Slashdot Mirror
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Rejects Trump Bias Claims (bbc.com)
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has dismissed comments made by Donald Trump that the site has always been against him. From a report: The US president accused the social network of "collusion" on Twitter, branding it "anti-Trump". He made the same claim against the New York Times and the Washington Post. Facebook will shortly hand over 3,000 political adverts to congressional investigators probing alleged Russian meddling in the US election. The site believes the ads were probably purchased by Russian entities during and after the 2016 presidential contest. Facebook, Twitter and Google have been asked to testify before the US Senate Intelligence Committee on 1 November about the allegations of Russian interference. Mark Zuckerberg has made it clear in the past that he doesn't like Donald Trump -- or at least, his policies. "This statement shows frustration, I think. Not just with the president, but at the atmosphere swirling around Facebook at the moment -- commentary that is painting it as a burden on the electoral process, and maybe even on society as a whole. He's trying to show all the good -- as he sees it -- that Facebook has done.
...crickets...
Those ads will have done far more harm to trump in the long run if they really did help him get elected. So in a twisted way Trump is right on this one.
Faceobook is kind of like the collective hive mind of America. And let's face it, more Americans dislike the head Cheeto than like him. So yeah, FB is probably biased against him ... as is everything else where more than four people get together at once. Because he's an asshole.
Why is Slashdot still down? I thought these boys were supposed to be high tech network gurus. Did their "boxen" in mom's basement suffer a power surge? Or did the washing machine overflow?
This sentence of your story sure indicates BIAS... "Mark Zuckerberg has made it clear in the past that he doesn't like Donald Trump -- or at least, his policies."
"We have investigated ourselves and found that we did nothing wrong." - Facebook/Police
"Except for that politically biased 'trending news' selection that made the news during last year's election, but we stopped that, honest." - Zuckerberg
Trump will shamelessly sling mud without any regard to truth at anyone or thing he sees as a threat.
Obviously, he sees the release of the information regarding a Russian campaign to influence the election as a threat. The information is being released by Facebook, therefore he slings mud at Facebook in an attempt to get people to discredit the evidence.
If the concern is foreign actors meddling with the U.S. election, shouldn't Facebook be turning over to Congress all political ads purchased on Facebook by foreigners for viewing in the U.S.?
By turning over only the Russian ads, they've basically already confirmed Trump's accusation of bias. If you only look for roaches in the kitchen, you'll only find roaches in the kitchen. Doesn't mean there aren't roaches in the rest of your house. And for all you know the kitchen may actually have the fewest roaches.
Self investigation.... You got to love that, why don't we allow all criminals to self investigate ...
Zuck also said that it was "crazy" idea that fake news on Facebook influenced the election.
(http://fortune.com/2016/11/11/facebook-election-fake-news-mark-zuckerberg)
Now he's being asked to hand over 1,000 ads that may have influenced the election.
So which is it? Were you in denial earlier, or just plain incompetent?
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find groups of Trump supporters within the service if someone were so inclined to look.
what the hell does "The site believes the ads were [probably] purchased by Russian entities .." mean? Either there is clear evidence that <madeupname> Nikoli Polityetski </madeupname> purchased an add that linked back to an account with the Bank of Moscow, or there isn't. To say that any anti-clinton add _probably_ was purchased by Russian entities, and no body else, is nothing but hearsay and speculation. I hope its not a 'probably' but instead a clearer link than that. Otherwise this is nothing but Jury tampering before a trial (figurative or literal, whatever the case may be)
3000 ads doesn't really seem like a large number to me. I'm pretty sure the 3 or 4 days right before any election, I see nearly that many ads of all the local political races like judges, magistrates, city council, etc. And why is it that most of these articles make it look like all the Russian tampering was pro-trump, when just a day ago there was another article that suggested that these 'Russian entities' were buying a lot of pro Black Lives Matter, as well as anti-immigration ads, in equal amounts. That article suggested these 'Russian entities' where deliberately trying to divide the populace and create racial tensions.
Here is a link to one of the papers re-capping the information. http://nypost.com/2017/09/27/r... Ironically the NYPost cites sources at CNN, which I went back and watched the video with Wolf Blitzer, and yet CNN keeps beating the "Russians cheated to get Trump elected" drum.
It's well known that Trump won the election in no small part due to inexpensive, highly targeted Facebook ads. Presumably the next opponent who can work that in a better way could win. Time to shut that door while he has the chance?
I spend a fair amount of time on Facebook. The trending stories were all (and still are) overwhelmingly negative towards Trump. As a matter of fact, I don't think I've ever seen anything positive about Trump on Facebook. And I've not once seen a pro-Trump ad.
Well, pondering the mainstream media's handling of the American election, I could only conclude there was an incredible bias against the Republican candidate. Good journalism shouldn't be so. In a modern, rights protecting democracies and republics, the news media really should be as level and unbiased as can be, yet I couldn't get over the impression certain major - supposedly first class - outlets were playing the unofficial mouth organs for the Democratic Party. For that reason alone, it is a good thing Trump won, regardless of what one thinks of him, his policies or his Twittering.
