correct number of Republicans) to win office as state legislators. Which gave them more control over future redistricting. Which combined with the governorship allowed them to eventually gerrymander things in their favor.
Uh no. You may be thinking of Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims, but that wasn't quite involving the governorships. No, it was rather simple, what gave Republicans the edge was the Southern Strategy. They took advantage of the Democrats repudiating the conservative racists of the South by embracing said racists. Don't bother denying it. Don't bother bringing up Robert Byrd. I've heard it all before. Your arguments will do not prevail, spawn of Udun, Go back to the Shadow.

I suppose I should still be concerned about this on principle. But the whole thing scarred my young, optimistic self and my belief that people are inherently good and fair, and will make
Re:Let me tell you why this is a non-issue by pnutjam · 2016-11-11 02:45 · Score: 1

Winner winner, chicken dinner.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:Let me tell you why this is a non-issue by pnutjam · 2016-11-11 03:31 · Score: 1

So, we have friend and foe, but Slashdot really needs a "racist" and "racist apologist" button. Maybe "misogynist" as well.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:Let me tell you why this is a non-issue by Solandri · 2016-11-11 04:38 · Score: 1

Since this was up-voted, I guess I should at least inform my Democratic colleagues who are interested in fixing gerrymandering. Redistricting happens after each census, and the census happens once a decade in years ending in 0. (This is also when reapportionment happens - changes in number of House members each state gets). So the next census will be in 2020, and the first election with new districts would be 2022. If you've got an idea, a ballot initiative, whatever for fixing gerrymandering, the time to work on it is between now and 2019. You want it to be on the 2020 election ballot at latest so people can vote for it, and if it's approved the changes would go into effect before the districts are redrawn for the 2022 election.

This needs to be done on the State level. The Constitution outlines how many House members each state should get, but leaves the details up to the states. As a state matter, by default it ends up being decided by the state legislature (majority vote) and signed by the governor. Unfortunately that's the fox designing the henhouse, which is where the entire problem of gerrymandering comes from. The most popular way to fix it seems to be the people passing a ballot initiative which takes the job away from the legislators and assigns it to a redistricting commission. So if your state doesn't have one of those yet, get to work now. Find like-minded people, research these commissions in other states, draft text of a ballot measure. Then work on collecting signatures (yes you'll be one of those people standing outside the supermarket asking people to support your cause) to qualify it on the ballot for the 2018 or 2020 election. (If you've never done a ballot initiative before, typically you need about twice the number of signatures your state requires because a lot of them are going to be thrown out as fake or duplicate.) Then work your butt off getting the message out and informing the public what your ballot initiative is about, what the problem is, and how this fixes it, so they'll vote for it during the election.

"the company said:" by turkeydance · 2016-11-10 07:04 · Score: 1

we don't have to care, we're Facebook said company liason, Ernestine

Troll Wars by Tablizer · 2016-11-10 07:04 · Score: 1

Why did the GOP (allegedly) out-propaganda the Democrats?

It's not realistic to police that much material before a heated election, being it's a periodic event. You don't want excess staff sitting between elections. That's not economical for Facebook et al.

There were probably more "intense" Trump supporters than intense H supports, and that's why the Trump trolls won. H did not "inspire" the way Trump did. Her supporters were more anti-Trump than pro-H and thus were not motivated to troll hard.

The conventional political wisdom is to run a bland centrist to capture the undecided vote. However, a bland centrist does not inspire, and therefore produces less trolls to flood The Webtubes with propaganda.

Once again, the Internet changes the rules.

(I'm not saying the propaganda was necessarily placed or coordinated by high-level officials, it's probably mostly amateurs, i.e. trolls.)

--
Table-ized A.I.

Re:Troll Wars by Tablizer · 2016-11-10 07:54 · Score: 1

it would be unconscionable to pretend like the anti-Hillary meme's weren't on point
When I looked into the details behind such given by online participants, most were false or spun half-truths. They used clever wording to mislead the reader, the kind of tricks slimy marketers use. Many could be traced back to far-right-leaning propaganda sites. The trolls just redecorated them to disguise them from plagiarism or repetition-prevention bots.
But let's not get into a political fact war. Both sides make and spread propaganda. T's supporters just did it more and better this time.
(Also, GOP got lucky and wasn't hacked.)

Bernie was the one to win, and everyone who isn't a gullible goldfish-like chimpling knew it.
In hindsight, yes. Similar to my prior point, traditionally a non-centrist has slimmer odds in a general election, but the rules have changed. Now we know. Live and learn.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Troll Wars by quantaman · 2016-11-10 08:05 · Score: 1

Why did the GOP (allegedly) out-propaganda the Democrats?
It's not realistic to police that much material before a heated election, being it's a periodic event. You don't want excess staff sitting between elections. That's not economical for Facebook et al.
There were probably more "intense" Trump supporters than intense H supports, and that's why the Trump trolls won. H did not "inspire" the way Trump did. Her supporters were more anti-Trump than pro-H and thus were not motivated to troll hard.
My feed contained many more intense Hillary supporters than Trump supporters, but the volume of fake news from the pro-Trumpers dwarfed that from the pro-Hillary camp.
I don't think the difference is intensity, it's integrity, and it's starts at the top. The GOP has spent the last 8 years disavowing a health care plan they came up with. Their movement has been consumed by hair-brained conspiracy theories about birthers and UN proposition 21 and all sorts of nonsense, and the leaders either let them spread unchallenged or actively endorse them. FOX News is practically a punch line for how its pundits misrepresent facts and contradict themselves.
When opinion leaders signal that it's appropriate to lie and play dirty the followers listen, that's what is poisoning the right. Both sides have their crazies, the big difference is that when leaders on the left encounter their crazies they stand up and correct them, you could see this with Sanders working to keep his supporters in line. The right has gotten in the habit of enabling and encouraging the fringe, and that's what led them to the free-for-all lie-fest that gave the world Trump.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Troll Wars by Tablizer · 2016-11-10 08:22 · Score: 1

Perhaps those in power have a longer record to complain about and spin up. It's hard to complain about somebody who sat on their ass, other than the fact they sat on their ass.
If you do 1000 things, roughly 50 of them will be outright legitimate poor judgement because humans make mistakes, and roughly 300 more will be "spin-able" using half-truths to make them seem like legitimate news of ill-doings to those who don't bother digging deeper.
I do agree the Clintons brought some of this on themselves by riding too close to the edge of legality. In the world of Big-Eye politics, you have to go out of your way to avoid even looking bad, because small transgressions will be hyped up by the other side.
For example, various high-ranking people have come to the Clintons after donating to their foundation and saying things like, "I gave X dollars to your foundation. I'd like to see progress on issue Y. Can you help?"
A typical Clinton response was, "Sure, we'll see what we can do."
That's just politeness 101. You don't blow people off. "I'll see what I can do" is non-committal, yet shows you are not ignoring them.
But under Big-Eye politics, they probably should have said, "As policy we can't change our position or focus based on donations." It's a little rough on the donor, who just spent their money on charity, but necessary to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. The Clintons were in a tricky spot, but who said politics was easy.
(I "quoted" too many words in my prior "statements". Sorry about "that".)

