Mark Zuckerberg Says Fake News on Facebook Affecting the Election Is a 'Crazy Idea' (fortune.com)

A lot of questions are emerging about Facebook's role in this year's election cycle, especially given the proliferation of sensationalistic and even outright fake news stories, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has responded. From a report on Fortune: "I think the idea that fake news on Facebook -- of which it's a very small amount of the content -- influenced the election in any way is a pretty crazy idea," he said on Thursday at the Techonomy conference in Half Moon Bay, Calif., just two days after Donald Trump was elected president, according to media reports. "There have been hoaxes on the Internet, there were hoaxes before," he said. "We do our best to make it so that people can report that, and as I said before, we can show people the most meaningful content we can."

Comments

I can name names

[Anonymous Coward]

and you don't want be at a trump camp.

Re:I can name names

[Kenja]

I call top bunk at the reeducation camp! Kidding... but I still call it.

Re: I can name names

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try HUMA ABEDIN.

Re: I can name names

[Anonymous Coward]

Spending 8 hours a day on Facebook is a crazy idea.

Re:I can name names

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently we are entitled to our own facts as well as your own opinions.

FuckFace Book. I mean Fuck Face Book.

Re: I can name names

[Anonymous Coward]

They should shut off people's ability to use Facebook until they've submitted verifiable proof that they've voted.

Re: I can name names

[ArmoredDragon]

I think that kind of thing is precisely the opposite of what we need. People who say that it's your civic duty or that it is patriotic to vote are wrong. I think that if you don't take the time to educate yourself about the candidates and the issues, then the responsible thing to do is to not vote at all.

Personally, if I see a name that I don't recognize on a ballot, then I won't vote at all on that office, I'll just leave it blank. I'm just not going to give an endorsement to somebody that I don't even know.

The patriotic and responsible thing is to make yourself an educated voter. Personally, I like the idea of some kind of test of knowledge of your given candidate's take on the issues or something like that in order for your vote to be counted, but it would be hard to implement without disenfranchising single issue voters, which are just as legitimate as anybody else.

Nonetheless, uneducated voters are part of why we get a choice between a douche and a turd every election.

Re: I can name names

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that kind of thing is precisely the opposite of what we need.

I believe you misunderstand the statement. The point was to keep people from a source of misinformation until they have certified they were not subject to having that undue influence weigh upon their actions. I suppose it might have been clarified by adding a bit about "or declared their refusal to vote in some way" or some other such statement.

Or to put it another way, it's like saying you can't go get drunk before you vote.

People who say that it's your civic duty or that it is patriotic to vote are wrong. I think that if you don't take the time to educate yourself about the candidates and the issues, then the responsible thing to do is to not vote at all.

Personally, if I see a name that I don't recognize on a ballot, then I won't vote at all on that office, I'll just leave it blank. I'm just not going to give an endorsement to somebody that I don't even know.

The patriotic and responsible thing is to make yourself an educated voter.

First off, I'm going to suggest you re-examine that phrasing there, as you seem to be saying that if you see a name you don't know, then you won't vote at all.

That might have been your intent, but I am not sure. You could have just meant "I have to have enough familiarity to know I am going to endorse a candidate" instead. If it's the former, I'm a bit concerned, since in my experience, it's far too easy for people to get on the ballot whose existence is virtually unknown, and they are rather meaningless to trouble yourself over.

However, as for your remarks about being a patriotic and responsible voter, you should be assured that the people who think it is the civic duty to vote are concerned about that, and do not personally support say, voting by whose name you like best. But, well, I'll get into that...

Personally, I like the idea of some kind of test of knowledge of your given candidate's take on the issues or something like that in order for your vote to be counted, but it would be hard to implement without disenfranchising single issue voters, which are just as legitimate as anybody else.

No, you don't get the real problem. You see, the problem would be avoiding bias, and preventing those who would absolutely seek to abuse such a system from doing so. This would be a considerable effort. And you'd never be sure. The stigma of this issue is a very real one. Better to not open that can of worms.

Even education efforts are likely to result in pushback.

Nonetheless, uneducated voters are part of why we get a choice between a douche and a turd every election.

Perhaps, but I believe it is not so nearly large as you may think, and you may miss the greater share of the problem, because the issue is not simple a matter of educated versus uneducated, but another, well, I hesitate to call it a group, since they are not necessarily associated, but the miseducated. Those who are uneducated? Well, they may make a random choice, but how much influence will that have? Even as simple as "Voting for the name at the top" is unlikely to be universal, and even so, there are means to address that. No, the miseducated are the ones who will act en masse, to achieve a result. Of course, as I indicated, there are several different ways to miseducate someone, but well, you did say there were choices.

Re: I can name names

[Baloo Uriza]

I think that kind of thing is precisely the opposite of what we need. People who say that it's your civic duty or that it is patriotic to vote are wrong. I think that if you don't take the time to educate yourself about the candidates and the issues, then the responsible thing to do is to not vote at all.

Sounds like there's some common ground. But I think that if you don't take the time to educate yourself about the candidates and the issues and don't vote, or don't take the time to educate yourself about the candidates and the issues and do vote, then you're actively working against your own country.

Click Bait

[thundercattt]

Soooooooooooooo the thousands of Click Bait links in the advertising section of Facebook was purely accidental. All those links that showed "I was for this candidate until I heard he say this......" then sent you to a random page for Viagra. Yep, Zuckerberg had no idea about any of it as he rolled in his pile of dough.

Re: Click Bait

[Entrope]

I'll make you a deal: You can be pissy about misleading news coverage on Facebook after you call out the rest of the media for not pointing out that "if you like your insurance/doctor, you can keep your insurance/doctor" were obvious lies.

Re: Click Bait

[Anonymous Coward]

> after you call out the rest of the media for not pointing out that "if you like your insurance/doctor, you can keep your insurance/doctor" were obvious lies.

Right. The media didn't call that one out. Except for the time it was labeled the 2013 Lie of the Year by Politifact.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/

Re: Click Bait

[Anonymous Coward]

People absorb what information they choose and make their own decisions.

Emoting that your side is not allowed to declare what sources are in bounds and what sources are not allowed does not make you a promoter of democracy, but a stifler of it.

Re: Click Bait

[Anonymous Coward]

Propaganda and the acceptance of provable lies as fact are the enemies to Democracy

Re: Click Bait

[Anonymous Coward]

Politifact is a biased source!

Re: Click Bait

[jmac_the_man]

You'll note that during the debate over Obamacare, when it actually mattered, PolitiFact and the other ostensibly neutral "fact check" sites were calling it true.

Re: Click Bait

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck cnn for allowing trump supporters to broadcast obvious lies without calling them out

Hold up a second there, professor. In what way were Trump and his supporters NOT called out by CNN and the rest of the media? Jesus christ, the ENTIRE 6 month run-up to the election was nothing but Trump-bashing, and unabashed Hillary worship. Every time I went to CNN, MSNBC, BBC, or any of the literally hundreds of other political/news/current event sites around, I would see headlines heralding Trump as the second coming of Satan himself.

I voted for Hillary. I don't like Trump. But pretending that somehow the "media" didn't do enough to stop Trump is entirely BULLSHIT. You know who didn't do enough to stop Trump? The Democrats. They took their white, working class voters across the Rust Belt for granted, and ignored them. And they got a giant middle finger from those voters because of it. She also connected to minority voters with all the warmth of a digital rectal exam, and engendered about as much enthusiasm from them. Yes, they "predominantly" voted for her. NO, they did not vote for her at the levels and numbers they voted for Obama - despite the constant drumbeat of negativity telling them that they would be deported, locked up, assaulted, shot, or imprisoned for simply being brown, if Trump were elected.

Don't you DARE blame the media for "not doing enough to stop Trump." The amount of negative coverage of Trump, his views, and his supporters was absolutely monumental in this election, and it still wasn't enough to give Hillary the votes she needed. The reason for that is that the Democrats FUCKED UP, and handed Trump the election. From the coronation of Clinton at the expense of Sanders all the way to election day, they FUCKED. UP. They didn't listen to their base, they didn't energize their base, and that base largely stayed home. Trump got fewer votes than Romney in 2012, McCain in 2008, and Bush in 2004. But he still won. In the past 4 elections (04, 08, 12, 16), this is the voter turnout:

2004 - 60.1%
2008 - 61.6%
2012 - 58.0%
2016 - 56.0%

Trump got less votes than the Republican candidates in all of those other elections. Which means, not that there was some sort of massive "groundswell" for Trump; It means there was a massive "meh, think I'll stay home today instead of voting," in the Democratic party.

THIS IS NOT THE MEDIA'S FAULT. The blame for this rests squarely with the Democrats themselves.

Re: Click Bait

[Anonymous Coward]

This is my observation too. There doesn't seem to be much democracy in the "Democratic party". Subverting the very principle for which you claim to stand (ref Sanders non-nomination), you lost my support and respect pretty much forever since now I will always look at you with suspicion and mistrust (as we should with *any* lifetime politicians)

Re: Click Bait

[Anonymous Coward]

Fun fact: US healthcare costs have been rising faster than inflation since the 60s.
Fun fact: pooring out of the health insurance market left some of us with only the ACA as an option. Now that's rising in cost because:
Fun fact: a republican congress decided to starve what they couldn't kill outright, leading to higher costs to insurers
Fun fact: US health care is among the most expensive in the world, and we aren't the healthiest by far-- for example, we don't live any longer than poor people in Cuba.
Fun fact: Most of the civilized first world nations act like healthcare is a basic human right. Whether you agree with that or not, you can't possibly want to keep the minimum wage people preparing your food from staying healthy or treating disease when they are sick. Likewise, the poorly-paid help at daycare for your kids. Likewise all the kids at the school.

It's all connected, babies.

Re: Click Bait

[Atrox Canis]

Sorry, here are the actual numbers:

2016 - Trump: 60,071,650 (47.5%) Still counting with approximately 9.5 million untabulated votes remaining
2012 - Romney: 60,933,504 (47.2%)
2008 - McCain: 59,948,323 (45.7%)
2004 - Bush: 62,040,610 (50.7%)
2000 - Bush: 50,456,002 (47.9%)

Most of your point remains. The media couldn't possibly have been more in the tank for Sec Clinton.

Re: Click Bait

[moorley]

No deal...

Because it's not just the news, it's what you do with it.

If you happen to be a group of folks trying to get Universal HealthCare (WHICH EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIAL COUNTRY HAS!).. (hold on... Got wipe off my screen...)

Then perhaps some errors or lies are understandable in context but frankly that sucked too. Unfortunately the core issue is a lack of compromise on (ANYTHING!)

Damn... I need a squeegee...

Re: Click Bait

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why mathematical literacy is important.

.
Always false is not the same as sometimes false.
Conflating the two just because the imprecision of English allows for it leaves us worse as a people.

Re: Click Bait

[skids]

Ya know what, I think I'll just blame Trump for what he is, and the stupid assholes who voted for him for what they are. I'll just blame the media for too much horse race, not enough issues.

Re: Click Bait

[ArmoredDragon]

Exactly. I really don't think Facebook played that big of a role. It's already been established that people on Facebook tend to form a social bubble where they're only exposed to their own ideas. So if those voters were seeing pro Trump messages, then it's very likely that this is already what they wanted to see to begin with.

Re: Click Bait

[rmckeethen]

I'll make you a deal: You can be pissy about misleading news coverage on Facebook after you call out the rest of the media for not pointing out that "if you like your insurance/doctor, you can keep your insurance/doctor" were obvious lies.