Other's have already commented on Zuckerberg's untrustworthiness, but what got my attention was the lack of mention of the rest of his statement where he says that 100k dollars worth of political adverts on Facebook is nothing compared to the hundreds of millions spent campaigning by the candidates (around 1.8 billion dollars were raised between Trump and Hillary).
except that it is.. http://nypost.com/2017/09/27/r... Even admitted to by CNN itself, which you can watch live here http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/2...
According to the link you posted, it said that the Russians trolls purchased ads purportedly plugging Black Lives Matter "to stir up fear and cause political chaos in Baltimore and Ferguson, Missouri, during the 2016 presidential election." That was the very first sentence in the link you posted. These ads were not "Democrats colluding with Russia," they were Russians attempting to foment discontent and disruption.
Further down in the link you posted: "The ad, which was first posted in late 2015 or early 2016, appeared to support the social justice movement — but sources said it could also be seen as depicting it in a negative light. “This is consistent with the overall goal of creating discord inside the body politic here in the United States, and really across the West,” explained Steve Hall, former CIA officer and CNN National Security Analyst.... In addition to the BLM posts, sources told CNN that the Russians were pushing ads that promoted gun rights and the Second Amendment — as well as warnings about undocumented immigrants."
In other words, they looked for the issues causing division in America, and hammered on them.
Facebook was trending Fake News from a couple of clickbait farms that were being populated via RSS feed, hadn't existed longer than 6 months prior to the election and had almost zero readership according to Alexa stats.
The Domain transfer history showed they were old defunct sites picked up by a PR company in Washington who then tried to later switch the registration to private.
Somehow, these sites with no history, and no readership, became the top trending links in Facebook.
And Facebook says they have no Bias? That's ridiculous.
I'm a political centrist, looking at what's generally a two-winged political spectrum.
No, you're an anonymous coward.
On the right side we have people who are clearly concerned with improving the nation's economy,
What, the right side???? The Republicans are the "spend spend spend" party-- have been for decades. Don't you remember Cheney saying "deficits don't matter"??
avoiding new and terrible "free" trade deals, getting the nation out of existing terrible "free" trade deals,
You mean like NAFTA, the agreement negotiated by President George H. W. Bush?
securing the border from external threats,
Which threats? Like, say, the 911 attacks, during the presidency of George W. Bush, that occurred because he ignored the repeated warnings that Al Qaeda was dangerous?
fixing the horribly broken healthcare system,
That would be nice. Except I see no evidence that anybody on the right has the slightest notion of how to fix it. All the plans proposed so far make it worse-- a lot worse. The best proposal seems to be the libertarian one: Take away all health care, let health care providers charge sick people as much as the market will bear, and when people can't afford it, they can just die.
and generally trying to improve the country.
In what way? I haven't seen any evidence of people on the right trying to improve the country.
When you say "I'm a centrist," and then follow it up with "the right is good, good, nothing but good, and the left is bad, bad, nothing but bad", the second part pretty much shows the first part is a lie.
No, Facebook has no bias against Trump. Doesn't mean they haven't done yet another social experiment where they see the effects of negative adds/news has on a presidential candidate.
We know facebook is anti-trump. Has been from the start. OFFICIALLY too.
You piece of shit.
The 2016 election was between a highly polarizing crook with no political experience and a highly polarizing crook with lots of political experience. The Russians don't care who won as long as we tear ourselves apart in the process. They were (and still are) actively supporting both white nationalists and Black Lives Matter. Their goal is to weaken America from the inside out, diminish America's standing in the world, and step into the power vacuum. They've managed to accomplish in a couple years of "social engineering" what they couldn't do in 50 years of cold war.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Well, pondering the mainstream media's handling of the American election, I could only conclude there was an incredible bias against the Republican candidate.
I would have said the opposite. There was a constant stream of anti-Hillary stories.
Good journalism shouldn't be so. In a modern, rights protecting democracies and republics, the news media really should be as level and unbiased as can be, yet I couldn't get over the impression certain major - supposedly first class - outlets were playing the unofficial mouth organs for the Democratic Party.
You mean, supporting the Democratic Party by accurately reporting the sleazy things that Trump did? Since Trump was an arrogant bastard with no qualification whatsoever, if the media is honest, the media ought to report that.
Trump will shamelessly sling mud without any regard to truth at anyone or thing he sees as a threat.
Actually, I have to say that this is true of almost every politician.
There may have once been a time when politics may have not meant flinging mud without regard to truth, but it was a long time ago.
Yes that Trending sticky header on the top right of Facebook pages appears to be dedicated to publicizing each and every news item that was or is expected:
Anyhow, can anyone tell us exactly which fake news caused them to not vote for Hillary and instead vote for Trump? Was her private email SERVER fake news? Was her involvement in the ousting of the Egyptian and Libyan heads-of-state in 2011 fake news? Was it fake news that she read, from a prepared speech, that millions of Americans belonged in a basket of deplorables? Anyone ever wonder what a basket of deplorables (i.e., a place where you would put those persons you deem irredeemable) would look like?