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Troll Wars by budgenator · 2016-11-10 11:29 · Score: 1

I still have trouble with the notion that the DNC was actually hacked, my gut still says it was an insider pissed off about Bernie getting screwed over. That stuff is much more likely an insider than an outsider.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

It's needed, but how to do fairly by Timmy+D+Programmer · 2016-11-10 07:09 · Score: 1

Can it be done fairly and with so much transparency that folks wouldn't confuse it with censorship? It's worth trying.

--

(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)

Re:It's needed, but how to do fairly by sinij · 2016-11-10 08:21 · Score: 1

Can it be done fairly and with so much transparency that folks wouldn't confuse it with censorship? It's worth trying.
Strongly disagree. Such system has to fail open, instead due to intrinsic properties it will fail closed, resulting in censorship.
To put it other way, FB hiring a bunch of "fact checkers" in SV will result in censorship.

Lies during an election ! Tell me it's not so ! by paulxnuke · 2016-11-10 07:10 · Score: 1

I'm sure Facebook contributed to the spread of phony news, but it's not like everyone else (i.e., ABC, NBC, etc) wasn't doing it too. Facebook wasn't as blatantly biased as the regular media, either (whether I agree with him or not, the anti-Trump media blitz shamed everyone involved, and they well deserved what they got.)

Re:Lies during an election ! Tell me it's not so ! by PPH · 2016-11-10 07:35 · Score: 1

But Facebook isn't part of the good-old-boys press club. Yet. It doesn't depend on some quid-pro-quo for future access to the Washington talking heads or an invite to the press club. It's just a pipeline that anybody can use to bypass the MSM editorial policies and get their (or third party) content out into the public.
It's up to the readers to apply some bullshit tests to what they find there.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

They want a thicker filter bubble next time. by Xenographic · 2016-11-10 07:18 · Score: 4, Informative

The real question is who controls that truth meter and who they work with. [1]

Are they going to ban lies like this one from CNN? And yes, it is a clear lie.

Anyhow, it's clear they haven't learned anything whatsoever from this election, so you have 8 years of Trump to look forward to unless they figure it out.

[1] Refer to this old comment if you don't like reading raw HTML and for more context. It's an email thread of the DNC collaborating with Politifact.

Re:They want a thicker filter bubble next time. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-10 09:13 · Score: 1, Insightful

More Trump lies being spread even here on Slashdot. Go away, TrumpTroll.
Yes probably. Yet you didn't bother to provide a counter narrative. Or even a single link. Why do you think he's more effective at spreading his message than you are?
Re:They want a thicker filter bubble next time. by Humbubba · 2016-11-10 10:25 · Score: 2

Ugh boy. Here goes: Reinforcing the belief in fake or real stories is what makes social media social, and often fake stories reinforce social bonds more so than real stories do. Something doesn't have to be "True" to have "truthiness." Social acceptance of stories as true or false demonstrate the validity mechanisms that are part of reciprocal social reinforcement. Here, meaning is embedded into abstract and coded stories, slogans and gossip, which aligns one to and bestows identity with the group.
Re:They want a thicker filter bubble next time. by Xenographic · 2016-11-10 20:33 · Score: 1

True enough, but you can have dispute even over items of mathematical truth. How many people still refuse to accept that 0.9999999... [repeated endlessly] = 1? Even if you show people that 1/9 = 0.1111111 [repeating] and multiply both sides by 9, they think there's a trick or a "last" 9 or something. I mean, I had a long argument over DKIM authorization and that's something where anyone can look up what the headers mean by spending mere seconds looking it up and where the truth or falsehood of the statement is literally mathematical.
It takes effort to analyze things. Not everyone has the time or energy to bother so they use their priors to know who to trust and nobody has any guarantee that those are right, the best we can hope is that people update sensibly when given information and they recognize when they're being manipulated.
Re:They want a thicker filter bubble next time. by Humbubba · 2016-11-11 03:14 · Score: 1

I enjoyed your DKIM authorization argument. Thanks for annotating your point and keeping it simple.
I wish I could claim the idea that Facebook has become part of the social construction of reality, but even South Park beat me there ("You Have 0 Friends", Episode 199; Season 14, Episode 4).
And yes, math has it's problems; personal, social and other. I've watched "Dangerous Knowledge" about Geog Cantor, Ludwig Boltzmann, Godel and Alan Turning. I think it's on Youtube, if you're interested.
People do make off the cuff decisions based on a web of belief. When beliefs gets purposely manipulated, that's a problem. In response to President Obama and others accusing Facebook of tilting the election, Zuckerberg says Facebook is a tech company, not a media outlet. Unbelievable, especially as a story on Gizmodo in May 2016 accused Facebook of "Imposing human editorial values" onto its trending news algorithm by having "news curators" suppress and inject stories. In this light, Facebook's editorial imposition demonstrates it is a news outlet, albeit nonobjective. "All the news that fits, " as it were. This is a clear attempt of trying to manipulate its users' web of belief.
Zuck is not the only one doing this. Media manipulation went into overdrive after the 2008 global economic collapse. One of their tricks was to nickname it a "recession", so people wouldn't notice it was the biggest depression since 1929.
There's more, but I don't want to bore.
Re:They want a thicker filter bubble next time. by Xenographic · 2016-11-11 10:24 · Score: 1

Thing is, all the news feeds are manipulated on some level these days. Only question is who likes it and who doesn't.
I'm not sure there can be any one perfect defense against being manipulated. If anything it seems to depend on who has more "CPU" to devote to the task.
I'm not sure if I'm just becoming more aware of it or what, but manipulation has been getting more and more overt.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by hey! · 2016-11-10 07:24 · Score: 4, Informative

Saying "Trump lost because of misinformed voters" "Trump won because EVERYONE who voted for him was misinformed".