I'll make you a counter-deal -- if I can find an example of the media pointing out problems with "if you like your insurance/doctor, you can keep your insurance/doctor", you'll admit that there might be a problem with misleading news on Facebook, yes? Here we go:

Even back in 2009, ABC News, and FactCheck.org were asking tough questions about the Obama administrations' statements on health care reform. In 2013, Politifact awarded the claim, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it" as its 'Lie of the Year', and had been rating the claims that people would be able to keep their plans as 'half true' since at least August of 2009.

See? Easy. There are obviously other examples than the four I've linked above, but I assume I've made my point.

For you to say that the media wasn't covering the story about the Obama administration's statements on healthcare is simply not true, and it's a good example of exactly why many people, including myself, are concerned about misleading news on Facebook. Bandying about half truths and lies as if they were facts isn't going to help anyone, and if you really believe we should only listen to the biggest and most successful liars out there, than I have a couple of bridges and some fine, very nice land in Florida I'd like to sell you.

Re: Click Bait

[Atomic Fro]

Availability or the number of people who have insurance has no validity as a metric on quality or affordability of healthcare.

Insurance is the problem with healthcare in America. Forcing people to buy the problem isn't going to fix healthcare. Subsidies on the problem isn't going to fix healthcare. Just because you are paying for the problem doesn't mean you are entitled to or receive any better healthcare than anyone else.

Paying for the problem doesn't make healthcare cheaper, it makes it more expensive. The problem with healthcare makes it more expensive for people who don't pay for the problem.

We either need to go full on single payer or complete remove health insurance all together.

Re: Click Bait

[Anonymous Coward]

"the ENTIRE 6 month run-up to the election was nothing but Trump-bashing, and unabashed Hillary worship"

I keep seeing this BS repeated. Go look at the actual stats yourself (hours spent discussing which topics). Then come back and tell us what you find, maybe? Hello? Crickets?

God damn it. This was not a football game, it actually mattered. You'll find out, eventually.

Show us the data

[petes_PoV]

To be blunt, what Zuckerberg "thinks" is irrelevant.

He is in a position to obtain and have analysed the data - not just about whether the fake stories and lies are a "small proportion" of FB's content, but just how much that "small proportion" gets liked, reposted and commented on. Being a small proportion is meaningless if it is influential. And it is the influence that these fake stories have, not the quantity of them, which is important.

One could also say that The Washington Post reaches only a small proportion of the world. But Zuckerberg considered it worth buying.

Re:Show us the data

[pushing-robot]

Not to detract from the rest of your post, but it was Jeff Bezos who bought The Washington Post.

Re:Show us the data

[Rockoon]

To be blunt, what Zuckerberg "thinks" is irrelevant.

He knows its irrelevant because they tried to bias the content against trump and for hillary, and it still didnt work.

Re:Show us the data

[paulpach]

The burden of proof is on the person doing the accusation.

It is not up to Zuckerberg to show that facebook did not influence the elections.
It is up to the people accusing facebook to show that the fake news influenced the elections.

Re:Show us the data

[Rockoon]

Before someone lazily asks for a citation:

Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

Facebook Unblocks DNC Email Leak After WikiLeaks Accuses Them of Censorship

just two that I quickly found

Re:Show us the data

[rickb928]

Since the same fake news in the rest of social and conventional media were visible, then you are saying "It is up to the people accusing the 'media' to show that the fake news influenced the elections."

And frankly, despite the horror and pain this will cause, if the media had been honest (and the DNC not been complicit in primary vote and convention rigging), Hillary would not have been nominated. And Trump would not have been nominated either. Part of a pretty big influence.

But, fortunately, this has worked our remarkably well. An unindicted felon has been denied access to the most important and powerful position on Earth, a businessman not beholden to destructive political and global interests has been elected, and the right people are angry. They should be angry. Their expressions of anger prove they are dangerous and must be called out and denied power.

Facebook etc. were complicit in the attempt to elect a President such as Hillary Rodham Clinton. That they ultimately failed does not diminish their intentions, nor effort, but it does point out that they have interests of their own. You decide if those interests are aligned with yours, or if those interests work against you.

You decide.

Re:Show us the data

[imadeyoureadpoop]

That's a bias against real news. TFA was regarding a propensity to display entirely fake 'news', from dubious sources with clickbait-ey, ad-loaded websites. eg.Putin has access to alien weaponry?

Re:Show us the data

[Anonymous Coward]

His service is also partly responsible for the "the world according to me" bubble that people live in today. How can we expect people to have tolerance for different ideas, if the services create a loop of content that only feeds them more of the same.

Re:Show us the data

[bytesex]

Which is worse?

Re:Show us the data

[fubarrr]

Yes, because you can't beat industrial scale clickbait networks and clickfarms. For every buck made by Google and FB on ads, Russians exploiting the internet advertising networks can make two, and only a small amount of profit for arbitrage goes to the 3rd tier players and guys with captive marketplaces.

This is "The King is Naked" fact of the online ads industry. Ad industry really dislikes people digging in their rigged audit reports. I myself once worked for a private ad marketplace and was made to sign a 15 page NDA.

Does this mean that for every 3 bucks you spend on PPC, PPM, affiliate, and e.t.c. you give 2 of these bucks to Russian clickfarm? YES! And the whole industry was doing that for the last 6 or 7 years.

When I was renting place in a rather expensive coworking in Russia (USD $800 a month), a third of all places were rented out by a clickfarming collective whose guys all drove BMW 7 and M series cars.

I believe that clickfarming industry will soon eclipse carding in Russia. It is way more profitable, plus it's legal (well, not a big thing here).

Re:Show us the data

[DogDude]

By "bias" do you mean "tell the truth"? It's pretty hard to create any more bias against somebody as odious as Trump. What else can you say about him that he didn't do already? He is hiding his income and taxes. He clearly hates non-white, non-straight non-male people. He incites violence. He knows next to nothing about anything. What else is there to make up about him? That he's a child molester? That might actually be true, too (civil case pending).

Re:Show us the data

[elrous0]

Liberals want something convenient to blame because they can't accept the fact that there is a huge core of this country between NYC and LA that's not on-board with their SJW agenda. These are the states that got left out of the economic boom, populated by people who the Democrats don't seem to give a shit about anymore (unless they're minorities or women). And people in those "flyover" states are sick of smug liberals calling them stupid and racist when they complain about how free trade and immigration are fucking them over and how they've lost good jobs.

Trump capitalized on this, and while Hillary was partying with Beyonce and other celebs, he was out there campaigning in those flyover states that Democrats ignored. And he was telling them how he was going to fight free trade, curtail immigration, and do other stuff to help bring good jobs back to middle America and keep them here.

But you just keep telling yourself that it was all Facebook's fault.

Re:Show us the data

[medv4380]

It did work. It created an information bubble in which Liberals had such high expectations that they would win they broke down in tears. Not just a few who always happens but a good chunk of Hillary HQ were in tatters by 9. Conservatives, on the other hand, fell into two bucks. Bucket one: this is wrong it's not representing to at all, and we're going to turn out a lot more than they expect and bucket two: there is a path a small path but a path. Had the information not been so heavily tainted Democrats would not have been so crushed by the results. It just didn't have the effect he wanted it to have.

Re:Show us the data

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, search 'Clinton Butt-hurt' on Youtube. It should make you feel better. Made me LOL.

Re:Show us the data

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the Constitution-following agenda, derp Republitard.

Re:Show us the data

[lowkeyknight]

I remind you that Trump actually lost the popular vote, against what I will happily agree was the worst possible candidate the Liberals could have put up. He actually garnered less votes than McCain or Romney. Look at the numbers. Both candidates were proven liars, accused criminals and generally awful. A more accurate assessment would be that liberals, as it turns out, are less willing to turn up and vote for a candidate they know to be terrible than conservatives.

Re:Show us the data

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahaha... Good luck in four years, buddy. You idiots *still* don't realize how disconnected from reality you are.

Re:Show us the data

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad they weren't less willing to nominate one.

Re:Show us the data

[Anonymous Coward]

What lawsuit? The one that was dropped (again) last week? You do know anyone can file a civil lawsuit aagainst just about anyone for just about any reason right? So here you go spreading false information on the net in an article about the same...

Re:Show us the data

[Sloppy]

And it is the influence that these fake stories have, not the quantity of them, which is important.

No, it's why the stories have influence, which is important. I give zero fucks about anyone's measurements of the influence itself.

You can frame it as a problem with a particular website, or you can frame it as people-enjoy-lying-and-being-lied-to. IMHO the former is worthless way of looking at things, and the latter gets us closer to diagnosis.

Re:Show us the data

[penguinoid]

While I would like to see Trump's tax returns, I would be happy to trade not knowing that for a president who values privacy. Well, one can hope.

Re:Show us the data

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is worse?

Can we get one of those people who flamboyantly turns up their nose at voting for the "lesser of two evils" to weigh in?

Re:Show us the data

[Anonymous Coward]

Unindicted felon? Your oxymoron clearly demonstrates your bias.

Re:Show us the data

[Anonymous Coward]

Zuck just does not want to be blamed by his liberal friends.
"Its not my fault" said by every whiney child everyday.
He is looking out for his stock price.

Re:Show us the data

[negRo_slim]

I remind you that Trump actually lost the popular vote

Has it been fully tallied yet? If so can I get a link to the final results?

Re:Show us the data

[Bodhammer]

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/m...

Re:Show us the data

[Anonymous Coward]

Sky News in the UK are saying according to a report by Buzzfeed - lots of election news stories were fake anf this somehow helped Trump win.

Buzzfeed. Buizzfeed.

King of clickbait bullshit.

That Buzzfeed.

Re:Show us the data

[Anonymous Coward]

Sssh! You aren't supposed to mention that large amounts of red states haven't had all the votes counted. I mean, there's only 20% of Arizona missing, at this point what difference does it make?

The CNN projection giving Trump the popular vote was just a design flaw they quickly corrected. Nothing suspicious at all. Nope.

Re:Show us the data

[Anonymous Coward]

To be blunt, what Zuckerberg "thinks" is irrelevant.

He knows its irrelevant because they tried to bias the content against trump and for hillary, and it still didnt work.

It's one of the few things I enjoy about this outcome: the massive slap in the face felt by the likes of Zuckerberg and other media giants who've learned that they don't control the people as well as they thought.

Re:Show us the data

[rmckeethen]

And frankly, despite the horror and pain this will cause, if the media had been honest (and the DNC not been complicit in primary vote and convention rigging), Hillary would not have been nominated.

Please explain how the media were not honest here. You realize, don't you, that it was the media, the New York Times as a matter of fact, which first broke the story on Secratary Clinton's use of a private email server. And it was that very same media which went on and on about Clinton's email issues, right up until the very end of the campaign. According to Media Matters, using data from the Tyndall Report, reporting of Hillary Clinton's email issues eclipsed all other reporting combined on any other issue (100 minutes on emails vs 32 minutes for issue-based reporting).

Re: Show us the data

[rickb928]

A third of the minutes spent on Trump (and those largely neither neutral nor positive) were spent on the email issue.

Not that volume is the proper measure. None of the MSM presented the issue as a criminal act, though that is an obvious conclusion when the statements of the FBI director are considered, nor did they present it as a reasonable issue to be investigated, but at every opportunity chose to describe it as either a minimal problem or a partisan attack.

Reasonable people may argue for last point, but the media was not honest about it, in my opinion, and I'm trying to be factual.

But much of this is preception, and I'm clinging to mine as well.

Re: Show us the data

[rickb928]

I thought the body of my commentary exposed my bias pretty well. You missed that?