In all seriousness:
Facebook's discrimination against anyone that isn't progressive or liberal is very well documented. Unfortunately this is an issue as they have a monopoly on social media the likes of which the world has never seen. This gives them the ability to manipulate public discussion and discord that is the envy of many nation states. An example of Facebook abusing their monopoly is their attempts to redefine the truth using progressive political activists as fact checkers.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12...
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2...
http://www.breitbart.com/radio...
People are waking up and realizing that the facebook ministry of truth is more focused on propaganda than facts. It hasn't even been a year and their fact checking efforts are having only a very slight difference or even backfiring.
https://www.theatlantic.com/te...
However, Facebook will unquestionably learn to be more subtle in their political manipulations in the future. When you privatize the public square you also effectively privatize constitutional rights. Should facebook be broken up or regulated? Their position, power and propensity to abuse their power has created a threat to our democracy.
Ask people living in New Hampshire about how fake those claims are. Every election, you'll see hundreds of cars with MA plates driving around polling areas.
I take it you've never been to New Hampshire. In New Hampshire, when it's not an election you'll also see hundreds of cars with MA plates driving around. And hundreds of New Hampshirites incessantly complaining about them.
They literally bus in voters.
If they bus in voters they wouldn't need cars with MA plates, would they.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Not everyone who voted Trump is deplorable, but to be fair, everyone who was happy to be voting for Trump is.
Apparently, reality has an anti-Trumps bias. Sad.
I love when you bring up Strom Thurmond, a Dixicrat, which you are claiming are evil.
Of the 53 Dixicrats 51 went back to the DNC... FOR LIFE. So we assume Dixicrat = evil. That makes GOP 2% evil, and DNC 98% evil. Using your logic.
Now lets see how Dixicrats were treated in each party...
GOP
Trent Lott wished Thurmond a happy birthday, was removed from leadership because of it. Not much love for him there.
DNC
Byrd, KKK Leader, filibustered Civil Rights Act personally. Was "mentor" to last DNC presidential candidate. When he died they lined up to talk about how great he had always been. Still cheered about by the DNC.
Al Gore Sr. never was punished for his evils. His son was put up for DNC presidential candidate.
Summary...
In GOP if you were a racist, no one better say anything good about you or they lose their position.
In DNC if you were a racist, you get to mentor presidential candidates, your children are fast tracked to presidential candidacy, you get leadership positions for life, people praise you throughout your life.
Notice a difference? I do. DNC CELEBRATES racists/bigots. GOP destroys you if say happy birthday to them.
So I'm going to guess you are a bigot as well, since you obviously support the DNC and the DNC is obviously the party of bigotry.
No true Scotsman has a FaceBook account.
I seem to recall that media coverage, good or bad, was focused around Trump and not around the other candidates of either side. Journalists covered what they thought was newsworthy. And voters went for the most familiar sounding candidate that had the most air time on TV.
The Russian government didn't care other how Russian US relations would be. There was no meddling in are elections. At least no more then what the United States has done to other countries. Stop being a pussy.
Well that's a circle jerk of links which is typical of one handed right wing trolling. Look there's a blog that says libs are mean to real Americans. It must be true.
Facebook was always a dodgy company since it was founded at Harvard. Just watch "The Social Network" or read "The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook: A Tale of Sex, Money, Genius and Betrayal" that the movie is based on.
Everything the main stream media said about him has proven true.
That explains why they keep having to quietly publish retractions when they get caught, over and over again, straight out lying on the subject.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The Zucks of the world hate Trump, but Zuck's users are another matter entirely.
Poor little Zuck got all mad at an anonymous employee for writing on a board "all lives matter". His friend Soros pays "protestors" and buses them in from surrounding cities to stir the pot. So between people like that, the oligarchy media (6 corporate boards who are all connected who decide on the "mainstream" content), and corrupt judges who let their police commit murder, plant weapons, lie about it, and then let them go, we have a non-functioning civil system. It's us against them now.
One problem with "self analysis" is that you are prone to the logical problem of "confirmation bias". You are going to see what you want to see.
If you start out biased, then try to investigate if you are biased or not, chances are you will discover that you are NOT biased. The only way Facebook would find themselves biased is if they had set out to be biased up front and agreed to admit to it.
I don't think they set out to be biased and didn't intend to favor one side over the other, but I do believe that they ended up biased towards Mark's social and political views. They simply couldn't help it. So, I don't expect them to find any bias because who wants to admit to this?
Every man is right in his own eyes...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
"What bias? Everything the main stream media said about him has proven true. Trump is a man child with no emotional control, prone to outbursts, ignorance and stupidity. He can't even get his own party under control long enough to pass laws. He has to go to democrats to get enough support to push his agenda"
"no emotional control" - Um, facts not in evidence. Please offer your specific examples.
