Facebook Exec Admits 'No Real Understanding' for the Scope of Fake News (mercurynews.com)

Three executives from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube appeared at Stanford to discuss free speech in the social media age, with one law professor raising concerns about how the online giants are curating their services. All three tech executives talked about increasing transparency and authenticity. But all acknowledge that nothing is foolproof and political speech in particular is most difficult to regulate, if it should be at all. "That puts a lot of control in the hands of the companies sitting here in term of what kind of speech is allowed to have the global reach," said Juniper Downs, YouTube's global head of public policy and government relations. "That is a responsibility we take very seriously and something we owe to the public and a civil society...."

Facebook is making information available on its platform to researchers to help understand the effect of Facebook usage on elections. Still, Facebook's Vice President of Public Policy Elliot Schrage urged caution. "There is no agreement whatsoever on the prevalence of false news and fake propaganda on our platform," he said. "We have no real understanding of what the scope of misinformation is." He suggested that despite these chaotic times, "I do think we should be pretty modest and circumspect in the approaches we take." Social media companies need to find creative ways to improve the spread of information, Schrage said. But it won't be easy. "No one company," he said, "is going to solve this problem."

Comments

BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & you do-nothing soyboy "ne'er-do-wells" are too COWARDLY and EFFEMINATE to ban bump stocks. This would be REAL SECURITY that would put an end to mass shootings. The estrogen in soy milk makes all of you too cowardly to BAN BUMP STOCKS.

* The NRA is supported by George Soros, the Russian government, Jews, and their allies in the Vatican. The Vatican has MEDDLED in our elections to support Hillary Clinton and OPPOSE any form of GUN CONTROL. They work with the Jewish elites in the United States to add SOY MILK to our foods, containing ESTROGEN and making our men EFFEMINATE.

A ban on bump stocks would have STOPPED many recent MASS SHOOTINGS including at the Waffle House, Las Vegas, Parkland, and so many other places. It is TRULY PATHETIC that you SOYBOY WEASELS insist on keeping bump stocks legal. A ban on bump stocks will STOP MASS SHOOTINGS just like my HOSTS FILE ENGINE is a cure-all for INTERNET SECURITY.

Losers like Coren22, arth1, Zontar The Mindless, AssFux (lol), and so many more of you UNIDENTIFIABLE FAKE NAME losers attack me relentlessly for telling the TRUTH. It takes a REAL MAN like me to continually dust all of you you weasels, while you LIE and ACCUSE me of evil criminal acts. You are INCAPABLE of accepting the TRUTH that BUMP STOCKS MUST BE BANNED.

APK

P.S.=> I will continue to DUST your feeble arguments and SWOOP IN wherever you UNIDENTIFIABLE WEASELS keep lying and trolling. You are truly a sad and pathetic sight to see... apk

Re:BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Karmashock]

I've talked to some former marines about that, and they say you can approximate a bump stock with "a belt"... as in the one that you hold your pants up with...

Ban it if you want... it just won't matter. If you boil down the statistics on the mass shootings you'll find that the US actually has normal to LOW numbers of mass shooting deaths.

True, our overall homicide figures are fairly high but they also correlate very strongly with inner city drug and gang violence which is unlikely to become less deadly because you ban legal guns. Keep in mind, the street gangs frequently use blackmarket guns already, the drug was has made very clear that hte government can't stop heroin much less guns, and the Cartels which are increasingly dominating this market are going to be heavily armed regardless... and even if they only had knives, they'd just cut people into pieces slowly.

And again... you can approximate a bump stock with a belt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I'm sure this is all on deaf ears... they're banning knives in London now... because this line of logic fails and then people just come up with a new thing to ban that won't have any material consequence on outcomes.

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me ask you a question: why do you need semi-automatic weapons that fire high-powered rounds? This isn't a rhetorical question.

While mass shootings account for a small proportion of gun deaths, they have the greatest impact on the public perception of safety. They instigate fear in a way that other shootings like gang-related crimes and suicides do not. The government has a compelling interest in reducing mass shootings, hence the reason for instituting gun control. Because the regulations affect freedoms guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, they can be subject to strict judicial scrutiny.