And for the record, unindicted felon is as useful and descriptive as 'unindicted co-conspirator'. Do try harder. Please.

Re: Show us the data

[Anonymous Coward]

"the ENTIRE 6 month run-up to the election was nothing but Trump-bashing, and unabashed Hillary worship"

Actually, it's very relevant, and he has certain responsibilities under the law and to his shareholders. Therefore, what he says is filtered through an external messaging and legal review process. Evaluating this statement, and the necessity he felt to make it even though many people will consider it absurd on its face, in that light leads to a different discussion and set of conclusions.

No, not fake news

[bickerdyke]

Fake news on facebook did not effect the election. It was the people stupid enough to believe them.

Re:No, not fake news

[ole_timer]

same thing

Re:No, not fake news

[XxtraLarGe]

Fake news on facebook did not effect the election. It was the people stupid enough to believe them.

I have several friends who are Trump supporters, and a lot of them posted some of the most ridiculous stuff from non-credible news sources (think "less credible than InfoWars"). I wouldn't call any of them geniuses, but I wouldn't call them stupid either. Were they gullible and guilty of wishful thinking? Sure, but definitely not stupid.

Re:No, not fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

You gotta love the arrogance of the left here. Not that they should engage in some self reflection to why middle America gave them the middle finger. No, they just blame shift that the voters are "stupid".

You will keep losing elections if you keep this up.

Re:No, not fake news

[bickerdyke]

Only if you're more keen on finding an easy target to blame.

Pointing at facebook is much easier than starting to educate people.

Next step. Sue him for something. Anything. But it's easy taking a crap shot at someone with deep pockets.

Re:No, not fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

that's equivalent to saying you need to baby proof the world. You can't protect people from their own naivety, but it is possible to help them think more critically.

Re:No, not fake news

[ole_timer]

not my job to educate them - start at parenting, move to schools. if idiots listen to any story anywhere without validating it then that's their loss.

Re:No, not fake news

[bickerdyke]

OK. People don't need to be actually stupid and you put it into much better words, but it's still not something you can blame facebook for.

And I would prefer if ou could (technically fake also) satire stories on fb without having to nerf dem down with the infamous sarcasm tag

Re:No, not fake news

[bickerdyke]

not my job to educate them - start at parenting, move to schools. if idiots listen to any story anywhere without validating it then that's their loss.

Or our loss. Evidence A: Tuesdays election results.

Re:No, not fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course fake news on facebook did not effect the election. The election would have happened with or without Facebook.

Re:No, not fake news

[jellomizer]

I would like to point out how many Anti-Hillary posts were on Slashdot leading to the election.
So either a lot of you were thinking it was just cool to sound anti-establishment, or many of you got caught in the web of lies and hate.

Re:No, not fake news

[x_t0ken_407]

Just out of curiosity, would we also have lost had Clinton won? Or would that have been a win in your book? Truly curious, not trying to pick a fight. Disclaimer: not a Trump supporter.

Re:No, not fake news

[rickb928]

This is a demonstration of the gulf between Left and Right in America, and actually in the entire world.

The mainstream Left is absolutely convinced of their correctness. Their leadership I will not grant such standing, for I believe the leadership of the Left is merely seeking power at the expense of the rest of us.

The Right is also absolutely convinced of the correctness of their intentions. They differ primarily in that they do not react to rejection with rioting, fires, and threats of murder. They regroup, attack each other as the cause of failure, and fail to respond to the Left's absolute dominance of education, media, and culture.

But the Right has a different goal, and theirs permits individual liberty. The Left does not intend this, but conformity is the necessary goal to achieve a collective power structure.

Great times.

Re:No, not fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... there are still people who believe the "Obama is a Muslim!" crap that showed up on Facebook in 2008, for pete's sake.

Facebook can do their best to block this stuff, but the can't fix stupid. Stupid always wins.

Re:No, not fake news

[khallow]

Anti-Hillary posts [...] caught in the web of lies and hate

Nothing about Clinton's 40 year record of corruption, the blatant nepotism that jumped started her political career, and the ongoing felonies she committed by dodging FOIA requests and public records law? It's all "lies and hate".

Trump had a pretty bad record himself, an epic poorly run campaign, a rich guy which voters are traditionally hugely hostile towards, and he ran his mouth and posted all sorts of crap to Twitter. A normal candidate without the huge negatives of Clinton would have walked all over Trump. The rationalizations are already ridiculous and over-the-top.

But let's blame Facebook because that will help your people nominate better candidates in the future.

Re:No, not fake news

[shess]

The Right is also absolutely convinced of the correctness of their intentions. They differ primarily in that they do not react to rejection with rioting, fires, and threats of murder. They regroup, attack each other as the cause of failure, and fail to respond to the Left's absolute dominance of education, media, and culture.

Is this snark of some sort? Because AFAICT, the Right is throwing their fine morals overboard and lining up behind their unwanted candidate, and their involvement with rioting and fires and threats of murder were all threats made _during_ the election, not in response to it.

But the Right has a different goal, and theirs permits individual liberty.

Also, are there a lot of hate crimes against people on the right just now? I guess technically the hate crimes aren't against people on the left, since it's challenging to visually distinguish that kind of thing. It's just those performing the hate crimes which appear to have a bias. That's some fine fine individual liberty you have there.

Re:No, not fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say still a loss but more like electing Nixon instead of a mix of Kim Jong-un, Charles Montgomery Burns and Wile E. Coyote.

Re:No, not fake news

[butzwonker]

Well, I can answer that. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were the best and most qualified for the highest office among all living Americans at age 35 or above. Nobody else is smarter or otherwise better equipped for the highest duty for his country, or else why would they have become presidential candidates in the first place? So there can be no loss either way. President Trump represents the best that America could possibly offer right now in terms of what voters and the electoral college think, directly followed by H. Clinton who won the popular vote. Not even Chuck Norris would have been better suited to become the next president of the US of A, which is why even he himself advertised for Trump. If you pardon me this French phrase, Trump and Clinton are both the creme de la creme of American society.

Re:No, not fake news

[XxtraLarGe]

OK. People don't need to be actually stupid and you put it into much better words, but it's still not something you can blame facebook for.

The problem is with the blame Facebook theory is even if they didn't believe these types of stories, the people I know who were Trump supporters NEVER would have voted for Clinton.

Re:No, not fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

You just got caught in a web of irony.

Re:No, not fake news

[0100010001010011]

The mainstream Left is absolutely convinced of their correctness.

Which is why they doubled down on the candidate they knew would win.

A woman president, how can she lose! We don't need an independent socialist, he's not a real democrat anyway. I know we're right, ignore anyone that says otherwise.

Re:No, not fake news

[danbert8]

Are there a lot of hate crimes? It's hard to distinguish between all the fake news, the biased "real" news, and shit that is shared on social media without any citation or evidence... If there are a lot of hate crimes, is it more than usual? Can it be attributed to Trump for the vitriol he spouted during the campaign? Is Hillary free from guilt despite inciting hate on the other side of the political aisle? I cannot blame Trump for what others do in response to his election. Nor can I blame those who voted for him.

The one that pisses me off the most is the bullshit about Trump being supported by the KKK. Umm, so? Support isn't a mutual exchange. I assume in EVERY election the KKK supports one of the major party candidates. Doesn't mean that one candidate is a white supremacist every election...

Re:No, not fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

Search YouTube for 'Clinton Butt-hurt'. How can their be that much blubbering without there being underlying hate crimes?

Some bad people might even take pleasure in those videos. I hope /. doesn't have any bad people. Bad people LEAVE US ALONE!

Re:No, not fake news

[x_t0ken_407]

Well, I can answer that. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were the best and most qualified for the highest office among all living Americans at age 35 or above....If you pardon me this French phrase, Trump and Clinton are both the creme de la creme of American society.

I refuse to accept that...[insert diety here] help us all if I am wrong -- something we'll never know. Or, do we already know?

Re:No, not fake news

[rhsanborn]

The true Trump supporters wouldn't vote for Clinton, but fake news was able to propagate really quickly on Facebook and it's reasonable to assume that the volume of those fake stories could have negatively influenced support and turnout for Clinton among people who weren't die-hard Trump supporters but were "friends" with those Trump supporters on Facebook.

Re:No, not fake news

[bickerdyke]

Not even that would have been neccessary. They could have changed the outcome also by staying home.

Re:No, not fake news

[Drethon]

Well, I can answer that. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were the best and most qualified for the highest office among all living Americans at age 35 or above. Nobody else is smarter or otherwise better equipped for the highest duty for his country, or else why would they have become presidential candidates in the first place? So there can be no loss either way. President Trump represents the best that America could possibly offer right now in terms of what voters and the electoral college think, directly followed by H. Clinton who won the popular vote. Not even Chuck Norris would have been better suited to become the next president of the US of A, which is why even he himself advertised for Trump. If you pardon me this French phrase, Trump and Clinton are both the creme de la creme of American society.

Did you hold your nose while typing that?

Re:No, not fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly this! I've felt that "news" on Facebook is sketchy at best for a while. And that anyone relying on it as their only source of news is a fucking idiot.

Re:No, not fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

But the Right has a different goal, and theirs permits individual liberty. The Left does not intend this, but conformity is the necessary goal to achieve a collective power structure.

This.

Re:No, not fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate crimes like the riots and property damage in Portland, Oregon last night?

If setting fires and smashing multiple car windows with baseball bats isn't a hate crime, what is it? Youthful exuberance?

That was Hillary's sore losers and spoiled children on the left doing that.

Re:No, not fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite your desire to make it so, accusations are just that...accusations. She's been convicted of nothing.

Re:No, not fake news

[kenai_alpenglow]

Especially since there was a KKK outfit that endorsed Clinton. It didn't make the news that much, and I won't say that she should be faulted by it--she shouldn't have to respond to every crackpot out there. But neither should people should take another KKK outfit endorsing Trump any differently. Now Clinton IS on video supporting a former KKK leader (& senate majority leader, now dead)...Is there a similar video where Trump support a KKK member or leader?

Re:No, not fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

I have several friends who are Trump supporters, and a lot of them posted some of the most ridiculous stuff from non-credible news sources (think "less credible than InfoWars").

Yeah, and equally ridiculous nonsense was being printed in the MSM and there were calls for the government to step in and declare what is truth or not and shut down problematic websites that disagree. I'll take the world where annoying wingnuts keep forwarding me Sorcha Faal.

Re:No, not fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

a rich guy which voters are traditionally hugely hostile towards

Ok, I agree with most of the other stuff, but this is soooo wrong.

Voters LOVE the rich. Most politicians they elect are rich. Most POTUS from both parties are/were, including the next one. Candidates will SAY they are a man of the people, an outsider, etc. but almost all of them aren't. Trump is actually one of the few exceptions who really never had previous experience in political office.

The lines often ridiculed as right wing talking points or jokes about the right are actually true.

-America is a country full of people who don't think they're poor, but simply temporarily embarrassed rich
-not a country of have's and have not's, but a country of have's, and soon to have's!
-America doesn't worship God... America worships money; "In God we Trust" is printed right on their bills!

These statements are mocked, because the left, the tiny minority who really does hate rich people, wants to brainwash people to think that there's more people who agrees with the left than there really is. The left would have you believe that "most" people hate the rich and "most" people are too helpless and/or dangerous for their own good and we must have bigger government to take care of everything.

Re:No, not fake news

[ausekilis]

so, statistically, half of facebooks millions (billions?) of users?

That couldn't possibly influence a majority opinion... /s

Re:No, not fake news

[Mike Van Pelt]

I'm thinking right now of that exchange between Eros and Trent in "Plan 9 From Outer Space". (After an election that would have made Ed Wood say "Naaahhh, nobody would believe that.")

