Slashdot Mirror
Facebook VP Says Company Won't Use Experts To Fix Fake News Because It is Worried About Criticism (theoutline.com)
Joshua Topolsky, writing for The Outline: According to Axios reporter Ina Fried, the vice president of global communications, marketing, and public policy (phew!) at Facebook shook off suggestions that the network should use outside media literacy watch dogs as opposed to outsourcing its "fake news" problem to a "statistically representative" group of its own users. While speaking at the tech conference DLD (Digital Life Design) in Munich, he revealed that the real motivation behind the company's decision was one based almost entirely on optics. This shouldn't come as much of a surprise, as the company has been totally ignorant and outrageously slow in accepting responsibility for what has been a disaster for its users. While Twitter is turning to media literacy groups such as Common Sense Media and the National Association for Media Literacy for solutions to its own troll and fake news epidemic, Facebook continues to cower behind a broken concept that the company is a neutral platform where all of its participants are equally weighted.
I just want to look at my friends kids and pet pics. Is that so much to ask?
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
DACA...is CACA.
Why should Facebook take any responsibility for content that is posted by their users? Why should they suddenly become a media curator, instead of a social network? Why is TFA written as though it was completely obvious and indisputable truth?
Don't get me wrong, I hate Facebook as much as the next guy, but I hate the tone of this article even more and the righteous anger radiating from it is just revolting. It's like the author is begging for even more corporate censorship and is extremely pissed off that it's not being dished out in a timely manner.
... they're going to be criticized no matter what they do about this.
I mean, if they hire an outside group to handle this, the user-base will complain that either the wrong group was picked, or that group was not conservative enough, not liberal enough, not whatever enough... you pick. Hell, they'd probably get accused of everything under the sun.
However, the same thing will happen if they pick internal users to be their test-bed for this. "Oh, you picked the wrong users. They're too conservative, too liberal, whatever." It doesn't matter, there's bad optics no matter what.
Doesn't mean that they shouldn't try. Just be prepared for the butt-hurt no matter what you do.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Right decision, wrong reasoning.
You like looking at kids? SICK!!!
At some point thes will get to a level of anti trust litigation if they continue down the road of censoring one political point of view and pushing another. They are trying to mitigate that.
daca is be used to cut off sick kids from schip
What idiot gets the news from Facebook. Besides aren't their users capable of critical thinking?
I get all my fake news from Network TV.
The concept that there is a "problem" is premised on several notions: - Only those in the US should have free speech on the Internet. - US readers are unable to think for themselves and scrutinize. They need a protective overlord. What would be more acceptable is tagging content that has certain attributes, then letting readers do what they wish with such tagged content. In fact, instead of debating what algorithms or filters FB, Twitter or any other potential big brother should have, how about letting readers customize their own algorithms and be empowered to control what they see in their feeds? Why isn't this concept being proposed?
Facebook can't win here. If they spread fake news people blame them directly. And if they use a panel of experts than the experts are controlling the news people see. That's not good either. The article attacks them for the decision, saying it is marketing, but I think Facebook is right here. It isn't their job to be the news police.
This simply isn't Facebook's problem. The users are to blame, and this isn't a new problem. Just like Slashdot or Reddit or any other internet forum, the content is provided by the users and it is not the responsibility of Facebook to tell people that they are idiots. Studies show that people click like on things, and then repost them, without even reading the articles. And most people don't seem to be able to distinguish political fact from reality even if they do read the articles.
This problem happened before the internet. In the US, go to a grocery store and look at what news is available for purchase. It is 40% tabloids (AKA "fake news"), 40% celebrity gossup, 40% real news. Facebook is no different.
This is why come to Slashdot: there are educated people here, and debunkers here. I go straight to the discussion first because half the stories are garbage.
When their users vote FoxNews and Breitbart as fake news, as they will, there will be an uproar among the deplorables and cries of 'censorship' among the hicks.
Take a look at the F. B. (Fluff Busting) Purity add-on, it hides a lot of that unwanted junk on Facebook. It works with Firefox, Chrome, Edge, Safari, Opera, and Maxthon browsers, on Windows, Mac, and Linux. http://www.fbpurity.com/ I've been using it for over a year, and it's updated regularly.
soon this behavior will be punished with death, and they will start with you
No service should be filtering what you see based on unseen algorithms or so called, "experts". Give the individual a robust tool-set to make their own decisions.