Trump actually lost the popular vote; his electoral victory came down to any two of three states where his margin of victory was 1% or less. This means it takes only a small number of people switching their vote because of misinformation to throw an election one way or the other.

As few as 131607 vote switches could have swung the result. -- that was out of 14159807 votes cast in those two states, or about 0.9% of votes cast in those states.

I agree that most people who voted for Trump voted because they liked him, not because of misinformation. But we're talking about a marginal effect with big consequences. Misinformation in close elections can be decisive, which is why people do it.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

Do they lack mirrors or reflections? by Xenographic · 2016-11-10 07:25 · Score: 2

It's hilarious to see the media who got this entire election wrong now trying to tell us whose fault it is.

Re:Do they lack mirrors or reflections? by fubarrr · 2016-11-10 07:29 · Score: 1

:)
Yeah, those types are trying to teach bees how to make honey

Extrapolating from that by Hognoxious · 2016-11-10 07:25 · Score: 1

This is critical because over 60 percent people in the United States consume their news on social media.

I reckon I could sell the Brooklyn Bridge about [takes off shoes] 180 million times.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

I'm sure that some people do want honesty by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2016-11-10 07:29 · Score: 1

And I'm just as sure that a rather large number, at least in the USA, like things just fine with the lies. I grew up in a small town in a red state and I have some friends from school days on Facebook They are almost all die hard Republicans. It is unreal the kind of crap they keep sharing with fake news that supports their political beliefs. I don't see any desire from these folks to get accurate information. In fact, with one person when people have tried to point her to Snopes, she now counters back with the argument that Snopes is actually pro-Democratic and lies to help them. For those of you not aware, this is a tactic the people who write the lies have used for some years now. They claim that any source that debunks them is itself biased and lying, so a lot of people just don't bother to check anything and pass it on as facts if matches their own political views. One guy I both knew in school used to share those kind of bogus stories a lot and when I pointed him to the information debunking what he passed on, he said that it wasn't his job to judge the accuracy or truth of the articles he passed on. He was just sharing information and it was up to the reader to decide whether it was true or accurate.

Re:I'm sure that some people do want honesty by 110010001000 · 2016-11-10 07:31 · Score: 1

Exactly. People are comfortable with their ignorance, and seek out "news" that affirms their ignorant views.

Trump won because of Inadequate brainwashing by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-10 07:37 · Score: 1

We goofed. We overlords need to strive harder to increase the brainwashing and make sure the the pieces-of-shit chattel-citizens vote properly for the establishment next time.

Deciding truth is not Facebook's job by mysidia · 2016-11-10 07:38 · Score: 1

Facebook just owns the website; the content on it is supplied by and judged by users.

If you want to discourage fake news then suggest they add a "Verifications" line similar to the "Comments" section for verified true stories, and
where people can contribute corroborating sources Or sources showing the story false.

And limit how large a picture, or how large a thumbnail or headline text can show in peoples' news feed, until positive Verifications accrue.

The lament is equivalent to arguing that chain-letter e-mail hoaxes caused the outcome, because
"e-mail service providers were spotted running fake e-mail threads on their platform numerous times over the past few months,"

Any facility to remove 'fake news stories' would be abused.

They already have a comment system where folks can add comments, if they believe a story is fake.

But when it comes to political matters..... people are seen to report any story that disagrees with their prized candidate as bad/fake.

In recent elections unlike any other, ordinary people who just posted to Facebook and nothing more see themselves as activists and part of their candidate's campaign.

What difference does in now make by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-10 07:38 · Score: 1

These Dems never want to admit that maybe a lot of people don't agree with their agenda. I mean you didn't hear anybody complain that Romney lost because of fake news stories. I can remember more than a few big fake news stories about him. Harry Reid started a few big fake ones himself. He lost because Republicans didn't show up to vote for him. Hillary lost because SHE failed, Democrat voters just weren't with HER and HER agenda and they didn't show up.

Re:What difference does in now make by meta-monkey · 2016-11-10 07:55 · Score: 1

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.

Bernie was viral too by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-10 07:42 · Score: 1

... just to throw it out there

Re:Bernie was viral too by 0100010001010011 · 2016-11-10 08:56 · Score: 1

The DNC wanted to do it their way.
And they did.
Re:Bernie was viral too by budgenator · 2016-11-10 10:33 · Score: 1

DNC wanted a "Pied Piper" candidate to run against and got him, unfortunately the moral of the "Pied Piper" story wasn't as much he led the rats as it was he had to be paid; the cost was finding a candidate that wasn't up to her eyeballs in corruption and an elitist asshole spotting memorized talking points.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Facebook is a social platform by nucrash · 2016-11-10 07:43 · Score: 1

That means that the social contract is on the individuals as well as Facebook to vet the information.

Our own lack stupidity or laziness allowed for this to happen.

--
Place something witty here

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by meta-monkey · 2016-11-10 07:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

And what about on the Democratic side? My FaceBook feed is full of crying women who believe America just elected LITERALLY HITLER and that Trump is going to start deporting or murdering anyone who isn't a straight white male. Their level of delusion seems a little worse than your average Trump voter.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.

Not just fake news, but fake news posts by users by alphad0g · 2016-11-10 07:49 · Score: 1

The larger problem is fake news by users. "Friends" of mine repost stories from sites that are pure fabrication. The headlines are salacious and always have the affect of painting someone in a negative light. For example, search on "Fake snopes" and you will find a facebook page with a long diatribe on why snopes.com is fake. Many people agree, but it isn't until much further down in the comments where people post counter posts (with many links) that debunk the story about "Snopes being fake"

I am sorry, but most people consume their facts in 2 sentence sound bites. If it comes from a friend it must be true. That is how Trump won the election - not news posts that Facebook itself posted, but the posts from everyone's friends that have them convinced that "Chelsea Clinton's wedding was paid for by the Clinton Foundation". Since the conservative hatred of liberals is much stronger then the opposite, everyone forgot about The Trump Foundation contribution to Florida AG who was investigating Trump University.

I don't know how to fix it, but the future of politics is fake mud slinging on Facebook.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by hey! · 2016-11-10 07:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

I have to say that I get a lot of liberal noise, but I haven't seen anyone claim that Trump is literally Hitler or is going to murder people. The closest is the story that Trump kept a book of Hitler speeches by his bed. I initially discounted that since the source was his ex-wife, but there turns out to be corroborating evidence. Still, I consider that meaningless in itself because I have all kinds of "bad books".