As someone of a conservative/libertarian/federalist/"#NeverTrump since 1980-something" bent, I have a bit of an inclination be fine with the left continuing to run around, hair on fire, shrieking "HITLER RACIST HITLER BIGOT HITLER HOMOPHOBE HITLER SEXIST HITLER HITLER HITLER"; it isn't exactly the sort of behavior that's going to bring people to their side who weren't already there, and will drive away those with any sense. But it's not good for the country.

Re:No, not fake news

[tsqr]

The one election-related Facebook post that sticks in my memory was from OccupyDemocrats. Can't remember it well enough to quote it verbatim, but it was roughly, "If Hillary were found in the parking lot of a 7-11 in the Middle East trading blowjobs and state secrets for crack cocaine, I would still vote for her over Cheeto Hitler." I guess that sums up "the lesser of two evils" for some people. Personally, I didn't see it as a choice between two evils, but as a choice between two unacceptable alternatives. Best I could come up with on election day was to check the box for write-in, and leave the write-in space blank.

Re: No, not fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the WORST KIND. They should be a bit smarter, or dumber. Anything in between just harms humanity in the worst pssible ways

Re:No, not fake news

[khallow]

convicted

I didn't say convicted, I said committed. I think it says all when the defense is "She hasn't been jailed yet".

Re:No, not fake news

[khallow]

Voters LOVE the rich. Most politicians they elect are rich. Most POTUS from both parties are/were, including the next one. Candidates will SAY they are a man of the people, an outsider, etc. but almost all of them aren't. Trump is actually one of the few exceptions who really never had previous experience in political office.

This is an example of observation bias. The poorest person who ran for president from the major parties this last cycle was Bernie Sanders who has $700,000 in wealth, Marco Rubio who had $100k in wealth, and Martin Oâ(TM)Malley who had a flat zero. Everyone (17 people!) else was a millionaire. Randomly picking a person will get you someone with at least a million dollars in wealth.

In addition, 8 of the 20 had $10 million or more. So that's 40% chance just out of the box, that you'll get someone with that much wealth.

Let us note that Sanders gave Clinton a hard run too. Her wealth didn't come close to protecting her from him.

Let's also keep in mind that most people don't know squat about people's wealth. I suspect Clinton would have had an even harder time getting elected if people commonly knew she had $45 million in wealth with over half of that ($24 million) earned in 2014. After all, how does one get that much from being Secretary of State?

Re: No, not fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect Clinton would have had an even harder time getting elected if people commonly knew she had $45 million in wealth with over half of that ($24 million) earned in 2014.

But they did know, unlike Trump, she provided her tax returns.

After all, how does one get that much from being Secretary of State?

Hillary Clinton resigned as Secretary of State in February 2013, so I guess we'll never know how a Secretary of State would do it.

Maybe if we ever solve the Tootsie Pop question, we can research yours.

Facebook affected the election.

[0100010001010011]

As did E-mail, Twitter, Reddit, Instagram, Snapchat, IRC and I bet a Usenet server somewhere too.

Welcome to the Internet where people can share any information, real or not.

As it always has been, as it will be going forward.

The DNC had the opportunity to control online discussion but decided to correct the record against Sanders supporters..

Re:Facebook affected the election.

[x_t0ken_407]

Where are those mod points when ya need them...?

Re:Facebook affected the election.

[hey!]

So you're saying the problem with people getting false information off the Internet is that social media is a source of information.

Thank you, Sherlock.

Re:Facebook affected the election.

[Drethon]

As did E-mail, Twitter, Reddit, Instagram, Snapchat, IRC and I bet a Usenet server somewhere too.

Welcome to the Internet where people can share any information, real or not.

As it always has been, as it will be going forward.

The DNC had the opportunity to control online discussion but decided to correct the record against Sanders supporters..

And I'm pretty sure one or two votes were also impacted by television and printed material. Also, let me correct this for you slightly... "Welcome to Earth where people can share any information, real or not."

Re:Facebook affected the election.

[rmckeethen]

The DNC had the opportunity to control online discussion but decided to correct the record against Sanders supporters.

You know, this is the second or third time I recall seeing that very same JPEG linked, but with the names and images blacked-out, it's impossible to tell who said what. Are you claiming a staffer from the Democratic National Committee made those comments? How do I know those comments weren't originally from, say, a group of cross-dressing rodeo clowns?

If you're going to use online comments to make a point, you might want to choose comments you can attribute to someone we actually care to hear about. Online comments without attribution to who made those comments aren't really evidence of anything. 'Some guy' said 'some thing' doesn't matter much, and only serves to weaken your case.

Re:Facebook affected the election.

[Anonymous Coward]

As did E-mail, Twitter, Reddit, Instagram, Snapchat, IRC and I bet a Usenet server somewhere too.

I get all my fake news through Gopher, thank you very much.

social media site

[helsinki92]

Facebook is a social media site. If people think that the content presented on it is "news" or "newsworthy" then it is up to them to fact check. Because people are too stupid or lazy to fact check doesnt make facebook any more reliable or untrustworthy than the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews , etc. All of them spread "news" believe what you want.

Re:social media site

[Victor_0x53h]

I wish more people had the time and/or inclination to fact-check what they believe and pass onto others. How many plausible claims for or against candidates did you fact check this election cycle and how much time did you spend doing it? I stop short at name calling because the truth is I spent hours trying to verify certain claims and most voters don't have that kind of time. It's inundating to try obtain reliable facts and evidence from a credible source.

The question in my opinion is does Facebook profit from turning a blind eye to the kind of polarizing self-affirming material and the feedback-loop of a bubble they create for their users because it keeps them in-house? If they do profit from this and Facebook is the sole source of news for an increasing number of adults what, if anything, can or should be done?

Re:social media site

[Anonymous Coward]

I verified one was (R) and the other a (D). What more fact checking do I need?

Re:social media site

[helsinki92]

Common sense told me that almost all of the promises Trump made were idiotic and could not be implemented. Wikileaks proved to me what I always knew, Hilary Clinton was not trustworthy and would be a disaster.

Re:social media site

[Victor_0x53h]

That doesn't sound like fact checking at all. It sounds exactly like confirmation bias.

Re:social media site

[tsqr]

I wish more people had the time and/or inclination to fact-check what they believe and pass onto others.

No kidding. Maybe then I wouldn't receive so many texts, emails, and FB posts warning me about the latest faux virus that will destroy my phone.

"Caveat emptor" doesn't only apply to things you purchase.

Without social media

[Anonymous Coward]

There would be no President Trump. I can prove that using physics.

news from facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

according to posts sent to my facebook page, facebook has been proven to be the ONLY cause for Trump being elected, and ALSO promotes tooth decay. its right there in black, white and spinny yellow stars!

That's right, don't blame us...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the standard litany. Unfortunately, it is said by both the guilty and the innocent. Rare is the person or entity who unabashedly takes responsibility for their actions. Or inactions.

Really, Zuckerberg could blame the people who made the stories, or the people who believed them, or even the people who designed the electoral system itself. He could blame the guy who traveled back in time and stepped on a butterfly too.

Won't change the fact that it happens on his company's platform, and sooner or later, maybe the rest of us will do something to say that we're upset. With him, and we may well expect an accounting.

Or if not him, someone else.

Re:It's true

[helsinki92]

Please... Zuckerberg did everything in his power earlier in the election to ensure that newsfeeds were slanted towards Hillary. My 15 year old daughter is more electable that both Trump and Hillary. The DNC elected Trump. They are the douchebags that need to be held accountable.

Zucks is crazy

[Oswald McWeany]

Zucks is crazy if he thinks fake news couldn't have impacted the election.

Maybe it didn't change who got elected, but it probably did affect a handful of voters. There are some stupid people out there, and some intelligent people who get fooled, and some average people out there who might be impressionable.

Nonetheless, I guarantee you some people voted differently based on fake news they read. It might not have been a large %, it might not have impacted any state or federal level elections; however, some small local elections on a knife edge where just a handful of votes make a difference... maybe it did.

Even if someone recognizes a fake news story as fake when they read it, if it is pillorying someone, it might make that person subconsciously think slightly less of that candidate, and less likely to show up to vote. (even if it didn't do enough to make them change who they would vote for).

We're all impacted by what we see, read, and hear. Even if one article doesn't change our mind, reading 20 (some of which might be fake) could. I'm sure both presidential candidates lost votes because of untrue stories.

Re:Zucks is crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, if we're discussing fake news, we cannot only look at facebook. The TV networks, radio hosts and news papers have spewed even more lies. And in the end the candidate basing his entire election strategy on trolling and lies won.

Yeah, OKAY

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you think it's nuts that people believe BS they read on the Internet???? It's NOT really that small of a percentage of the content that was being displayed around the time of the election. People post crap that is meant to be trolling all the damn time and a LARGE amount of stupid people who are convinced and taken advantage of very easily believe it! That's not crazy! That's just how the damn US public works.

"OMG did you read about how [insert public face] said [insert BS comment about something controversial]????? I'll never vote for them!"

It happens all goddamn day because people just sit on the Internet and read about other peoples' lives. Yeah, this BS content on Facebook did sway the election in one way or another. Whether it was a majority amount of people or not. It does not matter. Social media (Twitter) was a big key factor in how Trump got his followers in general. You think FB is any different? It's not.

In other news

[jgullstr]

What about actual news, did they affect the election? Many articles seems to indicate otherwise.

I thought Americans had freedom of speech...

[bogaboga]

...Yes, freedom of speech which includes the freedom to say what may certainly be irrelevant, inaccurate or plain wrong to a particular situation.

has anyone ever followed the State Department's press conferences? I am sure that for those who have, its provision of "nonanswers" to difficult questions exposed the hypocrisy and utter disregard for the ordinary American.

One regime we support is "allowed" to humiliate some human beings, but if the regime isn't what we support, we condemn and sanction!

The trouble is, we then brag about it and preach! Americans looked through the BS and elected who they did.

FB should ask those who are complaining to go chew on some carrots if they're looking for how to get their mouths busy in a way.

Re:It's true

[0100010001010011]

Eat a bag of dicks, Zuckerberg, you elected Trump.

And when I posted real news stories during the primaries I got to have my record corrected. The DNC, against all polling, decided they wanted their queen to make it to the general. And they got what they wanted.

Re:It's true

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this attitude is what elected Trump.

Echo chamber, not "fake news"

[Anonymice]

It's not so much a direct result of the viral news & posts that get passed around social media, but the echo chamber people find themselves in.

Was it Facebook 'wot won it'?

Now you could say the same filtering has always applied - liberal people tended to read liberal newspapers, conservatives got their views reflected back in what they read.

The difference was that most editors have tried to do two things - present at least some alternative views and make sure that the facts in any story stand up to scrutiny.

Neither applies on Facebook. The News Feed algorithm serves you up whatever it thinks you and your friends want to believe and it certainly does not do any fact-checking.

Stories that accused the Clintons of murder or maintained that Barack Obama was a Muslim will have cropped up in the feeds of millions of people inclined to support Mr Trump.

This cuts both ways - a made-up quote from Mr Trump saying in 1998 that he might one day run as a Republican because "they're the dumbest group of voters in the country" is still being widely shared on social media by his opponents.

Both the Democrats and Republicans have long made ample use of Facebook - indeed it was the Obama campaign of 2008 that pioneered the use of social media in elections.

But for a Trump campaign that saw much of the mainstream media as hostile and biased, both Facebook and Twitter offered a powerful way of getting its message direct to voters unchallenged by any pesky journalists.

