Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Pages Spreading Fake News Won't Be Able To Buy Ads (techcrunch.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Facebook says it's taking another step against Pages that share fabricated news stories. The company has already been working with outside fact-checkers like Snopes and the AP to flag inaccurate news stories. (These aren't supposed to be stories that are disputed for reasons of opinion or partisanship, but rather outright hoaxes and lies.) It also says that when a story is marked as disputed, the link can can no longer be promoted through Facebook ads. The next step, which the company is announcing today, involves stopping Pages that regularly share these stories from buying any Facebook ads at all, regardless of whether or not the ad includes a disputed link. In this case, Leathern said blocking ad-buying is meant to change the economic incentives. Facebook is concerned that "there are Pages posting this information that are using Facebook Ads to build audiences" to spread false news. By changing the ad policy, Facebook makes it harder for companies to attract that audience.
Now there is something I would have never expected. Facebook a real world news source.
Going to get really interesting in a year or 2. Can Facebook be a real news source and the Epicenter of the Zuck for President Universe.
It's not about fact, but about pushing the PC narrative.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
And any valid potlical opinion 'people' might disagree with will be labeled 'extremist', 'alt-right', 'racist', 'inciting hatred', or simply 'nazi', and disappeared, no matter if it is actually true or not. And whoever controls the censors gets to decide what is true and what is not.
It's easy to see where this is heading. Next will be the deletion of Facebook pages that spread so-called fake news. Or anything Facebook finds objectionable.
In the recent past, the simple work-around would be buy a domain name and link to such content hosted somewhere. However, GoDaddy, Dreamhost, Network Solutions, and others have now taken it upon themselves to, in effect, censor content by deleting the domain name associated with any site they find objectionable.
Interesting how many internet neutrality proponents are all for it except when it concerns content and expression they don't like. Seems to me that domain name registrars, DNS providers, co-location facilities, ISPs, communication providers, and network access points should all be considered common carrier utilities and not permitted to arbitrarily block usage nor content unless dictated so by law.
win-win
"Since the people vetting the ads are almost all leftists, it'd be easy for them to decree something as non-fact."
Just because every utterance from the White House turns out to be a lie, doesn't make fact-checkers "leftist", it just makes the orange Hitler a lying piece of shit.
Not just biased, but down right dishonest.
Whaaah! We don't have access to our servers, we are being held hostage by the people my wife sold her shares in the company to... but we'll just leave out that fact when we beg for money.
'Do you find that most people are "leftists"?'
Compared to him, most people are.
The US government is run by right wing extremists. Only now even nuttier farther right extremists want their share.
Conservatives upset that belief can be dismissed on the same basis as was used to submit it.
Libertarians upset that "privatizing truth" is what the free market decided upon.
Liberals upset that moral relativism can be fact checked.
The only winning move is not to use facebook.
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
The most right-wing party in Denmark (in government, not Nazis and that far-right BS) almost verges the American Democrats party. A guy like Bernie Sanders would be center/slightly right-wing in Denmark.
[citation needed]
Serious question.
A bit of unintentional humor there, I see.
Facts don't have a political slant, but collections of facts do. By choosing which facts to present, you can shape the narrative to support a particular position or weaken support for that position. For example, you might:
And so on. The problem is, all the sources of news are so skewed in one way or another that people don't know who to trust anymore. Clearly, some sources are particularly bad, and filtering out that noise is a laudable effort, but without a quality source of news to replace it, I fear that the void will just be filled by more noise.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
People telling lies about politics won't be able to make money from people telling lies about their products.
It's correct, the stuff Americans call "left wing" seems like the right wing politics in Europe. Worse, anything centrist gets called Marxism, which is hilarious.
Since the people vetting the ads are almost all leftists, it'd be easy for them to decree something as non-fact.
They're vetting themselves.
Citation?
You see that is generally how fact checking works, it isn't purely an opinion, it is an opinion based on cited sources.
This.
President Trump’s 492 false or misleading claims in his first 100 days ...
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Since the people vetting the ads are almost all leftists, it'd be easy for them to decree something as non-fact.
It seems that many people on Slashdot have been afflicted with outrage blindness when they read something upsetting because they never seem to read the part that would otherwise defuse their outrage.
These aren't supposed to be stories that are disputed for reasons of opinion or partisanship, but rather outright hoaxes and lies.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
... fake news is easy to identify. It's not a matter of bias, it's a matter of fact.
Either something happened or it didn't.
It's not hard.
However, why in tarnation is anybody getting their real goddam news on fucking Facebook?
That's the question.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Republicans are snowflakes: they are white, cold, and when you get enough of them together they shut down public schools.