Judicial scrutiny involves the courts weighing the benefits of the government's compelling interests against the effects on liberty. If you can show that gun control impacts your liberties in a significant way, that raises the bar for the government's compelling interests, and is relevant to judicial scrutiny. That's why you need to say why it's necessary for civilians to have access to semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15.

There may, indeed, be a cogent argument for this. Condoleezza Rice talked about black people in Birmingham needing to defend themselves from the KKK because the police would not protect them. I'm not sure that exact reason is valid today because times have changed and that situation is unlikely to occur in the present. However, a similar type of argument would be a valid reason why such weapons are necessary for the liberty of the people. So, can you tell me why civilians in the present day need weapons like the AR-15? This is not a rhetorical question, and I'm willing to hear you out.

I agree that a ban on bump stocks would be ineffective, which is why I'm focusing on the guns, instead. I believe the government has a strong interest in preventing mass shootings, and the AR-15 is commonly used in such attacks. Gun rights supporters need to explain why they need such weapons, or how a ban would significantly affect their liberties. I'm asking in good faith and I am willing to hear you out on this.

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Khyber]

"why do you need semi-automatic weapons that fire high-powered rounds"

Because a shotgun does exactly jack shit against a re-feralized 600 pound pig with massive fucking tusks charging your ass or harassing your animals or crops. You need PENETRATING POWER and you quite often need more than one bullet to stop it, AND you need to stop it rapidly, so sticking around fucking with a bolt-action is liable to get your ass gored by aforementioned tusks in a close-range shooting situation, thus the need for semi-automatic capability.

"Condoleezza Rice talked about black people in Birmingham needing to defend themselves from the KKK because the police would not protect them. I'm not sure that exact reason is valid today because times have changed and that situation is unlikely to occur in the present."

Well, the USSC ruled in this century that the police have no constitutional duty to protect you, period, barring a special pre-existing relationship. Guess what that means? Your ass is, by court ruling, on your own for defense.

"So, can you tell me why civilians in the present day need weapons like the AR-15?"

Come live here near the Mexican border. Or be forced to live in any gang-ridden area in any semi-major metro area. You get to see the reasons for yourself instead of reading about it.

And in the case of invasion of country, at least civilians with AR-15 experience can pick up the M-16 or M-4 of a fallen homeland soldier and continue the fight with minimal instruction, since they're familiar with the majority of the weapon design and functionality off the bat.

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Because 9-11 was an inside job. Obama had eight years to come clean and tell the truth but instead he helped make fake TV news. ae911truth dot org

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you should probably get a tank or an F-15 before trying to take on that pig. Not sure why it's trying to attack you or how you got into that situation just blow it up with explosives.

p.s. America isn't the only place with gangs, and the rest of the world is doing just fine without guns to deal with them. Mainly because the gangs can't access them so easily.

Re:BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Losers like Coren22, arth1, Zontar The Mindless, AssFux (lol), and so many more of you UNIDENTIFIABLE FAKE NAME losers attack me relentlessly for telling the TRUTH. It takes a REAL MAN like me to continually dust all of you you weasels, while you LIE and ACCUSE me of evil criminal acts. You are INCAPABLE of accepting the TRUTH that BUMP STOCKS MUST BE BANNED.

Bump stocks have been involved in exactly ONE shooting since their creation. Come back with a fucking valid argument as to WHY bump stocks must be banned while you SUPPORT the mass killing of humans by other products that are LEGAL but highly addictive and deadly. TRUTH is if you actually cared about human lives, you would support banning many other deadly products. You won't, because you're just another ADDICT.

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

While your arguments are true, the first part about hogs just means you need more stopping power at the start, not more rounds . The reason that Americans need access to high powered firearms is because it is the right and duty of all males to protect family, community and state from all enemies foreign and domestic. Since one of those enemies could be a state, local or foreign, then the well regulated militia (well trained and provisioned male citizens over the age of majority) need access to equivalent force as might be brought against them.

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

I lost you on your claim that US has normal level is mass shootings. Compared to what, afganistan?

Re:BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[DRJlaw]

I've talked to some former marines about that, and they say you can approximate a bump stock with "a belt"... as in the one that you hold your pants up with...