To those of you saying a system should be implemented, who exactly would you cede what you should see to? Who knows better than you?
~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
Yeah, this article isn't biased at all. So what, just because they don't use your Common Sense media or whatever, they are broken?
Who validates that common sense is not Russian propaganda, or US propaganda?
Not all facebook users are american after all.
The 'fact checking' is entirely political.
The worst fake news are establishment media companies.
Censorship is bad and I don't trust Facebook to scrub my feed. I will evaluate the news (or fake news) that I read to determine what is true or not. Much of it is based on if I trust the website in question.
Since when is Facebook supposed to play an editorial role? Next they'll say your ISP should filter out fake news.
See how the "fake news" hype has harmed independent media: https://www.alternet.org/media/editorial-googles-threat-democracy-hits-alternet-hard
They are smart not to outsource their issue. Those so called "experts" out there all end up just peddling a different form of fake news. Facebook is already in enough hot water, bringing those dumbasses in would have just made things worse. In the end they are still destined for Myspace glory because they cant leave well enough alone.
Just give me a way to block annoying sources of content, whether they be a person (the crazy Aunt) or a bunch of asshats trolling clickbait. I don't need you telling me what to think,
They are both immature and delusional about their own software (AKA 'AI'). Surely it can suffice. These days I'm convinced, regarding Facebook and their mentality, that they are half ignorant arrogance, the other half is simply being a dumbass. Fuckerberg got lucky in the right place and time, nothing more or less. He has no real, meaningful acumen to speak of, the man-child is a plebe. Just like AOL before them, they will go down in history as one of the most dramatic business failures in history, just wait.
The readers.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Are they really falling for the fake news meme?
Or, are they going ahead with defining fake news as "extremist" news?
"Our engineers are aware of the problem and we have our top men on it." Maybe they should just turn it of and on again....
Great, now we are going to be spammed with Russian stories about how great TRUMP is because this is a signal to Vladimir Putin that facebook has given up being the Speech Marshall of the Internet. If only Zuckerberg had gone in and had a chat with his teams and told them to actually *police* against fake news, we wouldn't have had the lead TRUMP had and wouldn't have had the KGB hacking into Americans and making them vote for that guy. Pretty sure that with a big campaign, we could get him impeached and get Hillary to finish up the last couple of years.
The worst psyop since Saddam planning 911 and having WMD's is the propaganda about Russian propaganda.
Trump rolled out the fake news awards last week. I read a WaPo "fact checking" them waiting to see the spin. They verified ALL the awards were for truly fake news, each story was a 1 time in a decade debacle for a news organization, and Trump listed 11 in 1 year.
The WaPo then attempted to spin it as, "Fake news is OK if you print a retraction later", but many of Trump's awards went to stories that were never retracted, yet obviously fake. I think many were retracted only because of outrage and would not have been retracted if Trump wasn't Tweeting how fake they were.
So I'm going to disagree with you. Fake news is news put out by a news outlet that they KNOW is false at the time, in order to do harm to someone. Its kind of hard to argue against any of Trump's Fake News Awards, not even the WaPo could do it (and they even got one themselves).
And you, obviously, are the final arbiter of Truth and Fiction. Because you say so.
You reject out of hand any criticism of your team, no matter how accurate or demonstrably true, yet will believe entirely the latest Russia Collusion story that comes with no named sources, no documents, and often no logic.
Under your watchful gaze, not a single Russian collusion story has been deemed "false" or even questionable, despite being entirely unsupported by an iota of evidence.
No thanks. You can keep your "truth" and I'll keep mine.
tbannist may actually believe that everything he wrote is actually true. In the good old days, you know, when America was Great, people like him used to get jackets with long sleeves and rooms with padded walls.
This doesn't violate Facebook standards. Or for those who won't read TFL:
Amazing how the examples in the linked article don't constitute a violation of standards on harassment and threatening violence. Must be like the Sarah Palin principle. You can say "someone should shit down Sarah Palin's throat" on national television and not be roundly condemned, but say anything about women on the other side, no matter how tepid the statement, and it's going to be a 2 minute hate session.
Trump might be impeached, but replaced by Hilary? No, that's not how this works. If Trump is removed from office, we get Pence--he's veep and next in the line of succession. If they get Pence as well (and I haven't heard of any proceedings against him) then it'd be Speaker of the House--that'd be Paul Ryan. And Orrin Hatch after that. Hillary, holding no office in the line of succession, isn't anywhere in there. In fact, the list I found goes 18 deep and there's not a single Democrat on it.