Re:Echo chamber, not "fake news"

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference was that most editors have tried to do two things - present at least some alternative views and make sure that the facts in any story stand up to scrutiny.

+1, Funny. The plain facts being ignored in favor of blaming everything else gives me so much hope that the democrats can fix their mistakes and prevent a second Trump term.

Re:Echo chamber, not "fake news"

[Anonymous Coward]

> liberal people tended to read liberal newspapers, conservatives got their views reflected back in what they read.

No, in fact liberal people tend to be a lot more omnivorous.
Conservatives do have dedicated news sources they rarely stray from.

Overall, the study finds that consistent conservatives:

1. Are tightly clustered around a single news source, far more than any other group in the survey, with 47% citing Fox News as their main source for news about government and politics.
2. Express greater distrust than trust of 24 of the 36 news sources measured in the survey. At the same time, fully 88% of consistent conservatives trust Fox News.
3. Are, when on Facebook, more likely than those in other ideological groups to hear political opinions that are in line with their own views.
4. Are more likely to have friends who share their own political views. Two-thirds (66%) say most of their close friends share their views on government and politics.

By contrast, those with consistently liberal views:

1. Are less unified in their media loyalty; they rely on a greater range of news outlets, including some – like NPR and the New York Times– that others use far less.
2. Express more trust than distrust of 28 of the 36 news outlets in the survey. NPR, PBS and the BBC are the most trusted news sources for consistent liberals.
3. Are more likely than those in other ideological groups to block or “defriend” someone on a social network – as well as to end a personal friendship – because of politics.
4. Are more likely to follow issue-based groups, rather than political parties or candidates, in their Facebook feeds.

-- Pew Research: Political Polarization & Media Habits

Questions...

[DidgetMaster]

Were there more 'fake news' articles that were intended to benefit Trump than were intended to benefit Hillary? Was it more blatant than all the fake news that was reported constantly during the election through more traditional news channels? I have a feeling that both camps tried to get a whole bunch of fake news articles that either reported false positive news about their candidate or reported false negative news about their opponent. Now that Trump has won, those who dislike the outcome of the election want it to appear that fake news on Facebook helped him more than it helped Hillary. Is that really true, or is it just more 'fake news'?

No different than the fake stuff on CNN

[Anonymous Coward]

It's no different than the clipped and misrepresented news that big media companies, like CNN, show. I think that is a bigger problem than something misrepresented on facebook.

Especially all the "oops we lost satellite feed" or "sorry we are having technical difficulties" when they cut off creditable people who start negatively talking about Clinton's political issues.

Where is all the outrage from the Clinton supporters there?

NYT is also fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize NYT is less credible than InfoWars?

Just TODAY they ran a story about Megan Kelly's book claiming Trump had debate questions before the debates. When asked about it Ms. Kelly said that didn't happen and wasn't in her book. NYT reported it as true though, and funny enough the msn.com comments on that story was full of people saying the NYT lies and they didn't believe the story. Its now accepted that NYT isn't even close to the truth anymore.

Not sure what you mean by "less credible than InfoWars". Pretty much every mainstream news outlet is non-credible now. Even after the election they are still literally making up stories to smear Trump.

Re:NYT is also fake news

[XxtraLarGe]

Do you realize NYT is less credible than InfoWars?

Yep. Especially their poster child Paul Krugman. Claimed that the markets will never recover, then this happened.

Re:NYT is also fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize NYT is less credible than InfoWars?

What do you expect from a newspaper who's motto is "all the news that's fit to print"?

Who decides what's "fit to print"? They do. Hmmm....

Re: NYT is also fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

This story is everything wrong with the way news is being consumed online. Much of the noise over the NYT story come from liberal filter bubbles, but you are clearly in a conservative one of your own. Did you read the article itself, or just uncritically accept the summary from your preferred source?

Here is the NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/books/review-megyn-kelly-tells-tales-out-of-fox-news-in-her-memoir-settle-for-more.html
Here is a story that provides her response: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/11/megyn-kelly-book/93628498/

Ms. Kelly never said it "didn't happen" (you seem to imply she denies writing about this at all). She quite clearly states that Trump had been told the first question would be a "pointed question directed at him," and some are speculating (or spinning) that he therefore had been leaked the questions themselves. *That* is what she is disputing. The NYT does not make that claim themselves, or even appear to suggest that, although you could claim the NYT writer chose that passage to highlight knowing it would muddy the water.

Just don't make that argument and then defend James O'Keefe's selective video edits, as a random example.

Re: NYT is also fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

Tweet from Ms. Kelly saying "Also for the record, I believe the reason I got sick the day of the first debate was I contracted a stomach virus, just as Rand Paul did."

You were not only told the truth, looked up the second article that I did claiming the NYT was lying, you didn't bother even looking for the referenced tweet. You not only knew it was a lie, had evidence it was a lie, posted a link that it was a lie, but then repeated the lie as the truth while calling me a liar while bringing up someone else I've never heard of claiming I defend him.

How idiotic do you have to be to think ANYONE would believe you?

Re: NYT is also fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

You claimed the NYT said that Trump had been leaked the debate questions, and implied that Kelly had denied the entire incident had happened at all. Both at odds with the linked articles.

Now you're talking about the stomach bug. I agree the NYT tried to make too much of that (although even they mentioned the stomach bug) but it's a red herring re: the original argument, which was that you were countering one falsehood with another.

Liberal Press Still Lying by Omission

[avandesande]

It was a lot of digging, but I finally found the quote they removed from most of the articles

“Why would you think there would be fake news on one side and not on the other?”

http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/z...

Re:Liberal Press Still Lying by Omission

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure there is fake news on all sides.
But the overwhelming majority of fake news was on one side.

So for him to say that is a misdirect that deliberately ignores important context. Kind of like most fake news.

FB is social media

[DavidMZ]

If we accept that FaceBook is a social media site, then we also have to accept that it can influence the way people think.

If he denies a problem exists...

[QuietLagoon]

... then he doesn't have to fix it. It's a simple strategy to invoke when he hasn't a clue about how to fix the problem. I would offer a simple solution - stop calling facebook a news source.

Bias is bias

[mschaffer]

If Facebook manipulates the news feeds, they are creating a bias. Zuckerberg's assessment is is biased as well. This isn't news.

damage control

[Anonymous Coward]

and spin - he just wants more $$$

What is he supposed to say?

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

What is he supposed to say? "Oh yeah, the fake news on our site swayed the election"?

Fake news from Facebook, MSM

[Anonymous Coward]

Fake news, as reported by the MSM, didn't affect the election; why would fake news on Facebook affect it?

So, Zuck...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Dear Mr. Zuckerberg,

I was considering purchasing a bunch of ad impressions and various social-media astroturf to promote my product on your 'Facebook'; but I hear that it is 'crazy' to believe that Facebook has any influence on audience beliefs or behaviors.

Please clarify.

Sincerely, Your Customers.

Re:It's true

[danbert8]

Well aside from that whole 35 year old requirement for President...

'Crazy Idea' ?

[fahrbot-bot]

Crazy like a Fox ... News. :-)

How did Viagra effect the election, and does FB

[raymorris]

> "I was for this candidate until I heard he say this......" then sent you to a random page for Viagra

How exactly does Viagra spam effect the outcome of the election?

I know many people say they voted for Hillary based on her genitalia, is it related to that?

Its not real.

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't call it Fakebook for nothing.

Sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody is focusing on fact versus observation versus opinions and echo chambers...

At what point did political strategists abandon push polling? How about rat fucking? If they weren't abandoned then was there some agreement not to do it on social media? Is there something about social media that prevents these strategies from being used because it looks like the perfect channel for them?

As usual

[stabiesoft]

its just crazy stuff people are focused on. Real questions are things like how is Trump going to disassociate himself with his commercial interests? Will executive branch meetings in washington be held at the new trump hotel, Mar-o-go? What happens if an occupy trump movement starts and picketeers block access to trump properties? Does the national guard come in to kick them out? What happens if say Irish people in Ireland picket the golf course and shut it down. Does US retaliate against Ireland because they did not do enough to protect Trump assets? We are in unchartered territory, frankly banana republic kinds of problems. Historically presidents have put their assets in blind trusts so they could not know if policy was going to influence their wealth. There is no way a Trump can do this because the asset is the name. Already we have the unprecedented action of putting dump trucks with sand around TT. Will those dump trucks be there for 4 years on 5th ave in Manhattan?

Clearly you are wrong

[SuperKendall]

He is hiding his income and taxes

Keeping private is not "hiding". Are you "hiding" your phone number? No? Post it then.

He clearly hates non-white
That's not what his black employees say, nor just that mesh with him picking Omarissa years ago to win The Apprentice (which also meant he would have to work with her).

non-straight non-male people

Trump is the most pro-gay GOP candidate there has ever been, far better for the LGBT community than Hillary would have been.

As for women, well if Trump hates women so much why did he keep hiring them to lead his campaign, including the last one that led him to victory?

He incites violence.

Sorry I'm having trouble seeing the Trump violence over Portland burning, and the fake protestors the DNC hired to mess up Trump rallies.

He knows next to nothing about anything.

And yet he still won, so obviously what he does know is how to find and hire the right people who do know how to accomplish things.

That he's a child molester?

Claimed just before the election, and we are supposed to believe that.... meanwhile Hillary was covering for Bill having sex with under-age females for decades. Don't see you very against that you monster.

Re:Clearly you are wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you don't read the real news that DogDude has that obviously shows how odious Trump is.

Re: Clearly you are wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

And his VP is most anti-gay. Just wait.

Re: Clearly you are wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

This idea that Trump finds and hires the right people is flawed. No one can dispute that he has found and hired the right people to win the election. However, would you agree with how his goals are accomplished? For example, this election was aggressively hostile and almost completely devoid of substance. In the past Trump has refused to pay people who have built his towers and worked at his casino. He frequently threatens to sue as a tactic to intimidate.

Re:Clearly you are wrong

[Powercntrl]

Keeping private is not "hiding". Are you "hiding" your phone number? No? Post it then.

Sure, they're not required to, but it helps to foster trust. Trump has broken a long standing tradition. Quoting taxhistory.org: "Since the early 1970s, however, most presidents have chosen to release their returns publicly."

That's not what his black employees say, nor just that mesh with him picking Omarissa [vanityfair.com] years ago to win The Apprentice (which also meant he would have to work with her).

There's enough evidence to suggest he's about as racist as the people in the flyover states who voted for him. As in, they'd prefer to live in America where most people look just like them, but they're not quite on the level of donning hoods and start burning crosses to achieve it.

Trump is the most pro-gay GOP candidate [conservativereview.com] there has ever been, far better for the LGBT community than Hillary would have been.

Hillary likely would not have done anything to further the cause of LGBT rights, but she accepted the status quo. Trump has said he wants to appoint supreme court justices who will overturn marriage equality, and leave it up to the states.

As for women, well if Trump hates women so much why did he keep hiring them to lead his campaign [dilbert.com], including the last one that led him to victory?

If Trump "hated" women, he wouldn't be married to one. He disrespects women, which as it turns out, actually appeals to the wifebeater-sporting "bitch, go make me a sammich!" troglodytes who voted for him.

Sorry I'm having trouble seeing the Trump violence over Portland burning, and the fake protestors the DNC hired to mess up Trump rallies.

Trump incites violence in that he alienates and marginalizes significant portion of this country's population, and has the diplomacy skills of a drunken Klingon. People are protesting because they have legitimate concerns about their future and are afraid Trump won't be willing to compromise with them. So what does Trump do? He confirms their fears by dismissing their protests as a conspiracy, organized by the mainstream media. With a tweet, no less.