Ban it if you want... it just won't matter.

The "perfect being the enemy of the good" fallacy writ large. You admit that you can only approximate the effects of a bump stock with a belt, yet you imply that because we could not ban belts that it won't matter that we ban bump stocks.

Bullshit. The purpose-built device performs better and is easier to use than the jerry-rigged, belt-based alternative. Making it more difficult to rig a bump-stock-like device is a net win - especially since there is essentially no legitimate reason to use a bump-stock. Shooters using bump-stocks are less accurate and have less control over their weapons -- the exact opposite of the goals of a hunter, a target shooter, and frankly those engaged in self-defense.

If you boil down the statistics on the mass shootings you'll find that the US actually has normal to LOW numbers of mass shooting deaths.

Could be lower. No need for a "spray and pray" device outside of a military context, and even then doctrine highly discourages that sort of use in most situations.

this line of logic fails and then people just come up with a new thing to ban that won't have any material consequence on outcomes.

Sorry, rhetoric does not substitute for evidence, especially when your video shows someone firing a five round burst from the hip in a random direction -- it's epitome of the one-handed 'gangsta style' pistol grip transposed to an AR-15. "Approximate" does not equal "buy off-the-shelf add-on that allows Joe Bloe to essentially create a "shoulder-fired machine gun." We all see it, a majority of us tired of it, and the final rule banning these devices is coming.

Lifelong gun owner, never an NRA member, and yes, "deaf" to this sort of bullshit.

Re:BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

just like my HOSTS FILE ENGINE is a cure-all for INTERNET SECURITY.

A cure is a reactive solution. Your hosts file is only proactive. So it is really a cure-NONE.

Re:BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's the case, then you should yourself why your society is so extremely violent in comparison to others. Lead poisoning?

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Your arguments are based on a fundamental misunderstanding.

We do not have to justify our rights. "Why do you need to speak?" is as vulgar and offensive a question as the one you asked.

These rights are not granted by the government. They do not exist because of the Constitution or the Supreme Court. They exist regardless, and they are yours irrespective of a piece of paper or guy in a robe.

You have a right to self defense. You have a right to kill when you or your family is threatened, and in such an unfortunate situation, you do not want to be holding a butcher's knife... Even if the other guy also has a butcher's knife. The idea that fights must be fair when it comes to your life is an artificial and deadly mental construct.

I know you've heard this argument before, but consider it now with a fresh and unencumbered mind: If they cannot stop a guy from getting heroine, then they probably can't stop him from getting a gun. When he invades your home, you are a good and law abiding person who gave up his guns with the rest of us, whose family is now watching you kneel in the living room with an illegal gun to his head. There is no reset button or do-over. You're totally defenseless, and sadly by your own choice.

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Hyperbole, insults, and misrepresenting an opponent's argument does not help.

All you've done is entrench them further, and presented nothing which disputes their points. You lost this argument.

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[DRJlaw]

Because a shotgun does exactly jack shit against a re-feralized 600 pound pig with massive fucking tusks charging your ass or harassing your animals or crops. You need PENETRATING POWER and you quite often need more than one bullet to stop it, AND you need to stop it rapidly, so sticking around fucking with a bolt-action is liable to get your ass gored by aforementioned tusks in a close-range shooting situation, thus the need for semi-automatic capability.

Yes, you need to COMPENSATE FOR YOUR HEAD-UP-YOUR-ASS-MISTAKES in picking an astonishingly underpowered round, failing to choose the proper ground and/or cover, and blowing your advantage so badly that you're at close-range with a charging animal.

The M-16/AR-15 standard cailber was expressly selected to favor wounding, not killing, a human-sized animal (shocker, since the principal target was a human being). And you want to use it for boar shooting. SMMFH.

Because a shotgun does exactly jack shit against a re-feralized 600 pound pig with massive fucking tusks charging your ass or harassing your animals or crops.

Use a large game round rather than leftover birdshot and you just might learn something.

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny that you say that.

They purposefully have tortured and strange definitions for "mass shooting" that ignore what happens throughout Africa and the Middle East. Similarly, they include suicides in these gun crime statistics, because without them our country looks incredibly safe... And how can you scare people then?

