Slashdot Mirror
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."
I call top bunk at the reeducation camp! Kidding... but I still call it.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
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.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Fake news on facebook did not effect the election. It was the people stupid enough to believe them.
bickerdyke
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..
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.
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 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.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
What about actual news, did they affect the election? Many articles seems to indicate otherwise.
Nice try HUMA ABEDIN.
...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.
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.
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.
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'?
“Why would you think there would be fake news on one side and not on the other?”
http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/z...
love is just extroverted narcissism
If we accept that FaceBook is a social media site, then we also have to accept that it can influence the way people think.
... 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.
If Facebook manipulates the news feeds, they are creating a bias. Zuckerberg's assessment is is biased as well. This isn't news.
What is he supposed to say? "Oh yeah, the fake news on our site swayed the election"?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
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.
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.
Well aside from that whole 35 year old requirement for President...
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
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.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Crazy like a Fox ... News. :-)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
> "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 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?
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This is proof that Mark doesn't actually use Facebook. Otherwise he'd know better.
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.
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.
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.
-Styopa
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.
"Don't fear death... fear not living..." -me
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.
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.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
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.
-Dave
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)
Propaganda and the acceptance of provable lies as fact are the enemies to Democracy
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.
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.
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.
-- sigs cause cancer.
Spending 8 hours a day on Facebook is a crazy idea.
Even with the 35 year old requirement!
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.
"Facebook" is only the media, not the real source
* but the title of this post is a total BS (from Mark?)
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.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
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.
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.
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.
Charter Member of The Committee Group For The Elimination And Eradication Of Repetitive Redundancy
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.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Mark Zuckerberg is a crazy idea. Fake news on Facebook is true as everybody knows, unless they are crazy.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
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%.
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...
"Don't fear death... fear not living..." -me
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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 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.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
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.
I found links to debunking sites in the Suggested links of a post. Those were very helpful.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
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.
Someone had to do it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
==================
Hippie Logger Jock
==================
A business model!
Furries make the internet go.
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.
Furries make the internet go.
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.