And yet he still won, so obviously what he does know is how to find and hire the right people who do know how to accomplish things.

He won the system, not the hearts and minds of the majority of Americans voters. Trump lost the popular vote.

Claimed just before the election, and we are supposed to believe that.... meanwhile Hillary was covering for Bill having sex with under-age females for decades. Don't see you very against that you monster.

While the media and the keyboard warriors were incessantly squawking about sex scandals, xenophobia, Benghazi, and emails, the country bumpkins had already decided their disdain for how capitalism is working out for them, had sealed their vote. He's the right's version of Obama from 8 years ago. He's their Hope & Change detergent, "New & Improved with whiter whites and a lower price!"

Re:Clearly you are wrong

[Boronx]

Keeping private is not "hiding". Are you "hiding" your phone number? No? Post it then.

I am hiding my phone number. Are you suggesting that because I'm hiding my phone number, it's ok for Trump to hide his taxes?

He clearly hates non-white
That's not what his black employees say, nor just that mesh with him picking Omarissa [vanityfair.com] years ago to win The Apprentice (which also meant he would have to work with her).

He says all kinds of horribly racist things, advocates racists policies, but Trump does like brown people who do whatever he wants.

Trump is the most pro-gay GOP candidate [conservativereview.com] there has ever been, far better for the LGBT community than Hillary would have been.

This is true. His campaign was horribly bigoted, but not particular against gays.

As for women, well if Trump hates women so much why did he keep hiring them to lead his campaign [dilbert.com], including the last one that led him to victory?

I suppose it makes them easier to grab. Trump doesn't hate women, he just thinks its ok to physically attack them.

Sorry I'm having trouble seeing the Trump violence over Portland burning, and the fake protestors the DNC hired to mess up Trump rallies.

Clinton, Romney, McCain, Obama, every single candidate before Trump saw it as their duty to help tamp down on violence. Nice try on avoiding the issue. Crucially, the hired protesters did not themselves start any violence, but your use of "mess up" suggests you already knew that. Republicans do this to Democrats, too.

Re:Clearly you are wrong

[Rockoon]

There's enough evidence to suggest he's about as racist as the people in the flyover states who voted for him.

You mean the people in the flyover States that put Obama in the white house, twice?

Re: Clearly you are wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary's husband is at least American, not imoorted, and is his only husband.

Re:Clearly you are wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Hiding taxes, ast least he was capable of keeping something private. Something HRC failed to do.
Trump seems not interested liberal identity politic games. He seems more focused on fixing our economy any undoing the damage.

"Sorry I'm having trouble seeing the Trump violence over Portland burning, and the fake protestors the DNC hired to mess up Trump rallies."

then you haven't done any due diligence.

Re:Clearly you are wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Keeping private is not "hiding". Are you "hiding" your phone number? No? Post it then.

I'm not running for president, you thick fuck.

That's not what his black employees say,

We sho' do love the massa'. He treats us real nice. Of course, ignore all of the lawsuits against him discriminating against people in his real estate properties, you thick fuck.

far better for the LGBT community than Hillary would have been.

Based on what you just pulled out of your ass?

orry I'm having trouble seeing the Trump violence

You fail to see him actively encourage people to beat up other people at his rallies? I can't help it if you're that fucking stupid.

Proof

[pchasco]

This is proof that Mark doesn't actually use Facebook. Otherwise he'd know better.

It *IS* crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read an article that can be summarized as, "Man gives birth to triplet pigs after reading John Locke" and believe it the fault is yours. If you've given up on pursuing education, critically looking at any information you absorb and seeking out additional information how is that attributable to anyone else?

Fundamentally this argument is about personal responsibility.

Is fake news anything beyond annoying?

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

I live and grew up in a red state. Because of my background a significant number of my friends on Facebook are die hard Republicans. A small number of those spend way too much time worrying about politics and sharing fake news items and various anti-Democratic Party stories. Some of what I've seen is actually offensive. But is anybody actually convinced to change their minds because of this? All I see is other die hard Republicans comment about how true this stuff is. A rather large part of the US voting population is party locked and they are just not ever going to vote for the other party no matter what. Does it really matter if these stories are lies if all they do is preach to the already converted? Studies have shown that people deliberately seek out sources of information to reinforce already decided opinions and that if you confront people who hold a false belief with real proof that their belief is false, they will actually double down on the false belief and get even more adamant that it can't be wrong.

Re:Is fake news anything beyond annoying?

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't just about who you vote for, its about why you are motivated to vote.

If you decide not to vote because you've seen a million fake stories about why your party's candidate is untrustworthy, then you've been influenced.

If you decide to vote because you've seen a million fake stories about how terrible the other candidate is that nothing your party's candidate has done or said could disqualify them in your eyes, then you've been influenced.

Re:Is fake news anything beyond annoying?

[Anonymous Coward]

It matters not because of the entrenched die-hards, but because a significant number of voters make their decisions based on "gut feelings" which are largely but subtly informed by exactly this kind of noise. These are the "undecideds" that constantly confound the partisans on both sides. I believe that influencing this group is really where our elections are won/lost.

For once I agree with him

[argStyopa]

It's just an information channel.

If people are stupid enough to believe it, it doesn't matter if it arrives by FB, telegram, or pigeon.

Re:For once I agree with him

[Anonymous Coward]

Except this is not what it is. It's not a website whose appearance is invariant -- where everyone sees the same thing. It looks different according to who is looking. It shows you _very_ different things.

And it doesn't make this clear at all. Your facebook feed has a selective reality that increasingly correlates with your own selective take on reality. But it looks like a website, like others.

THAT is the problem.

Re:For once I agree with him

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just an information channel.

If people are stupid enough to believe it, it doesn't matter if it arrives by FB, telegram, or pigeon.

Facebook, and to some extent the Internet as a whole, has the unique property of making it very easy to cultivate large echo chambers.

The combination of network effects, and access to a large pool of users means that no matter what your beliefs it's easy to put together a group of a hundred or so people who share them and pay attention to those people almost exclusively, which will give a person the feeling that everyone in the world agrees with them except a few fringe crazies... regardless of the actual statistics.

If this impacted the election, it most likely did so by masking the scale of Trump's support base and making trump opposers complacent. They felt safe voting third party, staying home, or writing in a protest vote to voice their displeasure with Hilary because they didn't think Trump would win because from their perspective "everybody thought he was terrible".

This phenomenon is much more common in people who grew up with the Internet. It's a lot of why "SJW's" so frequently manage to put their foot in their mouth when addressing a general audience. They don't realize that there's a difference between the people who read all the same blogs they do and the much larger set of people who've never read any of those blogs and have no idea what they're talking about.

It's also been an issue for psychologists as apparently they write an exception into the definition of "delusion" in the DSM so it would exclude religious beliefs, that if a majority of your peers share the belief it's not a delusion, but with Internet forums and such it's easy to form a peer group that believes basically anything making it difficult to diagnose anything that requires delusions as a symptom.

Re:For once I agree with him

[Anonymous Coward]

> If people are stupid enough to believe it, it doesn't matter if it arrives by FB, telegram, or pigeon.

When was the last time you received news from telegram or pigeon?
In the past, most news went through an extreme vetting process. It wasn't perfect, there were fuck-ups and objectivity has been perverted into false balance. But there was a baseline level of integrity to the process. Not so for the crap on facebook.

And to simply say that the problem is with people for being stupid is like saying that you shouldn't expect that mechanic you hired to be able to fix your car, its your fault for being stupid enough to trust someone else who has training and experience that you don't have and couldn't reasonably attain on your own because you have other things in your life besides fixing cars.

I would not want to be a rich Jew now

[Anonymous Coward]

Its going south for them. History visibly repeating itself.

Granted I'm a small sample size..

[moorley]

But in reviewing all of the folks I have in contact with that are in the Trump camp, and researching at least 5 of them in the last 24 hours they are misleading at BEST!

Washington Post, republican leaning but that was the best of the bunch. The rest were outright distortion and lies.

The one I backtracked about a white guy in Charlotte getting beaten at a protest back in September was barely covered by any other media outlet, except the right wing ones across the globe with no depth or context. I finally found a note in Charlotte news organization that had a paragraph about the full video that showed he may have been getting pulled away by some African Americans to try to protect him. No further articles could I find.

When I look through all of the links and news stories these folks have silo'd themselves with fake news.

If facebook won't own it, they get problems. Their "unlikability" numbers aren't so good if I remember.

Re:Granted I'm a small sample size..

[moorley]

Ack! Washington Times...

Sorry!!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times#Political_stance

SJWs hurt more than fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm center-left. I see enough of what goes on at the fringes of both sides. Social media did affect the election. Mainly by SJWs being completely insufferable and driving the narrative in such a way that turned off the center.

The alt right talked about a wall, while the SJWs bashed everyone left and right for being transphobes, demanded safe spaces, checked your privilege, and word policed the net. It didn't matter what the content of the messages were, it only showed the middle that the right were concerned about borders, which affected everyone, while the left were concerned about bathroom rights that affected less than 1% of the population.

Even people who were otherwise for expanded civil rights were confused by the priorities of the left, and voted for their own self interests. That's what one is supposed to do in an election. That's normal. If the left continue calling that bigoted and lash out at middle America instead of re-examining their own mistakes, instead of enjoying 4 years of Trump, they'll get to have 8.

Re:SJWs hurt more than fake news

[ZenShadow]

I find it amusing that they "check your privilege". They really oughta check their own. The majority of them are a lot more privileged than a lot of middle America.

Bro

[Anonymous Coward]

Bro did you even use facebook during the election?

Popular vote is just trivia ...

[perpenso]

I remind you that Trump actually lost the popular vote ...

The problem with the popular vote argument is that its just trivia. Neither candidate was going for the popular, both were going for the electoral. Both allocated time and money for the electoral. If the popular had been the goal then they would have allocated time and money very differently and we would have a very different popular vote as a result.
Its like the losing side in a football game saying we moved the ball more yards. Yes, but such yardage wasn't the goal. If such yardage had been how a game was to be decided then both teams would have played very differently and the resulting yardage would have been very different.
Give me a little time and I'll try to work out a car analogy. :-)

Re:Popular vote is just trivia ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Popular vote creates a mandate. It'll be funny watching the folks in my rural home state realize that they voted in the worst part of the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy. To me this is a pendulum swinging. After 8 years of attacks from the right and the decimation of industry in Bush's wake it was a natural reaction to 'stick it to them liberals' when also saying 'its both parties fault'. If anything, this polarization has been building since Clinton was president with the same instigators that create lies such as 'Hillary murdered people' now in charge of media. It's a billionaires world now. Enjoy!

Re:Popular vote is just trivia ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Car analogy:

It's like an automobile race where the loser moans that "yeah, he reached the finish line first, but my wheels rotated more times".

Great, your wheels spun faster. That's not what the race was about.

Re:Popular vote is just trivia ...

[oakgrove]

This should be modded up. Furthermore, many Republicans in California and Democrats in Texas don't even bother as they know it's a foregone conclusion. Basically, if things were different, they'd be different. But they aren't.

No, of course not

[smooth wombat]

Just like Russia wasn't involved in any of the email hacks. Until they were,

Just like Trump didn't have backroom dealings with Russia because of his business ventures there. Until he was.

There's always an excuse why something isn't what it seems, until it is. Then even more stringent excuses come to the fore.