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[jedidiah]

> Let me ask you a question: why do you need semi-automatic weapons that fire high-powered rounds? This isn't a rhetorical question.

You are deeply confused and highly ignorant about guns.

The AR-15 doesn't fire a particularly high powered round. It's a varmint rifle. It's not even powerful enough to be considered legal for hunting in some places because of this.

Lay off the media narrative.

The AR-15 has the advantage of being less random and destructive than a shotgun and much easier to handle than some pea shooter like a 38 special. A 9mm round actually has more penetrating power when it comes to human bodies.

Re:BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[angel'o'sphere]

Legalize the drugs ... then it is a pointless business for "gangs".
Strange that we have drugs in Europe to, but no gang violence.

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[angel'o'sphere]

Strange,
here in Europe we hunt pigs/boars with shotguns.
Seems to work quite well.

Hint: the kill is not because the pellets penetrate (which they do), it is the shock of the impact killing the pig.

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Khyber]

You very obviously know JACK SHIT about re-feralized pigs.

So keep on with your idiocy. Meanwhile, those of us that lived on farms and have dealt with this problem for decades can just look at you, laugh, and pretty much take you for a complete fucking moron.

And I was raised by a USMC grandfather. I played with more guns and explosives than you've ever laid eyes upon, child.

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Karmashock]

As to public perception, that is obviously more a factor of the media.

If the public peace is your objective, then you would probably do better to attack the First Amendment rather than the Second.

Naturally, the "first" is not as rhetorically vulnerable so I suspect you won't do that.

Regardless, if you look at the statistics, you'll see that the gun deaths in the US from these mass shootings is LOWER than the same statistic in Canada and about the same as Germany.

I can go through the numbers with you but it basically boils down to this... The US has a very large national population and these deaths are relatively rare.

They're so rare that in the last 60 years it would take FIVE... that is "5" Irish students in Ireland getting killed to hit the US statistic. I've got an excel spread sheet on this and everything. When the Florida mass shootings happened I did some research for "fun" and crunched all the numbers. I have graphs and everything.

As to judicial this and that, let us keep in mind we're talking about a constitutional amendment here. Its not like just "any" law. It is obliged to the same protections that the First Amendment has for example or the third or the fourth etc. So be careful erroding the foundations of that protection because you erode them all.

That said, if you want to change it, we do have a process for that. We have changed the US constitution many times over the years and we can still do it. We most recently changed it in 1992... 27th amendment I believe.

So why not do that?

I would suspect because the issue is actually controversial and you may not have the votes. That being the case, what is your "moral" or "ethical" authority in a democratic republic if you don't have the votes?

Just saying. If you want to change it... then change it. Get the votes. If you don't have the votes... then the issue is that you don't have the votes. Simple as that.

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Karmashock]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

since 1959, the US has had 242 deaths due to mass killings at schools.

US population is about about 325 million

School fatalities per million is about .745... per million per year you have about .0126 people.

I can examine canada or germany... by the same metric taking population into account... Canada is about 0.0267 dead children per million per year. You can see that is a much higher number than the US number.

Germany clocks in at .0149 for west germany and .0122 for post unification germany.

Again, this is the mass shootings and not the street thugs killing each other over places to sell drugs. Often there is a dishonest conflation and change in what is being discussed to increase the power of a rhetorical argument. But it has no integrity and is generally ignorant of the deeper facts of the matter.

I have spreadsheets... I've crunched the numbers. If you think I made an error then show you have crunched the numbers yourself unlike that guy that just chimed in and said that people are lying but didn't offer any sources of calculations.

Its very easy to say "X is wrong". I'm doing quite a bit more than that. I'm offering up where I got my information from, I explained my methodology, and I offered my conclusions.

If you do not rise to the level of even this rudimentary effort, then please have the humility to concede you didn't look into it as deeply as myself. It is very annoying to have people that spent no time or attention on something contradicting things that are actually pretty well grounded.

Re:BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Karmashock]

Look, ban the bump stocks. I really don't care.

But look at them banning knives in London. You're on a slippery slope here, bub. Where does it stop? Because it clearly and demonstrably and provably does not stop at knives.