Translation: Facebook doesn't want to fix their broken system as it would reduced advertising revenues. Something that "Chaos Monkeys: Obscene Fortune and Random Failure in Silicon Valley" makes clear when Facebook set up their advertising system.
If it had been a low level staffer running their own private email server and conducting State Department business, they would be in jail. But since it is the Secretary of State and the Democratic Candidate for President, Hillary got a free pass.
Go on, tell me the one about past Secretary of States using private email (for non-State Department business), so I can have a good laugh at your expense.
Trump lies so frequently that any word out of his wretched mouth should be viewed as fake news.
They keep wriggling around the fact that they are a media company.
that doesn't matter. The Liberals don't use logic, or thoughts, it is all emotional. They figure they can impeach all the republicans and establish single party rule politburo. Anything else is unacceptable.
They want a pool everyone can have fun in without shit floating in it.
I understand it but I also wish them luck. There are a lot of people who love to shit...
There is no reason people can't read all sorts of things and make a determination on what to believe. They do it all the time. UFOs, Aliens, bigfoot,and yes even politics. Facebook stay out of it. Be a platform, period.
I wonder about option "C": Allow the user to pick their own review board. For example, have people from the Daily Kos, Breitbart, der Spiegel, CNN, MSNBC, Comedy Central, and other news organizations offer a review/weighting service for articles, with the ability for a user to pick and choose among them. This way, they are not stuck with what one groups deems as valid.
This way, FB can't be accused of being partisan, since people can choose who (if any) reviews news articles and sets validity scores for them.
This is also how accidentally FB works now already.
The only difference is instead of paying professional for their view, it pools the data that it has for free : the opinion and behaviour of your friends.
It also has the same big draw-back : it creates a biased bubble. Except that currently the bubble isn't based on partisan media, but on what you talk with your friends and what popular in your circle. And currently the bubble costs nothing.
What you're proposing will just cost FB more money (gotta pay the reviewers) while not filtering that much bullshit out (to be broad you'll have to hire reviewer from all range of political inclination - and thus invariably you'll end up with lots of not so bright influencable people who have elected to rely most on media that has the same extremist bias).
In short: your racist uncle will just pick some alt-right media as they favorite reviewer, your whinny step daughter will pick her favorite feminazi SJW media.
And they'll both end up re-posting/forwarding the same shit as before.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I can't think of a reason, but (and it's a big but)...
Facebook cannot exist without companies, especially the media that they compete with, telling people to use Facebook. Follow our Facebook page. Load our web page that has a like button, and please click that like button. Use our login system.
Our company directly competes with Facebook: every time a local business buys an ad from them, that's an ad they didn't buy from us. And yet we also spend money to try to get more of our users to use Facebook. And part of that, is that we pay a person to post on Facebook. That is a paid, professional voice. It's a person, and also not. It's a Facebook user, and also not. It's strictly commercial activity. And without all of us (not just our company but others like it) Facebook would be very quiet and your feed would have less in it.
As a user, that is something you would probably like, I'm sure. But maybe that's because you would like to be on Facebook less. But Facebook wants you on more, and so they need their competitors misguidedly making content for that platform at their own expense. If your company is on Facebook, you should be thinking of yourself as their unpaid intern. And through a certain type of twisted logic, that sort of makes Facebook responsible for what its unpaid interns are doing.
Its actually worse than that. There is plenty of evidence of Russian Collusion to rig the election, and it is all Hillary, DNC and the Deep State.
Hillary/DNC paid for the Russian Dossier
Russian Dossier was filled with Russian Propaganda from FSB
Hillary's Husband (Bill) was paid millions of dollars from FSB sources for "speeches"
Hillary signed off on Uranium One, in spite of an ongoing investigation into Russian trying to corner the Uranium market.
Obama Justice Dept and FBI agents were actively colluding to overturn the election
Obama and Justice Dept used the Fake Russian FSB Dossier to get a FISA court warrant to spy tap Americans, namely the opposition party.
This is just what we KNOW. I realize that the GP post doesn't account for any of this, because he's probably watching CNN or MSNBC which is talking about how much diet coke and McDonalds Trump consumes, or something equally inane. Or perhaps its on the ScarJo speech at the Liberal Women's march about how awful men are, especially James Franco, while ignoring that she praised Woody Allen or her cuddling up and beaming at Roman Polanski getting a Hollywood Award of some kind.