I judge Trump on what he actually says and does, and that's enough. Yes he is not "literally" Hitler, but if you study the careers of authoritarian leaders he fits right in. People should be concerned.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by bfpierce · 2016-11-10 07:57 · Score: 1

Are we seriously using FaceBook feeds to generalize entire populations now? Is that where we're at?

Because I'm pretty certain there was a large segment of people who were utterly convinced after Obama won that we'd be a Socialist workers paradise by now and nobody would ever be able to buy a Gun ever again.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by jevvim · 2016-11-10 07:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

And what about on the Democratic side? ... Their level of delusion seems a little worse than your average Trump voter.

Hammer, meet nail. It wasn't just the Trump side that was "misinformed" by Facebook; Clinton's supporters were equally in a bubble. "Fake" news did not impact only one side; it touched every single candidate. It was near propaganda levels, especially in the final week. Ad hominem was the normal response of the Clinton side; why rebut the argument when it's easier to attack the speaker. Straw man was the normal response of the Trump side; why respond to the actual argument when you can misrepresent it and have a slam-dunk rebuttal.

Maybe it's time for Facebook to realize that all their "algorithms" will be exploitable, and they should just go back to a perfect, unaltered timeline of everything a user is following. At least that way we can say it's the people choosing to be misinformed and not just a side-effect of an algorithmic choice.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by meta-monkey · 2016-11-10 08:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

There have been dozens of articles about how Trump is just like Hitler from the media. When Trump won New Hampshire and HuffPo's front page was all caps screaming "NEW HAMPSHIRE GOES RACIST SEXIST XENOPHOBIC!!!!" I wondered what would happen if Trump wins. Will the people who believe this kind of shit snap out of it and realize the media is lying to them? People voting Trump in New Hampshire want the drugs coming from Mexico stopped because they can't treat their people's addiction problems when you can get $10 heroin on any street corner, not because they're RACIST SEXIST XENOPHOBIC. Or, will they continue to believe that America just elected Hitler, and that half of their friends and neighbors are secret Nazis who are going to hang all the gays and rape the women now? It appears to be the latter. You may not be this delusional, but holy shit a lot of people are. It's psychological abuse what the media did to these people.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by NatasRevol · 2016-11-10 08:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

Here are some facts.

1. Trump received about the same number of votes as Romney did in 2012.
2. Hillary received about 10M fewer votes than Obama did in 2012.

Neither was a remotely good candidate.

But only one was 'great' at exposing every little flaw of the other candidate. Meanwhile, the other one stuck to the traditional politician script in a decidedly non-traditional election.

They both won their primaries because they were the best politicians, not the best options.
Trump won the election because he was the best politician, not the best option.

Both the DNC & the RNC need to go back to square one and start promoting their best candidates, not the best politicians. The best candidates will serve more of the whole of America than either one of these candidates ever would.

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by bfpierce · 2016-11-10 08:04 · Score: 2

You idiots in New Hampshire think your Heroin is coming from Mexico? lol

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by Archangel+Michael · 2016-11-10 08:05 · Score: 2

I have seen it. Mostly in the LGBT crowd.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-10 08:06 · Score: 1

Meanwhile, the definition of fascist sounds a lot like Trump's campaign.

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

Trump is going to start deporting or murdering anyone who isn't a straight white male.

Mostly because he's said things exactly like that.
http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Mr. Trump has suggested that he’d order the U.S. military to kill families of Muslim terrorists and institute interrogation techniques worse than waterboarding, itself widely condemned as torture. Torture and retaliatory executions are both war crimes under international law.

TRANSLATION: We're all dumb now. It's your fault. by WolfgangVL · 2016-11-10 08:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

How about people stop being fucking morons and look a little closer at "the news". We used to absolutely LOVE disgracing our media when they spread bad info. Now we have opinion news, click-bait, and citizen journalists.

You won't believe how Batboy's all grown up love affair with Janet Jackson ended....
Orange clown runs for office and has THIS to say......
See HRC's hot new underwear...

Pointing out bad stories on social media gets you involved in whatever TOXIC topic it relates to, earns you name-calling, and general ass-hole-ry on response for all your "friends" to see. Those of us that know better just left. People really seem enjoy the dumb-shit-echo-chamber we left behind.
(the irony of post right?)

And now what, we are somehow surprised or something? This is exactly what we wanted. It's not on fb to censor bad news, its on us to not be fucking morons.

Is this REALLY not obvious?

--
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by Oligonicella · 2016-11-10 08:07 · Score: 1

"authoritarian leaders"... Leaders are by definition authoritarian, else they'd just be committee members.

what he actually says and does, and that's enough

To hint at dictatorial tendencies, I presume? Perhaps you could be more specific.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by NatasRevol · 2016-11-10 08:07 · Score: 2

The closest Trump came was saying that he'd make the military commit war crimes. During a debate on national TV. Then reiterated it the next day when asked about it.

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by avandesande · 2016-11-10 08:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

He won because Hillary ignored the flyover states that Obama had swept previously. Enough with the silly theories.

--
love is just extroverted narcissism

You have to wonder by avandesande · 2016-11-10 08:21 · Score: 1

How much 'real' trump news there was on facebook from Hillary supporters. Is facebook some exclusive bastion of conservatives?

--
love is just extroverted narcissism

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by Sir_Eptishous · 2016-11-10 08:29 · Score: 1

America just elected LITERALLY HITLER and that Trump is going to start deporting or murdering anyone who isn't a straight white male.

Many, many people thought that Trump getting elected wasn't possible.
They thought that there is no way a guy who said the things he said and behaved the way he behaved would get elected or even have a chance.
Those doubts have now been proven wrong, and the unthinkable happened.

So let me ask you, if Trump getting elected, which was so unthinkable and against all odds happened, why is it unthinkable and against all odds that Trump would or could behave as many on the left expect him to, as a demagogic "strong man" tyrant like Putin?

Why is that unthinkable?

We have just given the reins of power of the most powerful nation on earth to someone who has time and again shown his incapacity for nuanced thought, for compassion, for patience and for the respect of the opinions of others. We have given the reins of power to a man who, months before the election, had painted himself so far into a corner that half the country didn't just vote against him(NOT FOR HRC), but they fear and detest him.