So where to next? When is it enough?

Set a principle you're following so I can follow it to its logical conclusion. I really doubt you can offer one you'd be comfortable standing behind. And absent a principle you don't have a principle which means this is an unprincipled position. It is a serious serious problem if you don't have a principle.

So... work one out... throw it out there... and we'll see if it stands up.

Re:BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Karmashock]

US crime stats are actually very low EXCLUDING "urban drug and gang violence"... which is a problem.

However, bump stocks are not really an issue in drive bys etc. What is more, criminal gangs frequently use illegal guns in any case... so I wonder if your concern is urban drug and gang violence, why don't you suggest a law that will impact that issue?

Hammering law abiding citizens with more regulations that criminals will just ignore is not helpful.

If you can't ban heroin because clearly heroin addicts still get high every day... explain how you're going to keep criminals from getting guns?

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[DRJlaw]

Oh no, some random called me child. Well, that trumps years of hunting experience but myself and other hunters throughout the US.

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[DRJlaw]

Ban civilian possession of actual and de facto automatic firearms, all devices intentionally designed to covert firearms to actual or de facto automatic weapons, and magazines of >10 round capacity.

There's your principle. And I'm fine with it.

Re:BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Karmashock]

As to drugs, I agree. You can't ban a product that people want. This also pertains to guns as well as most of the criminals as I pointed out get their guns the same way they get the drugs. If you can't stop the drugs then you can't stop the guns.

What is more the rise of 3d printed metal parts is going to render the concept of controlling goods by controlling licensing and manufacture irrelevant. Anti gun laws are going to not only start collapsing in the US but they're going to also collapse in China, Europe, etc. You can't stop it. Doubtless you'll disagree... I'm happy to let time and tide settle that argument.

As to no gang violence in europe... sure, which is why knives aren't banned in London, eh?

Bro... work on your lines of bullshit. This sort of thing only fools the fools.

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Karmashock]

That's not a principle but is rather a specific regulation.

What is the underlying reason you're doing that.

I'm going to post a link here to help you... this is not intended with any condescension but rather to clarify what I meant by "principle":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

""As a juridic law
Main article: Principle of legality

It represents a set of values that inspire the written norms that organize the life of a society submitting to the powers of an authority, generally the State. The law establishes a legal obligation, in a coercive way; it therefore acts as principle conditioning of the action that limits the liberty of the individuals. See, for examples, the territorial principle, homestead principle, and precautionary principle.""

I'm not looking for the number of bullets. I'm looking for the principle that informs and inspires that regulation.

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[DRJlaw]

That's not a principle but is rather a specific regulation.

Says you. I know what you were asking for, and that's not the way that we govern society. We govern society based upon balancing competing interests, benefits and harms, utility and philosophy.

"...for while the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact." Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963).

You want a general principle that you can spin out into "regulations" so that you can assert that the principle is harmful. Well I've spun out the "regulations" for you. Argue against them, or do not... we do not legislate principles -- we legislate regulatory limits, such as these.

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick - disarm the commoners! Burn the Constitution!

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Sleazy intellectual monopoly lawyers sure do love disarming the plebs.

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Karmashock]

As I suspected, you don't actually have a principle.

It should bother you that you don't have one and it should bother you more that I knew it immediately the instant you said anything.

Here you'll be tempted to show bravado... save it... its childish. Your position is shallow and based on nothing.

I won't ask for a principle again from you... I don't think you're able.

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Bbbbbbut scary rifles!

Re:BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest that you are mistaken. Last I looked Britain was in Europe. Britain has quite a gang problem, and is in the process of completely unarming the population as a response to them. Uselessly disarming as it is, since the weapon used for a majority of these gang attacks are kitchen knives. 35,000 attacks in 2017 alone.

Re:BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[angel'o'sphere]

Knives about a certain size are banned all over the place.

On the other hand a guy with a knife can only kill so many ... with a gun he can kill plenty more.

And no: there is no noticeable "gang violence" in Europe, and that includes UK.

And then again: how would one get a gun in Germany or UK or France? It is literally impossible, the only way is having connections into countries where you can acquire them and smuggle them into central EU.