Besides, Zuckerberg has to say this. His country will be getting billions more U.S. taxpayer money to continue its apartheid policies so he can't appear to be influencing the U.S. election through deliberately allowing fake news.

Re:No, of course not

[Anonymous Coward]

The people have spoken, they were tired of low unemployment and cheap gas. How will gas get more expensive you ask? Right now Iran and Saudi Arabia are having an economic war pumping as much as as they can since the two can't get along. Once Trump sanctions Iran the 4 million barrels of oil they produce will be removed from the world market and Saudi Arabia will then be able to coordinate with the other OPEC nations to reduce supply. What about the frackers? They won't be able to produce enough to compensate, they are already pumping from their best sources, what is left are the marginal sources which are only economic if the price of oil were much higher, so the frackers will be able to pump more but only because prices are higher, which means people will pay more at the pump.

My experience

[bigdavex]

Otherwise normal, functioning people post, like, and share lots of garbage to Facebook that can be refuted with 30 seconds worth of checking as long as it supports their position or candidate. When I linked contrary evidence, people were angry. They don't care that their quote was misattributed or that documents or videos contradict their assertions. "Hey, I just liked it. I don't even know who this person is. Why are you even commenting here?"

I have always taken it as a given that people want to know the truth. I want to be corrected if I say something wrong. This is not true for everyone. It is sad.

Re:My experience

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a big difference between wanting to be corrected if you say something inaccurate or get your facts wrong; and getting a barrage of contradictory opinions from people who think your point of view is stupid. If I say "more police were killed last year than innocent people killed by police", then it is fine to quote a statistic that might prove my statement inaccurate. But if I say "I think the 2nd amendment should be preserved', I don't want to hear from all the gun control activists who want to tell me I must be a hateful bigoted racist and misogynist for suggesting it.

Quit looking for scapegoats

[tomhath]

And it is the influence that these fake stories have, not the quantity of them, which is important.

Democrats lost this election because the DNC screwed it up at every step.

Anointing the most unpopular candidate they could find instead of letting voters select one.
Encouraging people to vote for Trump in the primary.
Organizing protests against Trump that backlashed by motivating his supporters.
Ignoring states that would decide the election.
Spending too much time talking about issues that aren't relevant to most voters (e.g. Hillary's glass ceiling instead of the economy)

Re:Quit looking for scapegoats

[Boronx]

What they didn't do is yell "Trump's going to take away your Medicare". That's the surest way to win any election.

Re:Quit looking for scapegoats

[Billly Gates]

Not to mention the SuperDelegates pledged to Hillary before the election even began!!

That should be illegal. If they were free or were less of them then Bernie would have gotten a chance. He is too liberal for me but I would have voted for him over Trump and so would millions of others and Trump would be whining back home in his towers.

The question is like an alcoholic will Democrats admit there is a problem and change or not?

Corruption SUCKS! The fact that I am now finding out that foreign countries are donating to Clinton scares me as much as the Russians helping Trump. That should be treason and alone for Hillary not to run.

Suckerberg

[Anonymous Coward]

Mark Suckerberg is a crazy ideas that should have been aborted.

Zuck Revenge (Penis Envy)

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget the election (erection).

Zuck and FB are fueling the revenge mobs.

It really is crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

The democrats are blaming everyone but themselves. From a recent article by Glenn Greenwald, posted at the Intercept:

You know the drearily predictable list of their scapegoats: Russia, WikiLeaks, James Comey, Jill Stein, Bernie Bros, The Media, news outlets (including, perhaps especially, The Intercept) that sinned by reporting negatively on Hillary Clinton. Anyone who thinks that what happened last night in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Michigan can be blamed on any of that is drowning in self-protective ignorance so deep that it’s impossible to express in words.

Um

[Anonymous Coward]

Guys, this was just a click-bait article someone saw on Facebook. It's bullshit.

neocon

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, what do you expect? Just like Goebels said, "accuse someone else of that which you are guilty of. "

What's to be expected a greedy, unprincipled, small minded, manipulative freak?

After all, a neocon is a Jewish uncle Tom

Welcome To Trumpland

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly does Viagra spam effect the outcome of the election?

You are clearly being rhetorical if not trolling, but hey, we all need a platform sometimes. And that is precisely the basis of the actual answer to your question.

Spam exists because of high level policy corruption relating to the internet, no doubt justified by the IC who claim the world would fall apart if people were allowed to have reasonably secure computing and communication systems.

It is that lack of the masses having access to reasonably secure computing and communications systems that effected the outcome of the election. Before you jump to the conclusion that such access would have prevented the Hillary campaign email leaks and thus ensured her victory, I will argue that such access would/could/may have prevented BOTH Hillary AND Trump from being the final two party candidates.

Facebook is in a position of massive machiavellian power. There is no reasonable reason why they should be. Sharing photos and thoughts and cat videos is something linux and apache can do without any corporate middleman gaining machiavellian power over the conduit. If you want to laud Facebook engineers for working to make that ability accessible to more people- fine. That explanation made sense for perhaps a couple years tops. The idea that the whole rest of the world couldn't accomplish the same task with FOSS in 10 years... begs skepticism and further analysis. Twitter as well, seems to be little more than IRC with a web-2.0 GUI bolted on. Reddit is just usenet in the same fashion. Oh, but you say the benevolent corporate overlords of Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit have kept us safe from racist and sexist and misogynist horde that we would all have to face if they too had as much freedom of speech as Zuckerberg. Well then, welcome to Trumpland 2016 jesus years. Enjoy the ride.

Re:It's true

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously GP has triplets and expects them to stand on each otehr's shoulders while wearing a really long coat.

Hillary's privilege got body checked

[Anonymous Coward]

If only the people who dared to disagree with the clearly superior opinions of the Democrats had been further marginalized, I surely would have voted Hillary! All they need is a bit more of I-can't-believe-it's-not-censorship and chilling effect on popular sites and the record will be corrected!

It surely wasn't the fault of the DNC, which conspired with the media to make Trump a candidate in the first place. It surely wasn't the DNC who made sure that it was Hillary's turn. It clearly wasn't getting exposed for every dirty trick, it's just standard politics to incite violence and blame it on Bernie's supporters. There's no need for introspection here, just make the filter bubbles 10 feet higher! And rage, rage violently--then censor all the vids on YouTube. Because you didn't just tell us the other week that it was an "attack on Democracy" to complain about a fair election. We can't see the buses at the protests, nor the employment ads.

Just 'refute' every argument by calling people a sexist, racist, mysogynist pig, because surely if they disagree they're an f-ing white male. And if a gay dares vote another way, they're not even gay! You say it's your way or the highway and are surprised when people leave. You say you're the majority but we still haven't counted all the votes. A fifth of Arizona, a twelfth of Georgia, a this point, what difference does it make? But yes, censure all who disagree. Smashing up the town always brings people on board.

You're right on everything, to disagree is evil.
Reality is in favor and brute facts are medieval.
No outsider can be your equal, bring them to heel.
Who cares what they think, this is how you feel!

Re:It's true

[helsinki92]

Even with the 35 year old requirement!

I understand Zuck

[fbobraga]

"Facebook" is only the media, not the real source

* but the title of this post is a total BS (from Mark?)

Flat out fucking liar

[Khyber]

This coming from the asshole that said in the beginning that people using his service were fucking idiots due to how much info they put out. So it can't be anywhere unreasonable to assume to know his fucking effect on this election cycle given how many 'fucking idiots' are using his service.

I bet Zuck doesn't read what people repost

[alphad0g]

If Zuck thinks it has no effect, then he is not reading posts. I have idiot friends repost these fake stories as fact. Then other idiot friends say "Wow! I didn't know that" - no one checks any fact check site. They usually don't even read the fake article, just the headline. And if you point out it is fake, they are convinced that all the fact check sites are run by the liberal media.

Is Zuck naive, or just protecting his baby from being called ugly?

People are sheep. Feed them enough BS often enough, and believe it regardless of facts. Global warming is myth. Freeing all the carbon sequestered for millions of years, can't be bad.

Excuses, excuses, excuses

[moeinvt]

I wasn't a huge fan of Trump, but seeing the ongoing deluge of whining, excuses and accusations from the mainstream media regarding the election results is wonderful entertainment. I like Trump a little more every day.

The media has always been slightly biased toward the left, but the degree of anti-Trump bias in this election was absolutely jaw dropping. They shed every pretense of neutrality and objectivity, went all-in for Hillary Clinton and they still ended up on the losing side. This relentless deluge of excuses ...

It was Facebook!
It was Wikileaks!
It was Comey!
It was Putin!

is nothing more than them being bitter about the fact that they can no longer control the narrative. For decades, they've been successfully telling the American people what to think, and this harsh rebuke by the voters is apparently hurting their delicate feelings. LOL That, plus the fact that Trump played them like a fiddle in the early days to build his name recognition(no such thing as bad publicity and all that).

Up yours MSM! Your candidate totally sucked and this time, the people of the USA weren't swallowing your propaganda.

Create a school to understand why you lost

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, it's everyone else who failed. Not you.

Anti-vaxxers

[Powercntrl]

Next they're going to be claiming all the "vaccines cause autism" memes that keep going around have absolutely no influence on the growing anti-vaxxer movement. Oh, and our president elect is an anti-vaxxer. Thanks for making Idiocracy come true, social media.

Mark Zuckerberg is a crazy idea

[Tough Love]

Mark Zuckerberg is a crazy idea. Fake news on Facebook is true as everybody knows, unless they are crazy.

No mandate with 0.2% difference

[perpenso]

Popular vote creates a mandate.

Not when the difference between the two candidates is 0.2%. The popular vote is effectively a tie. Its even a closer tie than Bush/Gore where the difference was 0.5%.

Yes I would agree

[SuperKendall]

However, would you agree with how his goals are accomplished? For example, this election was aggressively hostile and almost completely devoid of substance.

True of both sides, so I would say Trump did what he had to to win. There was no other way - two other Republicans tried and were steamrolled by a Democratic candidate and press that were "aggressively hostile". You didn't want a campaign like that, you should have voted you wanted a submissive candidate.

He frequently threatens to sue as a tactic to intimidate.

Yet Trump merely says that while Democrats do it. He has two suits against him right now that were election driven.

Trump just did what he had to do to show the other side he would do whatever they did.

Hearts and Minds

[SuperKendall]

He won the system, not the hearts and minds of the majority of Americans voters.

True enough, no-one did - Trump and Hillary had equal numbers of votes within the counting margin of error, but the large majority of people did not vote for either. He didn't win their hearts but apparently they also do not dislike him any more than Clinton or they would have acted.

But that did not matter because the contest was not for "hearts and minds" it was for the presidency - hearts and minds can be won over a longer period of time once you win that.

the country bumpkins

It was many inner city voters that carried Trump to victory. Conservatives would LOVE LOVE LOVE for you to carry on being so blind as to what actually happened, to infuriate voters enough to continue to strive to vote against you... keep it up, it's people like you that pretty much ensure a second Trump term. If you really don't want that, best start thinking about how to talk up to people instead of down.

Re:Hearts and Minds

[Powercntrl]

It was many inner city voters that carried Trump to victory.

The major urban areas voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. That's why you're seeing protests in those areas. I live in the 'burbs and the closest "protest" is in downtown Orlando.

Conservatives would LOVE LOVE LOVE for you to carry on being so blind as to what actually happened, to infuriate voters enough to continue to strive to vote against you... keep it up, it's people like you that pretty much ensure a second Trump term. If you really don't want that, best start thinking about how to talk up to people instead of down.