--
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by bfpierce · 2016-11-10 08:29 · Score: 1

That's Ohio and the midwest son. Your problem is the other border.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by Sir_Eptishous · 2016-11-10 08:40 · Score: 2

"authoritarian leaders"... Leaders are by definition authoritarian, else they'd just be committee members.

what he actually says and does, and that's enough

To hint at dictatorial tendencies, I presume? Perhaps you could be more specific.

It appears you weren't paying attention to this election we just went through.
Did you ever watch Trump at his rallies?
Did you ever watch his interviews?
Did you watch the debates?

There are endless examples of his despicable behavior towards many different groups and individuals, but I guess you didn't see or acknowledge that.

Your question is hilarious, like when people ask quesitons on forums and they don't even know they themselves can look it up.
By asking your quesiton, you are making a weak attempt at being snarky.

--
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by hey! · 2016-11-10 08:47 · Score: 1

"authoritarian leaders"... Leaders are by definition authoritarian, else they'd just be committee members

No, leaders by definition wield authority. That does not make them authoritarians "authoritarians":

Authoritarianism, principle of blind submission to authority, as opposed to individual freedom of thought and action. In government, authoritarianism denotes any political system that concentrates power in the hands of a leader or a small elite that is not constitutionally responsible to the body of the people. Authoritarian leaders often exercise power arbitrarily and without regard to existing bodies of law, and they usually cannot be replaced by citizens choosing freely among various competitors in elections.

The key Trumpian personality traits that have people concerned are prejudice toward racial or ethnic minorities, fear of the outside world, aggressiveness, defensiveness, narcissism, and and an overly expansive view of what his powers as president would be.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by hey! · 2016-11-10 08:48 · Score: 1

Not bad enough for you?

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by meta-monkey · 2016-11-10 08:51 · Score: 2

And I'm saying most of that is because the media painted him that way. Instead of repeating over and over and over again "TRUMP THINKS ALL MEXICANS ARE RAPISTS!!!!" they could have explained that 80% of the women and girls who cross the boarder illegally are raped during their crossing, and, as Trump said, "somebody's doing the raping."

Trump isn't Hitler. The media has made a bunch of hysterical women believe Trump is Hitler.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.

End Facebook Now! by frovingslosh · 2016-11-10 08:59 · Score: 1

This is awful. Facebook must be shut down and Zuckerberg deported, jailed or executed. CNN and the major news networks should be in charge of lying to the American people, not Facebook.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by hey! · 2016-11-10 09:07 · Score: 2

I agree that neither was a great candidate. But here's my theory: Trump is the first candidate ever to win by running a negative campaign -- against himself.

They were both candidates with enormous negative public perceptions. But Clinton had a lot of money. In a normal year she could have bought attention to start to shift perception, except that Trump's antics sucked all the oxygen out of the media space. And at a certain point the marginal cost of another revelation about Trump was nil.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by painandgreed · 2016-11-10 09:34 · Score: 1

I have to say that I get a lot of liberal noise, but I haven't seen anyone claim that Trump is literally Hitler or is going to murder people.

Murder? Naw, he's still working on registering them.

"Asked later, as he signed autographs, how such a database would be different from Jews having to register in Nazi Germany, Mr. Trump repeatedly said, “You tell me,” until he stopped responding to the question."

This article is ITSELF false by sdinfoserv · 2016-11-10 09:47 · Score: 1

So what if FB has 1.6B users.... there's only 191M US users who are sharing 21% LESS information. Year over year (2015-2016) there's an 8% DECLINE in time spent in FB per user. If you can't tell true from false or buy into pseudo-science, that's not a face book problem.
What it isn't - a Trump victory explanation.

Opinion vs speculation by DavidMZ · 2016-11-10 10:17 · Score: 1

Not all discourses are equal:

When someone says: "Trump is the new Hitler", that's an opinion.

When someone says: "Trump is going to start deporting or murdering anyone who isn't a straight white male", that's an exaggeration.

When someone says: "Hillary killed her opponent", that's speculation at best, and presenting it as a fact is misleading.

As a side note, can we please stop with the random capitalization. There's an emphasis tag in html, that should be good enough. And I won't comment in the non-literal use of "literally"; being a grammar nazi won't win me any Godwin point here. ;-)

Lies, Damned Lies, and Russian Lies by Xenographic · 2016-11-10 10:27 · Score: 1

> Yes probably. Yet you didn't bother to provide a counter narrative. Or even a single link. Why do you think he's more effective at spreading his message than you are?

Funny how they modded you "Troll" for saying that, because it's completely true. They can't argue with anything other than just calling people names most of the time.

And on one of those few occasions they do bother to present a falsifiable claim? This happens.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by NatasRevol · 2016-11-10 10:30 · Score: 1

It's awfully Hitler like.

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure

Not why Trump won though by guruevi · 2016-11-10 10:31 · Score: 2

There were various other stories doing the rounds. I don't have FB for personal use but I am working on software that curates feeds for businesses. Depending on your particular group of friends there were false H stories and false T stories, Trump did everything from rape a 13yo to being a secret Hillary shill, being in secret societies and cahoots with foreign governments and businesses etc.

The Clinton campaign came up with the Russians being behind Wikileaks and pretty much any activity in firewall logs (it was China during the Obama/Romney election cycle) as well as the various "things Trump said really means this", the females he supposedly molested etc

The media controlled this election cycle and lost... too bad for them.

--
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by budgenator · 2016-11-10 10:47 · Score: 1

Misinformation in close elections can be decisive, which is why people do it.

But nobody though the election was going to be close, at least nobody I saw. The Talking heads on TV were going along with the Clinton by a landslide and the alt-right echo-chamber were Trump by a landslide.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Trump did NOTwin beacause of facebook by bickerdyke · 2016-11-10 10:48 · Score: 1

Trump did NOT win because of facebook.

Trump won because enough people were more than willing to believe even the most absurd stories they read on facebook or everywhere.

That only starts at "Hillary performing satanic rituals" and this is not where it ended. even if less than 1000 people believed that (or believed it enough to change their vote) it has to be multiplied with the amazing number of fake stories, that are clearly recognizable as fake. Heck even satire was taken at face value by more than 1000 people without half a brain!