"prone to outbursts" - Sounds like LBJ. Or Truman. Or Stonewall Jackson. Or Nixon.
"ignorance and stupidity" - Which are, apparently, qualifying characteristics to be President. Sorry, this ad hominem attack is merely that.
"get his own party under control" - This is a common misconception. Trump is not really a Republican, and the GOPe is still (from before the election) opposed to him. The Fake News cabal will try to make him a Republican because that would indeed be a problem, but a heads up here, he isn't, he merely registered and ran as affiliated with the GOP.
"He has to go to democrats to get enough support to push his agenda" - And finally we have an astute observation. It's been called 'compromise' in the past, and valued.
If you're mired in the illusion that the media is fair, or even objective, you're mired in an illusion. I do not expect you to be able to discern the fallacy of a functional mainstream press in America. It is no longer practicing journalism.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Although for the same of full disclosure we don't have a meme or anything like that directly spells this out in plan terms that this was happening. But what we do have is dozens of news stories from about May last year there it was discovered that unnamed Facebook employers were artificially manipulating the 'Trending' feed for their own political bias. While Facebook did try to denying this happened they still completely and publicly announced that they would change the way trending is down to get tide of that bias.
For reference see:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/24/facebook-changes-trending-topics-anti-conservative-bias
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37205029
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/facebook-trending-section-accusations-political-bias/story?id=41717303
https://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006
you do realize the media was trying to rig the election from the beginning right? There was no objective journalism. The hacked DNC email proved they colluded with the DNC to put Hillary into the front seat. They did the same for the Republicans after their first attempt at cherry-picking Jeb Bush fell flat on its face. The RNC voters were already sick of dynasties. When Jeb fizzled out they started helping Trump. It wasnt until AFTER he got the RNC nomination that they went on the attack. It was about manipulating the election in order to give the perceived choice that of Hillary (their cherry pick for president) and some no experience guy they thought didnt stand a chance even against someone as unlikeable as Hillary. Had this entire election been free of tampering and meddling, from both Russians AND the media, you would have had a COMPLETELY different result in both RNC and DNC nominated candidates. Stop letting the MSM off the hook. Honestly what the MSM did disgusts me more than the Russian tampering. At least in the case of Russia, its not our own people trying to fuck us over.
However Facebook was the biggest provider of Fake news. There was a lot of coverage on why people disliked Clinton and supported Trump. Many cited a Facebook story where Clinton did some untrue nasty thing. (Remember Pizza Gate, where a guy raided a Pizza Store, because he believed the fake news that it was used by Clinton for Child Trafficking)
The thing is Facebook may not had did anything wrong, as much of this was just algorithmic. However after the investigation they found a problem with bias news.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
we wouldn't have our current orange toddler-in-chief.
This same shit happened in my country, but the real reason was to divert public attention from politicians looting the treasury.
What country is that?
It's not always the dasterdly Russians at the door. What I love the most is that there is actually no proof.
Go into any court in the world and say "probably" and you are going to be shown the door, but in the court of public opinion it's proof enough.
Since we haven't seen the ads nor the evidence that they were Russian in origin, I can't offer a definitive opinion, and neither can you-- but it would be my expectation that yes, Facebook is able to track down the origin country of people purchasing ads.
The people of Facebook are. Trump is an ass, what's not to be biased about?
Good luck finding people who don't have a mental illness.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
It really more determines on what particular topic was their big hope from Trump. Personally I find him to on track track of the worst president in history. However even a broken clock is correct twice a day, There were some things during his run, I was hoping he would actually accomplish.
1. Infrastructure: He never did much except for one of his weekly science fairs on it. But in the United States we have an infrastructure that needs a large upgrade. Roadways that are not well designed for today traffic. Serious Water Problems, We hear about Lead, but in many solid Republican communities, the water supply has been polluted with chemicals such as PFOA. As well improvement in our communication. This is something I don't know why Trump didn't push as part of his 100 day agenda. As a guy who likes new and shiny stuff big machines, and big buildings. This would had been an easy win for him, where he can put on a hard hat, cut ribbons, and have a clear measurable thing to show for his "leadership". This is also something that he could had bipartisan support for. Starting off his campaign as being the Deal maker.
2. American Jobs: Unfortunately he really turned this into a raciest agenda. However a lot of jobs (including tech jobs) are being outsourced. Where Americans are kept on board until they have trained their replacement. But could had pushed back against the American tech worker shortage, and showed the mass set of skills which could had been used.
3. Got things done: The idea that he was a businessman, we would think he could get things done. He however seems to lack the willingness to worry about the details, or have a complex big vision. But the idea he would be able to push this vision, like a businessman to drive change.
So these things may not have been deplorable wants, and Clintons deplorable comment, concerned a lot of people on the fence, who may be leading republican. I don't see Trump Winning the election, it was Clinton who had lost it.
However now that Trump became president, he only seemed do things that the Deplorable wanted,
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
My understanding is that the fake part was the idea that she was the only one whoever did that crap when it seems to be standard procedure for most politicians.