The selective nature of their outrage is humorous. Their disdain for average people (who knew these people were gross pigs long before Hollywoudn't) extends from Hollywood to the beltway.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Impeachment(bringing of charges) does not remove the President. Just ask Bill Clinton. The Senate would have do a trial after impeachment, and good luck getting 2/3s there for conviction.
What would be the "high crimes and misdemeanors" to start the impeachment process?
You might have half of it (*). But can you explain that other disaster, that Trump won? There were plenty of other candidates running, and by the election, Trump was already a known liar, and projected great weakness, incompetence, and a generally anti-American attitude. After he took office, all of these impressions got confirmed. He turned out to be as much of a shithead as he seemed. And that has jack shit to do with lefists losing their minds; people from left to center or right all agree on this president's worthlessness. It's not controversial, and you can ask nearly anyone, even on the right. (I'm not saying this is the problem, but it's the symptom.)
But the fact of the matter is, people did still vote for him, and those people were only able to do so by ignoring reality. And lying (e.g. screaming "fake news" whenever someone quotes Trump) is how you do that.
Free speech became a problem when people stopped valuing truth. When the word "evidence" became a bad word, speech lost everything about it that people value. It's worthless if it's only going to be purely religious.
We need to protect religious speech, but we shouldn't elevate it over speech about the real world. When we do that, speech is no longer particularly worth protecting. You can have religious speech anywhere, and even if it isn't free, it'll be good enough for people who use faith instead of perception. America, though, needs more. The utility value of free speech is why everything we like about America happened.
(*) Except you don't. Whatever traitorous things Hillary did, weren't why she lost. Take those away and I think we still would have voted against her. I would have. Are you seriously saying you would have voted for her if you hadn't known about whatever the fuck you're talking about (was it the emails?)?
what is this talking about? but I agree with others, no news on facebook would probably be better.
I wish any time my boss reprimanded me I could say "well I'm obviously better than the one you didn't hire, therefore I'm free of any and all criticism."
So then it would go to Ryan.
The bucket of reasons for bailing out of Facebook continues to fill. At some point, people are going to decide that they can get their cat video fix somewhere else; somewhere that doesn't unload propaganda and "fake news" on them on every visit (the FB Purity plug-in can't eliminate it all, after all). This goes for other sites that chose to follow Facebook's model, too. (Talkin' about you LinkedIn).
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Stupid and wrong question. The right question is why are foreign nationals being allowed to lie about their identity to begin with? It's against the TOS but they seem to be making a lot of fuss to avoid letting people notice that they're not even bothering to enforce the one clause that could have prevented all of this.
Is they will always favor themselves and censor those things that criticize them.
The problem with having no censor is people will have to decide for themselves what is true or false and will sometimes get it wrong.
The argument that 'The normal individual can't be trusted, or expected, to know what I true and false' Is the greatest argument against any kind of democratic rule that can be made. It is actually however the reason why our constitution created a republic with strong states rights. In as much as we have moved away from that model we have made it much easier for small groups of people to control the population.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
15 years from Beacon on the Hill to Fascist Cocklovers Butthurtia.
Putin is laughing his ass off at you.
If you were doing the job your employers hired you for, why are you being reprimanded? For that post you made on slashdot 10 years ago? Or because their guy didn't make the cut?
Don't police your own as long as they go further to the chaotic & right as planned
OK, because Twitter is turning to blatantly partisan groups. The founder of Common Sense Media is Jim Steyer, the brother of Tom Steyer...Tom Steyer is to the Democratic Party what people think the Koch brothers are to the Republican Party. The National Association of Media Literacy is composed of administrators from various universities and environmentalist groups (which leads me to believe that they are people who believe that Republican=Nazi).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
It's first past the post voting.
And you, obviously, are the final arbiter of Truth and Fiction.
Aren't we all our own final arbiters of Truth and Fiction?
You reject out of hand any criticism of your team, no matter how accurate or demonstrably true,
I don't have a team in your politics, but I recognize bull shit when someone writes it. Claiming that Hillary Clinton "got away with actual literal treason" is bullshit and you ought to know it too. It's not because I think Hillary Clinton is innocent as pure driven snow, for example, if you want to claim she committed gross negligence in handling classified documents, and should get jail time, I'll disagree with your position (and I'll back up my disagreement with facts), but I won't question your grip on reality.
yet will believe entirely the latest Russia Collusion story that comes with no named sources, no documents, and often no logic.