You know, you fools that keep comparing Trump to Hitler or the "right" to nazi's have no fucking clue what the hell you are are talking about. You are comparing the US government and its president to a system and man that murdered 12 million jews, homosexuals, and other people he found undesirable in most efficient process he could come up with. A man that started a world war that killed over 50 million people.
When your trump derangement syndrome has you frothing at the mouth and pulling bullshit out of your ass like this, then you are one sorry excuse for a human. Go talk to someone that survived one of the real Nazi death camps and compare Trump to Hitler and see what they tell you.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Bill Clinton feared the open internet in 1995
http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...
> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news
> would be consumed, President Bill Clinton's White House feared
> that the Internet was allowing average citizens, especially conservatives,
> to bypass legacy gatekeepers and access information that had
> previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.
Hillary Clinton whining about an internet "Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function"
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...
Apparently CNN (Clinton News Network) wasn't winning the battle for hearts and minds, so the Democrats wanted to destroy Breitbart website... Hillary Campaign Vows To Destroy Opposition Website
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08...
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Well looking at these facts I see a bunch of claims by Trump that could or could not be tree. Then I see a bunch of claims by the Washington post that say these claim's by Trump are not true. What I don't see is evidence from the Washington Post that can be used to check their facts. So, what we have here is a bunch of unverified claims by the Great Orange being counter claimed by a bunch of unverifiable claims by a failing media rag.
This put the counter claims by the Washington Post exactly in the same frame as those they are saying are false. In other words not worth the web page they are printed on.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
And therefore you know why they have selected it?
This is just another 'cut off the funding to anyone who we dont agree with/like/feel share our morality/spoke against us/etc..'
Kind of like the Obama driven banking attack on the 'immorals' isnt it.
Totalitarianist regimes likes to paint their power grabs as 'morality' and 'fairness', oldest play in the book.
The Stalinists did it, the Maoists did it, the Nazis did it.. I have little doubt that the Romans, Greeks, etc etc did it also.
I would be surprised in good old Ghengis didnt play that game also.
Can we please just change model away from the "political spectrum". Otherwise it just becomes a game of everyone calling all right-wings Hitler and all left-wings Stalin. Let's make it a political forest where we have a bunch of political trees such as conservatives, liberals, libertarians, progressive conservatives, etc. That are all able to have their own political stance without this game of strawman shovong eachother into political stances that nether side actually believes. Oh, on a side note this site is called slashdot. It's a site about technology.
The difference between CNN and fake news is that CNN publishes retractions and corrections.
Fake news isn't about bias, it's about fabricating stories entirely with the intent to mislead and continuing those lies even after they have been exposed. Just being less than perfect doesn't count, and if you think it does then literally all news is fake.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The problem is, all the sources of news are so skewed in one way or another that people don't know who to trust anymore.
That's not true. For example, the BBC goes to great lengths to present both sides of an argument. In fact the BBC has been criticised for it, because some people feel that they give fringe views only held by a small number of people too much weight in comparison to more mainstream ones.
No news outlet is going to track down every random conspiracy theory just to get "all sides", but there are some who so present a mostly unbiased description of events and the opinions of those involved.
I don't want to go too far in defending them because I have on occasion sent them corrections myself (and they acted on them), but this idea that there are no reliable sources any more is just dangerous post-truth hand-wringing.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Well looking at these facts I see a bunch of claims by Trump that could or could not be tree.
Care to name a specific one?
What I don't see is evidence from the Washington Post that can be used to check their facts.
You have to check their back-issues. As handy as it would be if they provided links, Trump lies so much that it's difficult to keep up and keep all the evidence organized. That's why I'm asking you for a specific example, so that there is a manageable number to fact-check.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
We are not comparing Trump to Hitler, we are pointing out that there are literal, actual Nazis involved in his administration and in his electoral campaign. And many others who are not literal Nazis, but have supported Nazis or nationalists, or are nationalists, or are just generally awful people.
You mean, the same Trump whose first foreign visit was to Israel, and whose daughter is Jewish, is a Nazi sympathiser? While your side keeps shouting praise of a vile theo-political ideology who literally (in the real sense of this word) tend to have "death to Jews" on their flags?
You're like Putin whose propaganda went all out towards equating Ukraine with Pravyi Sektor when it had 1 parliament member. Of the two sides of American politics, it's the left whose mainstream politicians give support to a violent "kill those who have a different skin color than us" terrorist hate group: Sanders gave BLM a wholehearted support while Clinton was at least somewhat in favour of it. I don't see Trump praising the alt-right.
Thus, of the two violent red-white-and-black flag raising, raised-hand gesture, racist groups, the left are worse (in the US).