--
bickerdyke

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by budgenator · 2016-11-10 11:00 · Score: 1

That's what I've seen as well the LGBT community is have an mass anxiety attack, waiting for some Trumpian Gestapo to come and kick down their doors.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by Rakarra · 2016-11-10 11:02 · Score: 1

I have to say that I get a lot of liberal noise, but I haven't seen anyone claim that Trump is literally Hitler or is going to murder people. The closest is the story that Trump kept a book of Hitler speeches by his bed.

That might even be a smart move. Adolph Hitler was one of the greatest speakers we've seen in the modern age. Sure, he was evil as hell, and his policies were abhorrent, but he knew how to speak to a crowd.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by budgenator · 2016-11-10 11:04 · Score: 1

1 I must of missed that one and 2 Trump is only going to be the Commander in Chief, he can't force anyone to follow an illegal order.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by budgenator · 2016-11-10 11:13 · Score: 1

Well she was counting on the Union vote, but forgot all the good Union jobs went to Mexico, and all of the Retirees saw it didn't matter how good the Union contract was when the company went bankrupt, so they were just getting strung along until the next election.
As they say "Atlas Shrugged"

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by hey! · 2016-11-10 11:25 · Score: 1

It's awfully Hitler like.

Well, these days you can't take it for granted when someone say something like that they consider it a bad thing.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

I don't think that they should work on it by jader3rd · 2016-11-10 12:07 · Score: 1

I don't think that they should work on the fake news problem for political stories. What I think they need to do for political stories is break down the echo chamber. If they can detect that certain stories are political in nature, stop silo-ing off people to only see what they will like. If someone is following politics, make them see stories from both sides.

Any fake news, that's seen by people outside of the echo chamber should get called out. Which hopefully will prevent it from spreading. Or if it does spread, cause significantly less damage.

Critical by jgullstr · 2016-11-10 12:11 · Score: 1

This is critical because over 60 percent people in the United States consume their news on social media.

No, this is what's critical.

disconnect or oxymoron? by k6mfw · 2016-11-10 13:21 · Score: 1

Interesting as the Big Z is friends with Obama.

--
mfwright@batnet.com

Translation by manu0601 · 2016-11-10 15:14 · Score: 1

We're committed to continuing to work on this issue and improve the experiences on our platform

Translation: you may be right, but we don't care.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by NatasRevol · 2016-11-10 15:38 · Score: 1

Agreed, but that's kind what I meant by Trump was the better politician.

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by NatasRevol · 2016-11-10 15:41 · Score: 1

You do know they're easily verifiable, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Romney: 60.9M votes
Obama: 65.9M votes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Trump: 59.7M votes
Clinton: 59.9M votes

So it was 7M fewer for Clinton instead of 10M. The point is still exactly the same.

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure

Lost in Translation by HarriedTourist · 2016-11-10 15:58 · Score: 1

"One you label me, you negate me"

- Soren Kierkegaard

That's why Trump won, in my book.

There's so many facets to this election one can reflect on but if the liberals really (and I mean REALLY) want to understand what happened at a gut level this Tuesday, the above quote from a long-dead Dane says so much...

No, this country isn't anywhere near what the days of Yellow Journalism brought it in terms of misinformation and outright propaganda....not yet. Where it is at, though, is at a rather ugly place where rude, condescending derision seems to take the place of legitimate, thought-provoking discourse. Both sides practice it, for sure but it seems to have become a high art form for a well-publicized cult on the left. "Snark Club", let's call them. Some of it's distinguished members?

Jon Stewart
Bill Maher
John Oliver ...and half of Facebook.

I'll lump a number of journalists and popular left-leaning op-ed figures in the media there as well. The disdain and outright derision shown to the plebs by this particular collective finally reached it's zenith and is largely responsible for the results seen this Tuesday.

Trump isn't that attractive of a candidate to vote for, at least not for any principled conservative or one schooled to any reasonable degree. He's just not...

What he is, though, is a vote against those labeling so many as "deplorables" and treating them as such. Casting the rural and arguably simpler folk aside and treating those in the "fly over states" as something to be walked over. There's only so many times the media and "pop-news" personalities can take a metaphorical shit on half the population before they finally respond in kind.

I honestly believe once the vote is dissected a bit further, it will be found that so many in the "fly over" states and the rural areas of this country finally had their fill of being type-cast as bumpkins, retards, miscreants, fools, misogynists, racists, etc. to the exclusion of any other label. So pat yourself on the back, Stephen Colbert. That paycheck you and your writers cashed on the backs of your self-aggrandizing audiences is partially responsible for giving you an electoral map full of red.

Where's that "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner they rolled out for Bush, Jr. on the aircraft carrier before the Iraq War went to complete, utter shit? The DNC have need of it to hang in their headquarters for the next 4 years. It would fit well in the halls of the New York Times, CNN, Washington Post and a number of other media outlets who took it upon themselves to try and MAKE news rather than report it.

Think twice when you kick Ego and Superego to the curb and invite Id to party during the next election, DNC. Same goes to the RNC, if they are going to start pulling this shit.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by NatasRevol · 2016-11-10 16:02 · Score: 1

Unlike the soldiers at Abu Ghraib?

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by RuffMasterD · 2016-11-10 23:07 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid the 'facts' you just verified are incompatible with the /. Advertising Revenue Maximisation and Public Information Transfer (ARMPIT) (TM) algorithm. Your account is hereby suspended. Have a nice day.

--
Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by silentcoder · 2016-11-10 23:31 · Score: 1

>My FaceBook feed is full of crying women who believe America just elected LITERALLY HITLER

If you think you didn't, you haven't been paying attention. There is not a single Nuremberg law that he has not proposed as policy. If that is not enough to justify a Godwin then nothing will be.

When Hitler himself got elected people just like you were also declaring that he would never actually DO the insane shit he said to get elected. That the constitution would prevent it, that the checks and balances would constrain him.

You DID just elect orange Hitler. The only REAL question is - are you going to let him go full circle ? There is one last check and balance that can prevent that, one he doesn't control. That one is the citizens. They could constantly and harshly oppose him - enough to force him to not do the crazy things he said he would do. In Germany - they didn't, his party only got 32% of the vote ever - but the other 68% of the people got scared when he slaughtered all their elected representatives - and fell in line.
Looks like maybe some people DID learn from history - because it looks like the 47% of people who know who he is and who knows what is not even SLIGHTLY an exagerated metaphor - are protesting already.