People like me did not intentionally create the situation which enabled Trump to win. We vote for the lesser of two evils and then cringe in horror as they do something detrimental to the country. A rail for the "Trump Train" to ride on was laid down each time a worker was laid off. A lot of us "evil" democrats actually believe you should be able to earn a decent living, achieve the American dream, go to your place of worship on your holy day, and responsibly own firearms. We just also believe you shouldn't have to trample the rights of minorities, in the process.

It's very unlikely Trump will accomplish much of what he promised during his campaign trail, during his first term. His chances at a second term are not going to hinge on the spite of voters against the other party, but instead, how well Trump's supporters accept his excuses for his inevitable shortcomings.

Re:Hearts and Minds

[SuperKendall]

The major urban areas voted overwhelmingly for Clinton.

Not all of them. Trump did very well in major urban areas of the rust belt.

In fact if you removed California, Trump overall received over two MILLION more total votes than Hillary. He did better with minorities and women than other Republican candidates before, and managed to get a crossover vote of around 20% Democrats in some key states.

He clearly in fact won over a LOT of hearts that were not swayed before.

It's a shame you can't admit the truth just because you are blinded by rage...

People like me did not intentionally create the situation which enabled Trump to win.

HA HA HA HAH OH EH AHH AHAH HAH AHAAH A!

*Gasp*.

Re: Hearts and Minds

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact if you removed California, Trump overall received over two MILLION more total votes than Hillary.

You mean Trump, who is half a million behind, gets 2 million ahead when you remove a lead of 2.5 million votes from Hillary? Gosh, Arithmetic.

He clearly in fact won over a LOT of hearts that were not swayed before.

Actually, that isn't clear at all, he's still behind George W. in 2004, and keeping pace with Romney and McCain.

Certainly not a significant net gain.

It's a shame you can't admit the truth just because you are blinded by rage...

It's a shame that you can't admit the truth because you are by blinded by partisan bias, unthinking adoration, simple arrogance, rank hypocrisy, and who knows what else is occuring in your mind.

Truth is, Trump will always have an asterisk by his name. Hillary, you can say that she lost voters, but claiming Trump gained any? Not so far. But you have no choice except believing in his self-proclaimed glory.

Re:Hearts and Minds

[Powercntrl]

In fact if you removed California, Trump overall received over two MILLION more total votes than Hillary.

Actually, California is underrepresented in the electoral college. If anything, California is treated quite unfairly by the presidential election system. Sorry you just don't happen to agree with the way their residents vote. There's an ever-so-slim chance you'll get your wish of "removing California" and they'll take their avocados and go home.

It's a shame you can't admit the truth just because you are blinded by rage...

Under Obama's watch I've been laid off, had to short-sell my upside-down home, and don't make enough at my current employer to afford adequate health insurance. I know better than most, why people found comfort in Trump's vision of an America that is "Great Again." But that vision is a mirage. A modicum of understanding about the workings of capitalism will tell you the president does not control such things. Already, Trump looks like a man who has had his hopes dashed.

When the better option (Sanders) lost, we voted for the status quo. You voted for change. Give it 4 years and we'll see who ends up more disappointed.

Re:Hearts and Minds

[SuperKendall]

The point is California is just one state, if you are taking "hearts and minds" across the nation, Trump indeed won over a majority of the nations voters.

Re: Hearts and Minds

[SuperKendall]

The funny thing is you think I'm partisan when I'm really independent. I'm just not willing to lie to myself as you are.

You mean Trump, who is half a million behind, gets 2 million ahead when you remove a lead of 2.5 million votes from Hillary?

You thought you were being clever but in fact it seems you are too stupid to understand the original point, which was simply that if you really think about most of the nation (which primarily exists outside California) Trump in fact did carry the popular vote... as in so many things California is an aberration.

Actually, that isn't clear at all,

That's where you choose to blind yourself, the number of Democrats and minorities shifting to Trump made that clear to anyone who wants to see the truth.

Truth is, Trump will always have an asterisk by his name.

For the first term or the second? Because people like you being willfully blind will basically hand him a second term...

As I said, I don't really care. I'm just pointing out what is outside of the partisan bubble. I have a lot of conservative friends, and a lot of liberal friends... can you say the same? I doubt it, and yet you claim to be able to see better than someone who can see the whole instead of a half.

FBI email investigation

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, there's been a lot of fake news stories posted on Facebook. But there's also evidence that Comey's announcement, which was "real" "news" may have been what pushed it over the edge.

And a lot of the negative portrayals of Clinton, accurate or not, have been over the last couple decades. Before social media, there were blogs; before blogs, there were chain emails; before that, there was talk radio. So while social media might have played a role, the alt conspiracy theory network has existed for a long time.

Mark Zuckerberg is ether a fool or an idiot

[Bomarc]

Mark Zuckerberg is ether a fool or an idiot (or both). He seems to be out of touch with that is going on. I might suggest that his denial is so he won’t be forced (legally or morally) to enforce some kind of censorship (Slippery slope here what is satire vs what is false?)

One thing that I did find out: when you discover the “hate/false” posters (usually through other friends posts) and try post a correction about the inaccuracy: They will block you; and you will not be able to see the on-going problem. Also: The false information can be tracked to the same source(s).

I've certainly seen anecdotal evidence

[Timmy D Programmer]

I have seen a great deal repeating, sharing and believing of these stories, I find it hard to believe that these weren't enough to sway quite a few people.

Suggested Links

[hduff]

I found links to debunking sites in the Suggested links of a post. Those were very helpful.

"Liberals"

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberals want something convenient to blame because they can't accept the fact that there is a huge core of this country between NYC and LA that's not on-board with their SJW agenda. These are the states that got left out of the economic boom, populated by people who the Democrats don't seem to give a shit about anymore (unless they're minorities or women). And people in those "flyover" states are sick of smug liberals calling them stupid and racist when they complain about how free trade and immigration are fucking them over and how they've lost good jobs.

I agree with everything you said here, except the word "liberal." When people wake up, they're going to realize they had all their labels placed backwards in this race. Everyone, go back and check your basic definitions, and ignore what you think the letters "R" and "D" next to names are supposed to mean.

People had enough of the Bush/Obama status quo, of which Clinton promised more. People thought free market capitalism had gone too far, and for long enough. The proletariat finally rose up against the bourgeois.

People wanted their FDR work programs, and their LBJ great society. They wanted government to Do Something and take a more active role in the economy, by instituting tariffs, picking which people are allowed to work, etc.

FWIW, I think this move to the left will result in the usual disillusionment, but it won't be all bad. (e.g. I'm actually glad that Trump is going to try to dissolve the "free trade" agreements; I just think it's regrettable that he's doing it for the purposes of trying to suppress free trade.) People should stay positive and think of this as using dangerously-polluted water to wash away a pile of shit. (Sorry about the analogy, Michigan voters.) It should work fine, as long as you follow up with a clean rinse.

I'm surprised this is being asked,...

[AbRASiON]

If anything, the vast vast majority of information I've encountered online is extremely pro left, facebook, twitter, news articles. It is exceedingly difficult to not stumble across article upon article how ghastly Donald Trump is, be it lies, truth or 'opinion posted as news' which is all too common.

I can't stand either of them, but the amount of misrepresentation I saw of Trump online was so intense and so vehement, frankly I'd have to agree with Zuckerberg, for different reasons. It's clear that whatever has been endlessly posted online with a leftist slant, seemingly hasn't had enough impact to win an election.
The media are clearly out of touch with 'the little people' and very much in touch with a young, hip, far better off demographic than they realise.

No, I voted for neither, I'm not even in your country, FWIW I think he's clearly a complete fucking Doofus but she would not have been some miraculous beacon of hope either, I think she wouldn't have been as good as people think and he won't be as bad as people think. It's all status quo bullshit.

Put your rap sheet to a beat until you bleat bitte

[Anonymous Coward]

Even a stopped clocks are right twice a day, ignoring a message won't make it go away.
Attack a source all you want. Promote ideas, don't just taunt.
You lost because you don't answer questions, there's more to this than just some elections.
You can rage and rage and rage all day. Guess what? You still won't get your way.
Know why you lost? Just look in the mirror. I don't think the answers could really be clearer.
You worked so hard to turn everyone against you, so you had to cheat to beat a nice old socialist Jew.
You rocked it so hard we heard your bell's knells. You want Sanders now? Eat at Colonels!
You might not think there's any reason in this rhyme and I expect to see you double the hate next time.
Preaching tolerance, you worked so hard to exclude just about every single normal white dude.
Smash up your cities, that will sure make us all listen. Forget about MLK or doing a sit in.
Preaching Popper's propers to anyone on the fence, but missing that it was founded on self-defense.
Don't attack if you're unable to defend, you should try instead to work and mend
your fences with your neighbors. The attacks do you no favors.
Rewrite the narrative or flip the script, we know who's been writing it.
You want to show us that your ideals are good, so act them out by being kind like everyone should.
You spit venom along with honeyed words, such things are just more polished turds.
War for peace and peace for war, why are we fighting any more?
I can go on and on and on for days, but the point of all this is to mend your ways.
Be kind and rewind to eight years ago, remember the America we used to know.
That's all folks, end of show.

It is harder for smart people to wrap

[Anonymous Coward]

Their mind around just how stupid people are.

Pedophilia in schools was a big issue

[Anonymous Coward]

The lgbt thing was done through the supreme court by expanding the equal protection clause and civil rights act to cover sexual orientation, ANY sexual orientation including pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, etc. That would mean pedophiles in schools, zoophiles in animal shelters, and necrophiles in morges with companies hands tied to do anything about it. People don't care what gays do in private, but they need to get their rights in a way that doesn't open the door for abusive situations.

Fakebook's "experiment" proves otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

A while back "negative news" were used there (was BIG news) to see if that adversely affected folks https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... & apparently it did.

Folks who use it often aren't 'computer nerds' who KNOW about malvertising & were suckered by it too

* Oddly enough, Mr. Zuckerberg being jewish, I listed to a religious leader of theirs (regarding Moshiach return) saying i.e. - "The net is a tool, don't let it 'get to you'" calling it a "Klippa" that is DESIGNED to drag you down (via socialmedia, mass mainstream media, etc.)

(On a side-note: I respected that & believe + use it myself (rather I am aware of its more than potentially adverse effects) - it's true - but you have to be "STRONG" mentally to realize it & even then, a LOT OF NEGATIVITY CAN DEFINITELY "drag you down" (which many folks, especially psychiatric sciences pros, definitely know...)).

LASTLY: How "odd" (not) you tried downmod "hiding" this last time I posted it too -> https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...

APK

P.S.=> Above all else I noted? Mr. Zuckerberg, please & with all due respect? You are an ADVERTISER above all else & it's WIDELY KNOWN in techniques in Business degrees or Media Arts degrees that mind-gaming like "Jump on the Bandwagon" exist & ARE used to influence others... so either the HEAD DOESN'T KNOW THAT ITS ASS IS DOING or you are looking for "outs" here (you'd have been better served fessing up to the use of these psy-op techniques imo)... apk

Zuckerberg and Murdoch's common ground

[Baloo Uriza]

A business model!

Looks like someone gets their news from the Facebo

[psycheitout]

Say what you want about its affect on the election but don't even try to downplay the sheer amount of garbage that clogs up the Facebook on a daily basis. Also, the main issue is not just the level of garbage news out there, it is how facebook only streams you the news you want to hear and blots out anyone on the other side of the argument. Which is what a lot of people are saying it attributed to the rampant partisanism we had in our election. Just check out Tomi Lauhren. You may not have heard of her but I bet your racist grandpa has seen a couple of her bile spewing videos on their facebook wall.