Things are different for example in Poland or Turkey, but Facebook has nowhere as much influence here.
And globally, Hitler killed "only" 21 millions, while communists clock around 180M (totalling Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc). Weighting religious wars upon how much they were religious and how much secular, I'd give Christianity 100M and Islam around 75M (vast majority of it in India). So yeah, even literal Nazis (not to be confused with alt-right who are racist but mostly not nationalist and almost never socialist) were nowhere as bad as your heroes. (Preempting your likely answer, no, killing 21M folks doesn't make you good.)
So sorry but I refuse to discriminate between "hate those with a different skin color, shape of genitals we dislike, etc" groups -- they all are a plague that humanity suffers from.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
A silently released "woopsy so sad too bad" blurb well after the damage has been done isn't a meaningful retraction or correction, it's a joke at best. Just look at how many people STILL vehemently insist on prosecuting the UVA rape that never was. Or even better look at the AP's institutionalized bias against Israel in all its reporting, as revealed by its own former reporters such as Matti Friedman.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Symapthiser isn't the word I'd use. But he associated with them and fails to condemn them when given the opportunity, because he knows that distancing himself from them would damage his base.
You mean, like this?
Even if he didn't, I'd blame your Dear Leader for this only once I hear Hillary and Bernie condemning BLM. To the contrary, they keep singing praise.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Of course you are. And then when confronted with jews and women and minorities in real life where you can't simply pretend they're not the very people you claim to represent you simply dump jars of piss on their heads or violently attack them.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
You know, you fools that keep comparing Trump to Hitler or the "right" to nazi's have no fucking clue what the hell you are are talking about.
Yep, the Trump-Hitler analogy is right off.
There's no way Trump is capable of writing a book.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
And you can keep your whataboutism - we're discussing Trump here, not whatever phantoms you wish to deflect criticism of "your guy".
How exactly is Trump "my guy"? For starters, the last time I checked, I'm not in America. Nor am I a right-winger in any way. I'm just responding to AmiMoJo, pointing out which side of the American fence is more similar to the Nazis. At this point, what you guys are doing is not just pot calling the kettle black, it's pot calling a slightly dirty refrigerator black.
My family had some unpleasantries with actual Nazis. My paternal grandma was raised in a family with 8 kids, 6 of which (adult at the time) got killed by Germans in the Warsaw Uprising, so was her first husband -- two weeks after they got married.
But I'm also not forgetting that the Uprising started when the Russian army was coming and already had footholds not just in the city but even on the other side of Vistula river. Then they backpedaled and waited several months for the Germans to squash the Uprising, all while not only denying the Americans/British/Poles-in-UK any opportunity to supply the Uprising but even actively shooting at American planes who tried to help anyway. Thus, while my grandma's siblings were directly killed by Germans, I blame the Ruskies more for their deaths. It is still possible to die in a winning battle but that's a calculated risk, not assuming someone might be so vile to sabotage their own war effort for a minor propaganda gain ("we relieved Warsaw" vs "we 'liberated' Warsaw").
And what riles me the most is that history books still call Russians "allies". "Allies" who started the war as enemies, were enemies the day after the war ended, and shot at your planes midway in the war. So please stop ignoring all wrongness done by those you consider "your side".
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Hitler didn't campaign on a promise to murder Jews and he didn't say he would start a world war. His appealed to populism on the right to get elected. And things ended up quite badly. There are enough parallels between the current administration and what happened in Germany that one would be foolish not to be concerned.
If you're making claims, you should point to the sources of the claims, and those sources should be verifiable.
"Unnamed sources withing the Trump Administration" is not a valid attribution. Such as proven with the Comey Testimony before congress, where the "unnamed source" was flat out wrong. But since we don't know who that was, we can't discount that source as being bad source.
I realize that the News Media wants people on the inside, and don't want to reveal their sources, but that kind of crap is not reliable source material.
On the other hand, you have Wikileaks, which has a 100% proven record, saying it wasn't the Russians or any state actor who got them the DNC documentation. Yet that is not a "valid source" because it wasn't the WAPO, NYT, CNN or MSNBC, who all relied on "Unnamed sources" inside the intelligence community.
So, by "Fake News" which fake news are you going to go with? The Russians Hacking the Election was "fake news" for well over a year, and there is even a special prosecutor tied to it. Meanwhile, the DNC actually hacked an election, got caught colluding with foreign governments and yet that was never really reported.
There is plenty of fake news, both by Trump and the Democrats/media complex. If we ignore the fake news being spread by our side, we're nothing but a hypocrites. Fake news works, because it is easier to spread a lie than it is to counter with actual verified information.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Don't be silly, you know what he meant. The hilarity is he is correct....I grew up in communist state and they used to scream 'fascist, nazi' against all 'enemies of the people'. It is absolutely the worst offence imaginable. /. than old time Russia. And if I look at a more mundane site e.g. YouTube the situation is nothing short of disastrous.