The only thing that will keep Orange Hitler from doing everything German Hitler did - are the protesters in the street right now. They weren't there in Germany. Those people right now, excercising their constitutional rights - they could change the outcome, or at least mitigate the worst of it.
You better support them - they are your only hope.

--
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by pnutjam · 2016-11-11 02:15 · Score: 1

Trump certainly proved that not only could you ignore anyone who isn't white (and male), GOP strategy for decades. You can get better results by anointing your chosen "race" and actively discounting any other. Basically, we're looking at a return to early 1900's thinking.
Nationalist spirit (mindless), worship of the aristocracy (celebrities), disregard for the deprivations of business (environmental or worker).
Most people don't know that Woodrow Wilson purged blacks from the Federal workforce when he became President. Trump could easily do something as heinous and it would be lost to history in afew decades. I don't think he will, but I didn't think he would win, so what the hell do I know.

--
Cheap storage VM.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by pnutjam · 2016-11-11 02:18 · Score: 1

Well, to be fair, authoritarians have learned that they don't have to send people to kick in door. They can marginalize a group pretty effectively and let them die alone. Trump probably thinks camps are a waste of money. He's proven that nobody is really concerned about what he does.

--
Cheap storage VM.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by pnutjam · 2016-11-11 02:34 · Score: 1

Desperate people being violated is as old as time. Maybe Trump can bring that to America. He certainly seems to be heading in that way.
Also, something is wrong with your math. How many women can one man rape? I think it's a pretty high number, and I don't think that person (people) are coming to the US when they obviously have such great opportunity where they are currently set up.

--
Cheap storage VM.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by pnutjam · 2016-11-11 02:38 · Score: 1

So, despite the narrative I'm reading, Trump did not "energize" his base. He merely replaced almost every reasonable voter (who abstained) with a degenerate.
Clinton failed to energize her base. Everybody said Romney had poor turnout, but Trump had slightly less.

--
Cheap storage VM.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by NatasRevol · 2016-11-11 02:48 · Score: 1

Both were terrible candidates.

Dems apparently thought their own candidate was worse than GOPs did.

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by ClickOnThis · 2016-11-11 06:00 · Score: 1

You do know they're easily verifiable, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Romney: 60.9M votes
Obama: 65.9M votes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Trump: 59.7M votes
Clinton: 59.9M votes

So it was 7M fewer for Clinton instead of 10M. The point is still exactly the same.

You made insightful points in both of your posts, but check your math: it's 6M, not 7M or 10M.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by michael_wojcik · 2016-11-11 06:16 · Score: 1

Yes, though she also didn't do quite well enough in Florida. Florida was achievable, with just a little more turnout for the Democrats. But Florida alone wouldn't have saved her; it would just have been insurance against losing one of the three "defectors" (as ultimately she did).

But the three defecting states - Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan (still not officially called, but it no longer matters) - would have been enough to put her over the top (228 + 46 for 274 total). And those three hadn't voted for a Republican Presidential candidate in 28 years.

Now, various people have been saying for a long time that the Democrats' "firewall" was much weaker than popularly believed. But given the very, very close totals in those states, it should have been possible to retain them with better campaigning. For the most part (and particularly with Wisconsin, a state the Clinton campaign basically ignored - though voter-impeding by the state Republican government hurt too), the Democrats didn't do a good job of maintaining their constituencies there, or reaching out to undecided voters. And the last-ditch scramble in Michigan looked desperate and seems to have fired up rural Republican voters much more than urban Democrat ones.

O Rly? by psycheitout · 2016-11-12 03:32 · Score: 1

Maybe its just the cynical prick in me but whenever a company drops a press release after a major screw up and say something like "we take 'blank' very seriously" or "we are taking steps to investigate the problem with 'blank'" My eyes roll so hard they get stuck looking at the back of my skull. "We take blank very seriously" typically means "we take this problem very seriously now that people are actually paying attention to it and will continue to pretend we are fixing it until everyone's A.D.D kicks in and they piss off to be angry about something else." Just about every country that facebook is in has problems with the ol' FB's hands off approach to content control. So what if it convinced a bunch of misinformed idiots to elect a orange skinned biggot with stupid hair to the highest office in the free world. No body is gonna give a crap in a month when there is another school shooting or Taylor Swift goes outside in last seasons boots.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by budgenator · 2016-11-14 01:58 · Score: 1

These Abu Ghraib Soldiers?
Pfc. Lynndie England
372nd Military Police Company
May 2, 2005 - England pleads guilty to reduced charges as part of a pretrial agreement.
May 4, 2005 - A mistrial is declared after she pleads guilty but then states that she did not know her actions were wrong.
September 21, 2005 - England's second court-martial trial begins at Fort Hood, Texas.
September 26, 2005 - England is found guilty of four counts of maltreating detainees, one count of conspiracy and one count of committing an indecent act.
September 27, 2005 - Is sentenced to three years in prison and given a dishonorable discharge.
March 2007 - Is released from military prison after serving half of her 36-month sentence.
2009 - Releases her biography, "Tortured: Lynndie England, Abu Ghraib and the Photographs that Shocked the World."
Staff Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick II
372nd Military Police Company
October 20, 2004 - Pleads guilty to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault, and committing an indecent act under a plea agreement.
October 21, 2004 - Is sentenced to eight years in prison and also sentenced to a forfeiture of pay, a dishonorable discharge and a reduction in rank to private.
October 1, 2007 - Is paroled after serving approximately three years in a military prison.
Spc. Charles Graner
372nd Military Police Company
January 14, 2005 - Graner is found guilty of nine of 10 counts under five separate charges.
January 15, 2005 - Graner is sentenced to 10 years in prison, downgraded to the rank of private with loss of pay, and receives a dishonorable discharge.
August 6, 2011 - Graner is released from prison.
Spc. Sabrina Harman
372nd Military Police Company:
May 16, 2005 - Is found guilty on six of the seven charges for her role in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal.
May 17, 2005 - Sentenced to six months in prison. Harman is demoted to private, and receives a bad conduct discharge after she finishes the sentence.
Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan
Director, Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center during the fall of 2003. Jordan is the only officer charged with prisoner abuse.
April 28, 2006 - Charged with eight counts, including disobeying an order, dereliction of duty, cruelty, false statements, fraud and interfering with an investigation.
August 28, 2007 - Acquitted of charges that he failed to control soldiers who abused detainees, but is found guilty of disobeying a general's command not to talk about allegations of abuse at the prison. On August 29, he is sentenced with a reprimand.
January 10, 2008 - Cleared of all wrongdoing, and the conviction and reprimand are removed from his record.
Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski
Commander of the Army Reserve's 800th Military Police Brigade, in charge of all 12 Iraqi detention facilities, including Abu Ghraib.
May 5, 2005 - She is demoted from brigadier general to colonel by President George W. Bush after an extensive investigation and is cited for two of four allegations against her, dereliction of duty and shoplifting. The probe clears her of "making a material misrepresentation to an investigating team" and "failure to obey a lawful order."
Col. Thomas Pappas
Commander of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade.
May 2006 - Reprimanded, fined, and relieved of command after using muzzled dogs inside interrogation rooms.
Lt. Col. Jerry L. Phillabaum
Commander, 320th MP Battalion.
April 2004 - He is reprimanded and relieved of command of the 320th Military Police Battalion for his role in the abuse scandal.
Spc. Jeremy Sivits
372nd Military Police Company
May 19, 2004 - Sivits pleads guilty as part of a pretrial agreement with prosecutors that leaves him open to testify against other soldiers charged in the scandal. He is sentenced to a year of confinement, discharge for bad conduct, and is demoted.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by meta-monkey · 2016-11-14 02:54 · Score: 1