The email thing is pretty new, so Bush deleting mails, his secretary of state using outside email servers and overthrowing other countries leaders is an American tradition for every administration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Not everyone who voted Trump is deplorable, but to be fair, everyone who was happy to be voting for Trump is.
Interesting how those who espouse to be all caring and not judgemental are the most judgemental of all.
Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
If you've been 'happy' to vote for any presidential candidate for the last 100 years, you qualify...
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is not about getting a voter to switch from Clinton to Trump. It's about getting Clinton-leaning voters to stay home and Trump-leaning voters to show up. It's about motivation, and nothing motivates like fear.
Remember Pizzagate? You probably don't personally, because you're not a total jackass. But this is the insidious part of social media psy-ops. By targeting and crafting a narrowcasted message, you operate below the radar; misinformation has longer to seep in and do its work before someone notices and counters it. It's a modern take on divide-an-conquer: segment and stimulate.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Mark Dice gives several specific examples of how Facebook rigs their service to push a liberal agenda.
Five minute video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IMip89jp_E&t=0s
Gizmodo has a few articles about how Facebook rigs their service in order to push an agenda. Here are a few Gizmodo articles:
Facebook Could Rig The General Election... And We Wouldn't Even Notice
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2017/06/facebook-could-rig-the-general-election-and-we-wouldnt-even-notice/
Facebook Shruggingly Admits It's a Tool for Propagandists
https://gizmodo.com/facebook-shruggingly-admits-its-a-tool-for-propagandist-1794722491
...blame russia.
God this sh!t is so tired.
Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News
https://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006
That was the narrative - perfectly in line with the Democrat's narrative - which was pushed day and night. Heck you'd think they passed notes, which is my point.
Agree but not just for the last 100 years. Rational voters vote for the least worst candidate. Kool-aid drinkers vote for their messiah.
In all seriousness:
Your whole america is a bullshit country, elect clowns every season. Better shut up n1gger bitch.
Seriously, fuck both these jokers.
Yes, I remember pizzagate. I also remember post-election riots, a recount in several states that appears to have fizzled-out, accusations of Trump colluding with Russia, Republican congresspersons being shot by an leftist inspired by anti-Trump news stories (from "legitimate" network and cable news sources), etc.
You also seem to have forgotten the multi-sourced reports before the election that Trump, at most, had a one-in-four chance of winning. That may or may not have discouraged potential voters from voting for Trump but it certainly discouraged potential Trump campaign contributors: 2016 election/campaign finance.
In all seriousness:
Faux-News? Breitbart?!? Are you fucking serious?
Got any reputable sources, or are you intentionally trying to be ironic??
You also seem to have forgotten the multi-sourced reports before the election that Trump, at most, had a one-in-four chance of winning.
Delivered to the wrong audience, largely.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Down with globalist cucks!
You are fake news. He didn't raid anything.
Pizzagate refers to the coded, clandestine emails referencing that particular pizza parlor. Nobody outside of Clinton's den of thieves knows what the emails are actually referring to. Claiming there's nothing going on is more "fake news" than claiming it was specifically a child prostitution ring.
You can read the emails yourself and draw up your own theories. But it's obvious the pizza parlor in question was being used either as a location or as a codeword for another location where secret shit went down that they didn't want any record of.
What bias?
The bias that networks like CNN and MSNBC and papers like the New York Times and the Washington Post have openly admitted to?
Everything the main stream media said about him has proven true.
Like the fact that he had no chance? That he was a joke candidate that wouldn't make it past the primaries? That he was losing in all the polls? That Hillary had the election locked up? That he went to a hotel the Obamas stayed in (despite this being a hotel known to be surveilled and spied on) just to have hookers pee on him?
I'm the OP and I never said I wasn't judgmental. Where did you asshats get the idea that not being a xenophobic piece of shit had anything to do with being on-judgmental? I'm judging the ever-loving fuck out of you right now, all while maintaining fairly liberal opinions on immigration, foreign policy, and taxation.
They've managed to accomplish in a couple years of "social engineering" what they couldn't do in 50 years of cold war.
And we're supposed to believe that they managed this amazing feat on a budget of 100k spent over the course of three years.
Yet another mole-hill-made-mountain brought to us thanks to those who desperately want the actual malfeasance exposed by the DNC emails to be forgotten. We're supposed to blame Russia for heightening racial tensions when our own media capitalizes on it and encourages it with terms like 'white hispanic', and we have an entire class of professional protesters.
This is the Russians pissing into the ocean, and then blaming them for the water tasting salty.
OK, for the sake of argument, Facebook is left-leaning. Probably wrong but we are going to humour you for argument's sake.
This is entirely negated by Trump's behavior. Seriously, Trump thinks that anyone who does not provide absolute, slavish fealty to the Big Giant Orange Head, is "biased and so unfair."
Anyone reporting the facts on the Trump Presidency is therefore "colluding and anti-Trump."