What is even more unimaginable is that western societies are having that kind of discussions ATM. You have no idea how crazy this is for people with my background...
All of this only reaffirms my conclusion that:
1. Western governments are the same self serving greedy totalitarian asses as the so-called communists
2. Western people do not have developed sence of freedom in stark contrast of their professed beliefs. You guys love 'might makes right' and you love oppresing others in your society. I see more totalitarian minded people on
Shame, shame, shame....
And at very least, CNN does not continue to repeat their mistaken stories as though they'd never been found to be false.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Galileo in his day would have been deemed fake news because people believed the stars revolved around the earth. Will Facebook remove fake news posts that have no scientific basis, such as those that say childhood vaccines cause autism, organic foods are healthier than non-organic and GMO foods are dangerous and unhealthy? What about misleading and fake new posts comparing solar cell or wind turbine power capacity to fossil fuel and nuclear power plant capacity? Solar and wind can produce power only a few hours a day due to their need for strong sunlight and wind. They produce a third or less of their rated capacity, while fossil and nuclear fuel plants can run 24 hours a day and get very close to their stated power production capacity. If you are an atheist, an article about a miracle is fake news. If you are religious, an article that wonderful things happen by chance is fake news. Fake news is a mantra that really means my candidate did not get elected because unflattering things were said about my candidate by the opponent and that affected the election.
Hitler gassed 6 million people. Counting the Taco Bell incident, Trump's only gassed a couple dozen at most.
Actually, Hitler gassed or otherwise murdered 6 million Jews. Conservative estimate that Hitler also murdered at least as many homosexuals, gypsies, and those he considered "defective" in some manner. This is why I quote the 12 million number, instead of the 6 million.
This is what sets me off when people compare anyone to Hitler. They really don't know what kind of monster he was. That is why everyone needs to sit down and talk to a survivor of the camps while they are still around.
Godwin's law clearly applies here. Once you compare Trump to Hitler and his government to the Nazi's, you have lost. Your argument is over.
Hitler was a horror that left a stain on history forever. Trump is nothing more than a four year inconvenience. Time to put them in perspective.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
We are not comparing Trump to Hitler,
Yes, Yes you are.
it just makes the orange Hitler a lying piece of shit.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
The right wing also included militarist Japan and Nazi Germany, which apparently doesn't fit into your right==good attitude.
Theocrats have always been in favor of subjugating and/or killing people because of their religion. Monarchists have always been in favor of subjugating and/or killing people because of their country. Libertarians aren't really right-wing as a class. Those in favor of free markets have tended to support subjugation and killing of people in other countries that threatened their profits.
There are very few leftists in the US who actually want to kill millions of people because of their ancestry.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The original quote comes from the original post that I responded too.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Not even the people he was condemning believed it was a honest statement. That's one of the problems with President Lies-a-lot Trump, he lies so frequently and about so many things, big and small, that only his most ardent die-hard supporters believe anything he says until he backs it up with actual action. Trump condemns the groups so that people like you will have something to believe in. The real Trump is the "violence on many sides" Trump, who tried to turn a murder by a white supremacist into victim blaming.
This is why you can't debate people with Trump Derangement Syndrome. As soon as Trump is mentioned they loss all contact with reality and start frothing at the mouth, screaming, and ranting. "Trump Bad Trump BADD." All logic flies right out the window. There sense of reality is so warped they simply can't get past it. Some of these fools are even blaming the hurricane on Trump.
Here is some news from you suffering from TDS. We are going to be just fine. Here is what Trump will probably be. A mediocre one term president. That is all. We survived Bush Prime, Bush Beta, and Obama, Come 2020 we'll be doing just fine.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Actually, that kind of left-right division is centuries old, and based on where legislators sat. It may not have been heavily used for a while.
I'd hope that almost everyone was closer to Mussolini in many respects than Stalin, as Stalin was far worse. Mussolini is an interesting case, since he was basically a revolutionary who hated the current government of Italy (a popular opinion then), and switched from left-wing to right-wing as the right wing's chances of overthrowing the government got better. That's not what the left is doing currently.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It isn't that I can't. It is that I'm not going too. Your illness, TDS, will not let you see anything positive at all about Trump. Trump could end world hunger, bring world peace, and solve the budget by shitting gold bricks and you would still find something to rant "Trump bad ... Trump bad" about.
Nixon got us out of Vietnam and Trump saved us from Hillary.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.