If you would come here and would try to buy a gun: good luck! I even have no clue were to start to get one.

Gun control works, all over the world, just not in the US, because you never tried it.

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[DRJlaw]

"balancing competing interests, benefits and harms, utility and philosophy" is not a principle? Or merely not a principle subject to your plan of attack?

Let's try this, you propound a principle, since you cannot even come with with a coherent argument against the proposed policy, and we'll test that.

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Karmashock]

No, because it isn't YOUR principle. You're really just saying that there are forces out there that RESTRAIN your interests and the ultimate law is the product of your will countered by others.

Look, you have a legit slippery slope here, chum. A slippery slope is when you propose something that doesn't have a limit. It can just go on and on and on and on. A principle would possibly limit it and give everyone some peace of mind that after you get X you won't immediately go asking for X+1, then X+2, and so on.

And again, your balancing concept would be accepted by no one that knew anything about philosophy or law as a principle. Absolutely pathetic.

I'm only being a little strong with you because you attempted to high hat. You're not due that. You're some some smuck like everyone else... me in included in case you're confused and think I'm condescending to you here.

You have basically no argument. You're saying you want something because you want it. You're not saying why. You're not offering a guiding principle that directs your position. You're not limiting your scope.

Its an awful argument. Really really bad.

If you want to actually fix your shit so we can have a discussion, cool... if not then we're done.

Re:BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Karmashock]

Brah, if you want to pretend that the knife ban in London isn't a reflection of a concept that won't admit failure, then fine. You won't admit failure. Contradiction of the obvious is not however a strong rebuttal.

As to guys killing people with guns, heroin exists in London... it was brought into the country illegally. There exists a black market where in people can buy and sell heroin. Naturally guns are in that mix as well.

So you didn't stop black market guns.

In the US, most of the inner city street murder is committed with black market guns.

We have very different types of murder that exist in very different conditions.

The mass murders you see in the US that are in the media are statistically average for a country of our size. Canada and germany either have very similiar numbers or their numbers are higher.

For Ireland to have the same statistics as the US FIVE "5" Irish children would have be killed over the last 60 years to reach US statistics. The numbers are statistically very low but you think they're high because you've been duped by sensationalist media. We can go over the math. I know you don't like citations or math or evidence. I've seen that from our previous discussions where "I" cite evidence and you just cling to a narrative you can't support.

As to US murders EXCLUDING inner city gang and drug violence, the US is actually very peaceful and is comparable to pretty much any first world country on that basis. Our homocide figures in the US are UNCHANGED "MINUS" inner city drug and gang violence from the 1950s. We're fucking mayberry outside of the urban blight zones.

And you say "but the urban blight is part of the US"... Fine, then offer a policy to address that context. Because bump stocks are fucking irrelevant to gang bangers.

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[DRJlaw]

No, because it isn't YOUR principle.

You don't get to disqualify a principle or say that it isn't mine when you cannot even propound your own principle. The rhetorical trap that you're attempting to lay is obvious, all the more so due to the fact that you keep running away from espousing any sort of countervailing principle or proposing any different "regulation" (or even a lack thereof).

you have a legit slippery slope here, chum

There is no such thing as a 'legit' slippery slope. There are only those who fallaciously assert that competing interests cannot be balanced so that a thing inevitably must become purely (and illogically) one thing or its opposite. Pure capitalism or pure communism. Every human being possessing a nuclear weapon or every human being having been defanged, declawed, and deprived of moveable objects. It's bullshit -- and it's the argument that you've been telegraphing since you've demanded that I hand you a "principle."

You have basically no argument. You're saying you want something because you want it. You're not saying why. You're not offering a guiding principle that directs your position. You're not limiting your scope.

I expressly made an argument in the initial post, and I expressly limited my scope. Oddly, you feel free to throw all that away because I will not willingly feed you a singular principle (as if there could be a singular principle) that you may fallaciously shove down your slippery slope as an unproductive tangent to the discussion.

Counter the argument, and counter the "regulation" that was the express product of that argument, or walk away. I need not care either. Bump stock bans aren't going to be reversed because of your fixation upon principle. Magazine limits aren't going to be reversed because of your fixation upon principle. The populace is pissed and D.C. v. Heller set a limit upon scope within which much can be done without fallaciously slipping down your metaphorical slope:

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service -- M-16 rifles and the like -- may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right."