Not really, I think it's pretty unlikely that Mueller will find any damning evidence that Trump actually colluded with the Russians to win the election. I find it amusingly ironic that a book that the Trump White House has declared as Fake News, Fire and Fury, actually does a pretty good job of explaining one potential reason why collusion at the top level of Trump's presidential campaign is unlikely to be found: Trump never planned to win. If that claim is true (I find it more amusing than convincing, given the source), then Trump couldn't have collaborated with the Russians to win the election because he never wanted to win until after he did. If Trump planned to lose the election, and managed to screw it up by winning, then he has a pretty good defence against that accusation, but frankly, Trump probably can't admit that until after the 2020 election because if he says it, then his followers might realize they'd been manipulated and duped by a con man, and then they might not vote for him in 2020...
Anyway, I'm not sure what you think I should be believing or not believing here. Mueller is definitely investigating and indictments have been laid against people, and people have plead guilty. That's more than an iota of evidence for something, according to my perspective. Or am I supposed to believe that there is no Mueller, no Mueller investigation, and the whole thing has been made up by the media?
No thanks. You can keep your "truth" and I'll keep mine.
No, you won't. You're going to share your truth every time you post, just like I am. You don't have to like or believe what I write, but you can't stop me from making fun of the crazies who write ridiculous posts. Don't worry, though, I also make fun of the crazy liberals, when I see them, it's just there really aren't that many on Slashdot any more and when I do see them, the Warriors for Trump have already beaten me to the punch...
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Fact-checking experts will appear partisan in today's political climate where one party lies much more than the other party does. Unfortunately, a popularity contest simply won't be able to distinguish what is factual and what is a false propaganda. Partisans (on both sides) will consider truthful anything that reinforces their distorted world-views or tribalism. Human brains are not good at distinguishing truth from falsehood without extensive training and practice; just think about why social engineering, magic shows, and scams are so effective.
It would be a great service to Facebook users if fact-checking expertise was available for widely forwarded political links, but I'd prefer it's visual only (not impacting the algorithm) unless the user opts-in to a higher-fact-check feed.
Either eliminate news from FB altogether, or hire people from both sides of the aisle and set guidelines for what actually is fake news (i.e. demonstrably false in a plain language reading based on facts already proven).
The problem that Facebook, Twitter and Google have is they all exist in an alt left echo chamber and can't figure out why 60% of the country gets pissed at them when they use "fake news" as an excuse to censor legitimate conservative news sources and stories. Not agreeing with a story does not make it fake news...
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
The CIA has overthrown dozens of governments since WWII. Can you name the last one overthrown by Russia without going back to the USSR? You can skip Crimea unless you want me to explain how much of an idiot you are, as the population wouldn't have voted to join Russia if your literal neo-Nazi pals hadn't taken over Ukraine in a US-backed coup. Furthermore....
Which country has illegally attacked a dozen countries this century?
Which country had a worldwide kidnapping and torture program?
Which country spies on the electronic communications of every person on the planet, including allied heads of state?
Which country has a policy of bombing weddings and funerals, then follows up those strikes with "double taps" to murder any rescuers?
Which country has a gulag on the island of Cuba RIGHT NOW?
It's not up to FB to police the veracity of posts. I think it is ridiculous to expect them to.
The Clintons took in piles of cash from the communist army of China in the '90s and they both skated by unmarred, as did Al Gore who acted as a bag man in some of the transactions which themselves were tied tot he transfer of ballistic missile guidance and reliability tech to China (google: loral, hughes, china, clinton, jonny chung)
Sarah Palin was getting very favorable ratings (about 70%) as governor of Alaska from all voters, including Democrats... until she became John McCain's running mate against Barack Obama and instantly all the Democrats hated her. McCain at that time was the most popular Republican among Democrats and was routinely fawned over on Democrat-oriented TV channels like NBC.... until he challenged their chosen candidate, Mr Obama.
Are you truly asserting that Palin is a bigger self-proclaimed victim than Hillary? REALLY? How many book tours have Palin been on to peddle books about how some grand conspiracy occurred to cheat her out of power? How many women did Palin trash in order to hush-up her husband's womanizing, while pretending to be a champion for women and opposed to womanizing men and being outraged that anybody would DARE question her about it?