You know who Trump thinks is "fair" to Trump? Fox & Friends. Sean Hannity. Kelly Ann Conway. Sean Spicer. Anyone willing to baldly lie and state that Up is Down to protect the ego of the Big Giant Orange Head! Anyone desperate to climb the social/political/organizational ladders and lacking in personal integrity. Anyone else? Cricket noises...
In other words, they looked for the issues causing division in America, and hammered on them.
Which is NOT the same as "supporting Trump." And it's something that the Russians have been doing for decades, long before Trump came along. And they're still doing it, right now, here and in many countries around the world. But all liberals can say in order to explain away their terrible choice of a losing candidate is that somehow it was Trump working with the Russians on this. It's laughable.
I agree with you. It is not the same as "supporting Trump". Just ignore the people who are saying Trump colluded with the Russians on the election. There are no facts to back that up.... BUT...
I haven't seen any facts that Trump (or his people) colluded with Russia - so let the investigation play out. Here are some other facts I know... Trump said during the election that it was rigged. He rode that message pretty hard. The DNC did it. Then he wins, and the message suddenly changes. He won fair and square. The Russians had nothing to do with it. If the Russians did do it, why wasn't it brought up until now? OK, Russia or someone else may have tried to hack the election, but it had no effect. I think it was Russia. It could have been China. There was no collusion with Russia, this is a witch hunt.
It's the words and actions of Trump and his administration that cast doubts on everything. Because he contradicts himself. Let the investigation happen, and whatever comes out of it comes out of it. By opposing (and impeding) the investigation, it only feeds those who believe he was involved.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Oh so you have no problem with Russians buying adds just like Mexicans coming into the country illegally? After all, to have a problem with either one would make you xenophobic. I guess we all didn't get the memo that being unreasonably biased and bigoted against Russians doesn't count as xenophobia.
Sad to say it's only 'obvious' to nutjobs.
Most definitely I think at least half the people voting for Trump were holding their noses, and at least half the people voting for Clinton were holding their noses, and most of those who voted for third party candidates did so so they could stop holding their nose and take a breath instead.
1. Infrastructure: He never did much except for one of his weekly science fairs on it. But in the United States we have an infrastructure that needs a large upgrade. Roadways that are not well designed for today traffic. Serious Water Problems, We hear about Lead, but in many solid Republican communities, the water supply has been polluted with chemicals such as PFOA. As well improvement in our communication. This is something I don't know why Trump didn't push as part of his 100 day agenda. As a guy who likes new and shiny stuff big machines, and big buildings. This would had been an easy win for him, where he can put on a hard hat, cut ribbons, and have a clear measurable thing to show for his "leadership". This is also something that he could had bipartisan support for. Starting off his campaign as being the Deal maker.
I suspect this is because Trump craves praise, especially cheering crowds of enthusiastic supporters. Trump, himself, probably isn't interested in infrastructure repairs and upgrades because it's pretty boring stuff, and thus he doesn't expect it him to get the instant cheers that, for instance, picking a fight with black NFL players would get him. Why do hard work, when it's so much easier to pick fights with people your supporters already don't like?
2. American Jobs: Unfortunately he really turned this into a raciest agenda. However a lot of jobs (including tech jobs) are being outsourced. Where Americans are kept on board until they have trained their replacement. But could had pushed back against the American tech worker shortage, and showed the mass set of skills which could had been used.
I think this is a difficult problem to solve. The problem isn't a lack of qualified people in technology, it's really a lack of knowledge and trust on the part of would be employers. Many managers seem to want to hire people who are doing the exact same work as the job they wish to fill, and they want to pay their new employees below market rates. This is because they don't understand who can be trained to fill that role, they want to do their job and keep costs low, and if they invest in training an employee, that employee might take their new valuable skills and leave for some place that will pay above market rates. (It might be important to note that for the manager, failing to fill the position is probably "not their fault" where as training a new hire only to lose them to poaching could be "their fault") However, that's a nearly impossible goal to achieve without importing workers from (or exporting jobs to) locations that currently have a much lower local market rate. So there seems to be very little that the President can do about this, other than claim that particular visas are bad without understanding what the problems are.
3. Got things done: The idea that he was a businessman, we would think he could get things done. He however seems to lack the willingness to worry about the details, or have a complex big vision. But the idea he would be able to push this vision, like a businessman to drive change.
Trump's business dealings have been to enrich himself, he has never shown any interest in doing things for other people. In fact, his history of business dealings have been mostly about getting things done at other's people expense. I've read stories about how Trump routinely rips people off in his business dealings unless they can figure out a way to make it more expensive for him to rip them off than to behave honestly. The thing is, he was motivated to work on his business to make himself richer. Now, he appears to be only motivated to do what will get him cheering crowds and currently his supporters love it when he lays blame and insults the people they don't like, so he hasn't had to do any real hard work to get them to demonstrate their love for him.
However now that Trump became president, he only seemed do things that the Deplorabl
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Really, because every time crap like this comes up, some one needs to say it....