If you want to actually fix your shit so we can have a discussion, cool...

My shit is on point. I can't force you to engage, but I continue to make you look the poorer for refusing to do so. "It just won't matter" is just so much bullshit. Devices that only serve to magnify the damage that one human being can wreak upon others are routinely banned from civilian possession, with the entirely reasonable expectation that such bans reduce the risk of like incidents in the future (where "reduce" != eliminate) and reduce the potential damage rate of other such incidents in the future (where again "reduce" != eliminate).

And so it shall continue to be... whether you like it or not.

Re:BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[angel'o'sphere]

Brah, if you want to pretend that the knife ban in London isn't a reflection of a concept that won't admit failure, then fine. You won't admit failure. Contradiction of the obvious is not however a strong rebuttal.
I have no idea about the knife ban in London, as I don't live in London. Actually: never heard about it.
Well, regarding gun violence you are obviously misinformed. Except for a few countries like Jamaika or some war zones, US has the highest death toll off all 2nd world countries, and note: I refuse to call it a 1st world country. Except for the armed forces they are third world.

Re:BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Karmashock]

Thought you were English. If you are, and I know about it... in Los Angeles... and you don't know about it in England... perhaps consider not lecturing people about how things work... on planet Earth... tell me more about Mars. Maybe you know something about that. Because if I know about the knife thing in London and you don't... and you're English... and I'm not... and you're telling me how things work elsewhere... You just might not have any credibility there.

https://twitter.com/MayorofLon...

What do you want on this... You are english, yes? If not, tell me where you're from and I'll find relevant links for there. Its not like its hard.

You will kneel before the awesome power of google.

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Karmashock]

Slippery slope is always fallacious, eh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Not true. As you can see there, it can be a valid argument.

I qualified what makes something slipper slope versus not... that there is some kind of limit. You haven't set a principle that would limit your position.

In fact, you're very clearly aware that you either can't or that actually admitting what it is would be rhetorical suicide. I can't think of any other reason why you would refuse to cite your principle.

You either don't have one or you do have one and are ashamed to cite it.

Either way, you just got BTFO on this issue. You came in here with your pretensions and instantly I saw through you bullshit. Look, have your opinions. It is a free country and you're entitled to believe what you like. But you're not entitled to my respect or to be given intellectual and moral credibility you don't deserve.

You've got an opinion. It is a dumb opinion that you can't support. I have righteously mocked it. You can't defend it.

Good Game.

Unless you want to cite that principle you either don't have or are afraid to cite?

Probably not... in which case... again, you have no argument.

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[DRJlaw]

As you can see there, it can be a valid argument.

"slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real -- that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur." Yes, if we ban bump stocks, before you know it humanity will highly likely be reduced to eating finger foods because knife bans...

You committed the fallacy in your first post. You no longer get to hide behind "can be a valid argument."

In fact, you're very clearly aware that you either can't or that actually admitting what it is would be rhetorical suicide. I can't think of any other reason why you would refuse to cite your principle.

Since you appear incapable of assembling the pieces that are expressly handed to you. I'll put them together in one post in a vain attempt to get you to respond.

Argument:
There is essentially no legitimate reason to use a bump-stock. Shooters using bump-stocks are less accurate and have less control over their weapons -- the exact opposite of the goals of a hunter, a target shooter, and frankly those engaged in self-defense. No need for a "spray and pray" device outside of a military context, and even then doctrine highly discourages that sort of use in most situations.

Principle:

Homicide is bad. Reducing mass homicides is good. "balancing competing interests, benefits and harms, utility and philosophy" is inherent in evaluating whether allowing the possession of tools enabling mass homicide is socially beneficial or not. Feel free to argue against that principle.

Limits:

Ban civilian possession of actual and de facto automatic firearms, all devices intentionally designed to covert firearms to actual or de facto automatic weapons, and magazines of >10 round capacity.