Weren't all the celebrities shilling for Hildawg? And wasn't it the working class that voted Trump because the globalist policies Hillary espouses are what's closed all their factories and lost them all their jobs?

And didn't Hillary basically throw whites under the bus? Non-stop pandering to every other ethnic group, and demonizing whites as evil racists? Trump talked about us all being Americans. It's the dems and their media allies who divide and conquer by screeching constantly that Republicans are evil and hate everyone who isn't a straight white male.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by meta-monkey · 2016-11-14 03:07 · Score: 1

You need to stop watching CNN. It's rotted your brain.

What are you going to say when he turns out to not be Hitler? My guess is "haha, see, he lied about being Hitler, and boy are his evil Nazi supporters pissed about it stupid Trumpkins!" Because that's what CNN will say, and all you can do is regurgitate their nonsense.

Basically you've got a big cognitive dissonance thing going on here.You identify as a smart and well-informed person. You watched the corporate media which painted Trump as Hitler because it's in their financial interest (the companies that owned the media own Hillary). So now that Trump is elected (despite that same corporate media saying Hillary had a 99% chance) you're confronted with a paralyzing choice: either you're not as smart and well-informed as you thought and in fact Trump is NOT Hitler, or your friends and neighbors you've known your whole life are actually secret Nazis who know Trump is Hitler and like it! Panic! Now, attacks to identity are really tough. You'd have to be broken down pretty hard to recognize you got fooled by the media, so instead you'll hallucinate that you're really surrounded by monsters. Isn't that what the protestors think? Have you seen these people? Blue haired nutjobs who went $40,000 into debt for a gender studies degree and still can't figure out which of the 47 genders they are day to day and are working at Panerra Bread when they're not smashing the patriarchy. These are your fellow travelers. Are they smart and well-informed? What the media has done to you people this cycle is unconscionable. Psychological torture that defies comparison.

Trump's not Hitler. Your neighbors aren't Nazis. Anderson Cooper lied to you. It's okay man. It's going to be all right. Bust your corporate media bubble and look for some alternative sources. Or, failing that, panic.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by NatasRevol · 2016-11-14 03:39 · Score: 1

Sounds a lot like they all followed illegal orders. From Rumsfeld on down.

They may have paid for it, but that doesn't mean they didn't follow them.

Or did you miss that part?

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by meta-monkey · 2016-11-14 03:49 · Score: 1

It was what the front page of HuffPo looked like the day of, so it wasn't an article. Google "huffpo NH goes racist sexist" and this article has a screenshot: http://www.weeklystandard.com/...

Also I saw it myself the day of.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by silentcoder · 2016-11-14 03:49 · Score: 1

You know - that's EXACTLY what people said about the original Hitler....
Here's the New York times in 1922 http://www.nytimes.com/times-i... declaring that all that talk of forced registrations and mass deportations and anti-semitism was just campaign bluster and he would never do it in real life if he ever got elected.

They were wrong.

I have no reason whatsoever to believe that YOU are any less wrong. If there is one thing I have learned it's that you can't believe a politician when he promises to do good - but when they promise to do evil, you better fucking believe they ALWAYS keep THOSE promises.

--
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by meta-monkey · 2016-11-14 03:54 · Score: 1

But deportation of illegal aliens is already our law, but our politicians have ignored the law because Republicans want cheap labor and Democrats want votes. Trump is just going to enforce our own laws. How is that evil? Every other nation on earth does it. Is every nation evil?

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by meta-monkey · 2016-11-14 06:46 · Score: 1

Lots of places have no voter ID laws, so aliens vote illegally. Also they drop anchor babies who then become the Dem's future voting base.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by budgenator · 2016-11-14 07:48 · Score: 1

It was big deal because of the severity of the occurrence, not the size of it. The offense was at the First-line supervisor's level in origin, Second liner Supervisors for not properly Supervising the FLSs.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by silentcoder · 2016-11-14 07:53 · Score: 1

"Anchor babies" ... right. You mean American citizens ? Are you native american ? You're not ? So you are yourself ONLY a citizen because of somebody's anchor baby. And what do you propose ? Putting those young citizens into foster care to deport their mothers ?

And you think you are NOT being fucking evil ?

Oh and by the way - no other countries do NOT in fact do that. They all have immigration laws, but none of them are nearly as rabid about it as you lot are. And no other free country would turn away refugees. Even Australia didn't dare THAT one. It's not like it's a problem anyway - Mexican migration is negative and has been for years. You don't NEED to deport anybody - the ones that CAN leave are doing so of their own accord and have been for years.
The rest, you'll never KEEP out because the reason they are there is because they are either there - or dead. Deporting those people - now that is REALLY evil.

--
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by pnutjam · 2016-11-14 08:07 · Score: 1

Trump is a celebrity.
I'll just issue a blanket NO to everything else, anyone with a brain can see you need some medication.

--
Cheap storage VM.

Re:That's the funniest thing so far ..... by meta-monkey · 2016-11-14 09:41 · Score: 1

No you are the one who is crazy.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.

Slashdot Mirror

Facebook on its Fake News Problem: 'There's So Much More We Need To Do' (theverge.com)

173 of 284 comments (clear)