'Told you so'
https://xkcd.com/743/
Now, that we have established that you should not be surprised by any of this, what are you going to do about it.
(I know.. nothing, because change is hard).
Keep in mind that Facebook and Twitter are both loud echo chambers, and only marginally representative of its flesh-and-blood users. It is the bots and misguided corporate branding attempts that tilt things in often horrible partisan politics.
If you ask the average twitter user, they would say that their platform is fairly Liberal or Conservstive because only very few people follow those outside their political ideology. More to the point, block lists often target those who share extreme opinions.
Facebook on the other hand is what I would refer to as âoeinner circleâ, where you friend everyone you knew in high school, college and your family, and then tailor your posts so only one or the other see them.
So if you donâ(TM)t like talking about politics, or some you friended litters your space with political content you disagree with, you stealth mute them and all is well.
Facebook's "bias" can bend in any direction. It all depends on what you Like, Follow, etc. Trust me, my MotherInLaw's FB feed is *not* biased against Trump. I've seen it, horrifying as it is.
Careful, your sense of self entitlement is peeking out
FTFY.
Just wait until that robot fuck Zuckerberg runs for president in 2020.
Blasted at the top of every Facebook page regardless of context:
"VOTE FOR ZUCKERBERG, HE'S TOTALLY HUMAN, WE PROMISE"
First... Russians hacked the election giving it to Trump (no evidence)
Then... Russians hacked the DNC emails to help Trump (no evidence, evidence shows inside job)
Then... Russians bought Facebook ads in record amounts to promote Trump (no evidence)
Then... Russians bought $100k in Facebook ads to help Trump
Now... Russians bought $100k in Facebook ads that may or may not have been pro-Trump
You liberals have gotten so completely stupid, you are now arguing over an amount of money less than most people posting here make, over ads that may or may not have been targeting the election.
MEANWHILE... The DNC rigged their primary to pick a winner despite what the people were voting, and you IGNORE IT. Hillary Clinton got over $100 MILLION in bribes from Russia while Secretary of State, which you ignore. But $100k on Facebook and suddenly everything needs to be thrown out.
You are a total and complete imbicle. I am actually shocked at how completely stupid liberals have become, its a joke that has gone too far at this point.
Sociopaths fighting each other. All we needed.
You are very naive if you think that "a budget of 100k spent over the course of three years" is the extent of Russian involvement in the election. That's just one amount identified by Facebook and doesn't mean that was all Russia spent on Facebook and doesn't include the money and effort expended elsewhere on Twitter or on emails or on thousands of fake 'news' stories. As it happens, i don't think you're naive: you're just another Putinbot.
Who is xenophobic? The only concern is about the US sitting around licking the nuts of the nation our grandparents died fighting in the cold war. Even worse is when you find out our nation is being run by people with the same Nazi ideologies they died fighting against in WW2.
Please offer your specific examples.
I offer, Donald Trump.
Or Stonewall Jackson.
Stonewall Jackson was noted for his moderation and temperance, with a kindly soul and noble heart.
Sorry, this ad hominem attack is merely that.
Sorry, but character matters, and Trump is both ignorance and stupid, as he so roundly demonstrates.
Trump is not really a Republican, and the GOPe is still (from before the election) opposed to him. The Fake News cabal will try to make him a Republican because that would indeed be a problem, but a heads up here, he isn't, he merely registered and ran as affiliated with the GOP.
True enough, but they still manage to associate with him as their own sainted pontiff.
It's been called 'compromise' in the past, and valued.
No longer among the GOP, they find it repellent. That's why Trump uses it as a weapon.
If you're mired in the illusion that the media is fair, or even objective, you're mired in an illusion. I do not expect you to be able to discern the fallacy of a functional mainstream press in America. It is no longer practicing journalism.
If you're mired in the illusion that the media is the problem, that Trump just needs to be given a chance, then I do not expect you to be able to discern the folly of the Republican Conservative Right-wing party, that has shed any claim of morality or reason it might have had, and instead become a creature of pretense and dishonesty.
Fuck off, Correct the Record. We're still waiting to find out what a pizza related map on a handkerchief is.
Has Zuck built his wall around his mansion yet?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Maybe. He tried to kick native Hawaiians out to create a private island though
It's sorta like saying " All the good M&Ms have done". While it's technically true, it's good on a base entertainment level.
In the Trending section, which you can't turn off afaik, the headlines at least to me seem very skewed. Very rarely will a story other than one with a leftwing spin appear and often the headlines themselves are ridiculous. I have several different accounts with different habits and this appears to hold true in all of them. Now Facebook has an audience of around 1 billion. Imagine the cumulative effect of all those people even just passing their eyes unconsciously over the biased Trending section or picking up on any one of several other subliminal cues in their day to day life. This could possibly be one of the greatest propaganda vehicles invented.
Well since you are asking, remember when the investigation into the email scandal was reopened just days before the election? That convinced my neighbor to distrust Hillary.