Do you ever even bother to read what you write and think about it? Do you have ANY self-awareness and conscience?
As soon as Palin was on the anti-Obama ticket, it became ok to say ANYTHING about her. She was stupid, evil, rapeable, David Letterman was joking about raping her then-underage daugher on network television... the most hateful, vile, evil, bile excrement flew out of the pie holes of every leftwing "tolerant and loving, unjudgemental" liberal. There is simply NOTHING a leftist cannot say or do against her for the crime of opposing Obama. A leftwing hacker hacker her e-mails and exposed them to the world and liberal news outlets like the New York Times were encouraging their readers to help dig through the archives to "crowd source" the search for dirt.
More recently, Trump called Rosie O'Donnel a pig, and the cries from the left were that by calling one woman a pig, he had called ALL women pigs. By that reasoning, every evil slur flung at Palin by you people on the left is something you have slung at ALL women (I find that idea absurd, but it's the rules your side seems to champion).
There are either rules, which apply to all equally, or there are none. You do not get to have a one-way mirror of rules for civility where you and your "tolerant and non-judgemental and inclusive" pals can fling all the hate you want but your opponents cannot say anything you do not like.
If you were doing the job your employers hired you for, why are you being reprimanded?
because I'm not doing what I said I'd do during the interviews
...Or because I don't work well with my coworkers
...Or because I have a total disregard for the employee handbook
You actually "know" none of this, there's a few nuggets of truth, but most of what you just posted it typical Glenn Beck/Alex Jones/WND/Breitbart trash.
You did hit all the alt-right-wing talking points, though, so good for you.
Facebook continues to cower behind a broken concept that the company is a neutral platform where all of its participants are equally weighted.
Are the phone companies accountable for what conversations you hold over their networks? Is the US Postal Service responsible for the content of letters? Come off it guys. You don't get to play thought police in politics and you don't get to play thought police in business. In fact, you don't get to play thought police at all. If you don't like the way people are voting, convince them otherwise or suck it up and deal with it. Don't wrap yourself in flag and scripture and purple robes to tell us what we should and should not be saying to each other.
They figure they can impeach all the republicans and establish single party rule politburo. Anything else is unacceptable.
And this is different from the "Republicans" desire for single-party rule how?
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
Well, most of those are true of the Soviet Union, though your intent is obviously to blame the USA. As for the last one, who invented the concept and practice of the gulag to begin with?
...
I mean, you do realize the whole prison-camp-for-political-exiles you are talking about is NAMED for the camps the Soviets had on the Gulag Archipeligo, right? There's even a book about it, won a Nobel Peace Proze, maybe you've heard of it
Facebook didn't want to block CNN, Washington Post, and the New York Times.
Yes, the Soviet Union - which collapsed over 25 years ago. Whereas everything I just mentioned is current events - Guantanamo Bay continues to hold people without trial RIGHT NOW.
Dumbass.
Used to be we'd say that any fool with a printing press can print stuff. That was because a lot of people if they saw it in print they thought it was true. Some news people published crap. They came up with a word for that Yellow Journalism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . Today CNN fits that bill to a T with their supposed un-named sources when in fact there was no source. It was just speculative bullshit. A good example right now is the collusion delusion. There is no source, there is no proof, yet here we have an expensive investigation over bullshit. Washington Post has been found to have made up stories with no basis in fact at all. Sometimes they'll say something like it was a composite, made from multiple people. Yea, for a sensational story - yellow journalism.
People need to know to believe only about 10% of what they read in the main stream media. Other sources are usually a lot more reliable.
Agreed absent an extraordinary writ by the Supreme Court predicated upon a Constitutional crisis, to the effect that the election was invalid. Even then, it would be a redo.
The reason everything you claim to hate is on the rise is because of people like you who support the dehumanization of your opponents. How do I know you support it? Because you went into an emotional hissy fit the moment I broke with the Narrative by showing that no one trusts the people you like because they say "expressing abstract racism is BEYOND THE PALE" but curiously can't find a rule violation in threatening to burn someone alive.
Funny thing is, I don't even like Sarah Palin. I really don't, but I recognize a fundamental principle: advocating grabbing random women you disagree with and forcing them to submit to having a massive dump fed down their throat like a duck undergoing foie gras is the epitome of "speech that is unacceptable no matter what."