You know, one thing this election cycle has been just amazing for is exposing which news outlets are just clickbait generators now. It was probably visible before to the keen and distrustful eye, but I think became obvious to a much larger population (and hence Trump was elected).
Some very big names in media too I will admit I was guilty of thinking they were more credible than they really are. CNN, Washington Post.. never before had I seen either outright false articles reported (Russian hacking) or such one-sided, extremist, disaster porn style reporting. I guess I wasn't too emotionally involved in the outcome (don't live in US), but agree of disagree with Trumps ideas I found little to get so worked up over. Here in Canada, I stopped reading a major publication (G&M) as I found all of their stories were some form of "OMG you won't believe what Trump did now!!11". It also highlighted the smart, objective newsmedia too let's not forget, I hope you found some. And not talking Brietbart of whatever here I'm talking intelligent, objective editors.
You're paid to push a narrative. Good post. Earned your loyalty points.
I don't have a problem with Russians buying ads, I have a problem with you fuckwits falling for them.
Jesus, dude, it's weed. Pizza is weed. Have you read the emails? They're blatantly about casual drug use. And if you're suprised that a bunch of political consultants do "pasta" you're going to shit your pants when you realize why Trump was sniffling so much during the debates.
However Facebook was the biggest provider of Fake news. There was a lot of coverage on why people disliked Clinton and supported Trump. Many cited a Facebook story where Clinton did some untrue nasty thing. (Remember Pizza Gate, where a guy raided a Pizza Store, because he believed the fake news that it was used by Clinton for Child Trafficking)
The thing is Facebook may not had did anything wrong, as much of this was just algorithmic. However after the investigation they found a problem with bias news.
Half the problem is that Facebook actively weakened it's algorithm (or gave new orders to human mods, if any) managing the trending box.
"Except for that politically biased 'trending news' selection that made the news during last year's election, but we stopped that, honest." - Zuckerberg
This is the grandparent's paraphrase, but remember this? The Republicans pitched a fit because the trending box wasn't promoting their FW:FW:FW Infowars and Breitbart stuff, and that meant they were biased mainstream media. They could post and share all those things all they wanted, but FB didn't participate in sharing those out to the global audience. Until they gave FB crap for it, and Zuckerberg gave in. Did Zuck know what he was getting himself into, or was he just trying to preserve his userbase? We'll probably never know. But they started letting fake news pizzagate shit through because the Republicans demanded it.
You are fake news. He didn't raid anything.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-man-with-assault-rifle-dc-comet-pizza-victim-of-fake-sex-trafficking-story/
This is not obscure. This happened because you had to spin up bullshit on Clinton. Someone could have died because you turned a well meaning nutter against an innocent pizzeria.
What that trending sticky header says, changes with the number of conservative friends you have.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Because it just SCREAMS "inclusion" to label 25% of Americans or more as "Deplorable" people to be what, executed?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
"which could had been used."
One of which clearly isn't grammar.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
From a purely rhetorical point of view, I sort of admire the blatant use of the "repeat until it's meaningless" technique. You see this here with the word "collusion." It sounds bad, right? And it is being used in a way that accuses Trump & Co. Solution? Use it over and over again to describe what the accusers do.
Same goes for the prefix "alt-". Yes, Bannon coined alt-right, but it has become (because of who they are) pejorative. Solution? Call everything alt! Alt-left now... what about alt-center, alt-moderate, alt-meatloaf...
The pizza parlor child sex ring.
Like any tool created by man, it can be used for good or ill. As an example, let's consider a nice, sweet, banana cream pie. Who ever invented the banana cream pie, created it to be eaten and enjoyed. It was meant to bring joy to those who like bananas and pie. But you can take that cream pie and leave it at the top of some stairs in a high rise office building, then pull the fire alarm. As people rush to exit the building - someone - and maybe many somones- will slip and fall on that pie - turning it into a lethal weapon. Blaming Mark, and the tool he created (Facebook), as a bringer of evil - is like blaming the inventor of the banana cream pie for killing people in that fire alarm hoax. It's ridiculous. People do bad things. Blame and punish those people that do bad things. Not the person who invents something to make the world a better place.
This is a headline? One useless face says "You stoopid!" and the other one answers "Nyah nyah!" Really...
Letâ(TM)s be honest here, Trump is the leader of a crime family. All of you backwards Trump supporters aka fascists are just happy to have a white guy as your leader. The other aspect of Trump which few will admit publicly is tvat Trump wants to kill muslims in retaliation for 9/11 and simple minded racist people who cannot handle complex social issues are okay with it.
How original! How unique to call someone a âoeSnowflakeâ and did you think that catchy little insult up all by yourself? Iâ(TM)m sure youâ(TM)re not someone who follows others like a fascist would and you always think for yourself! Typical Trump follower!
Naaa, Facebook started as a trust fund baby bitch and schmooze site and it is still run the same way. Plebs can watch but get booted if they express a differing opinion.
NRRPT/RCT
Surprised it took that long.