What's truly sad here is the amount of time that you've spent attacking the form of the message instead of offering any argument concerning the issue. And I fully expect you to carry on doing so, because you simply cannot offer anything beyond tangents, fallacies, and ad hominems.

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Karmashock]

Slippery slope is valid if the slope is slippery.

Since you're not defining a limit and a guiding principle that would constraining your ambitions, your position is a slippery slope.

You are explicitly avoiding setting a limit.

If we limit the mag capacity etc you're just going to stop and oppose any further restrictions?

If not, then you're conceding the slippery slope right there.

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[DRJlaw]

Slippery slope is valid if the slope is slippery.

But you haven't shown that it is. You simply bleated "But look at them banning knives in London." As if (1) they banned all knives in London (nobody eats with those things, anyway) and (2) that was a highly likely result of a bump stock ban.

Funny how a London ban on carrying >3 inch blades down a public street is crazy but an American ban on carrying 2.4 inch blades in commercial airplanes is totally rational. Almost as if balancing competing interests, benefits and harms, utility and philosophy in context matters.

Since you're not defining a limit and a guiding principle that would constraining your ambitions, your position is a slippery slope.

Defined a limit and a guiding principle, so it is not. However, since you cannot read, your posts continue to be a dumpster fire of fallacious reasoning.

You are explicitly avoiding setting a limit. If we limit the mag capacity etc you're just going to stop and oppose any further restrictions?

Wait - you claimed that I explicitly avoided setting a limit. How did mag capacity come into this? Oh, because I did set a limit, and you've now admitted it.

And yes, I am. How 'bout me now?

If not, then you're conceding the slippery slope right there.

But if so, and since I am not conceding the point, you've got a problem.

Still waiting for you to say anything of substance on the topic...

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Karmashock]

So if the mag capacity were set you'd oppose any further gun control.

Good to know.

Re:BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[angel'o'sphere]

I'm German.

No idea what you want with the twitter link. Yes, there is no excuse to carry a knife into a city. Why would you?

And why would I need to know random laws about random weapons when I live in a country that has banned guns since centuries and other weapons since millennia?

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

no english link, but perhaps you speak french, there is a link on the left side to the french version.

If not, tell me where you're from and I'll find relevant links for there. Its not like its hard.
Relevant links for what? Mass murder with guns every week? Good luck :D

Re:BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Karmashock]

Your screen name implied to me you were english " angel'o'sphere"... a play I presumed on the Anglosphere.

Regardless:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Your link is available in the English Wikipedia.

As to your citation-less arguments about US gun violence. I've already shown your position to be baseless in previous posts. Refusing to read or respond to arguments is literally your argumentative strategy at this point.

Re:BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[angel'o'sphere]

I lost track about your point.

In the US you have a mass shooting with more than 3 dead once a week, usually much more often, and with much more dead.

In Europe you have a shooting once a year ... usually once every 10 years.

So ... what exactly is your pint?

Re:BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Karmashock]

I gave you the data on US and German school shootings.... correcting for population differences, Germany's numbers are higher.

Process that.

Re:BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[angel'o'sphere]

There only was one single school shooting in german history.
By a kid where the father did not lock away the guns and ammunition as it is expected and demanded by law.

So no, there is nothing to process. And we did not talk about "school shootings" but about all shootings.

Regarding gun violence Germany is one of the safest countries of the world after Japan and Switzerland. Easy to google, btw.

Re:BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[Karmashock]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

YOU DIDN"T READ MY LINK... this is not the "angry caps" this is the "yelling at a thick mother fucker caps"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I have to assume at this point you don't read anything because you're terrified to figure out you're wrong. Christ... Fucking read it.

Bremen school shooting
4 dead 1913
Cologne school massacre
10 dead 1964
Erlangen school massacre
2 dead 1972
Eppstein school shooting
5 dead 1983
Erfurt school massacre
16 dead 2002
Adam Labus
3 dead 2002
Winnenden school shooting
15 dead 2009

And that isn't even a comprehensive list... that includes pre war school shootings, west germany, and post unification germany. It has no data on east german actions during that time. Maybe there was nothing, but lets be real... there are mass school shootings in CHINA "RIGHT NOW"... so that's unlikely.

What we're running into again here, is that you're profoundly ignorant. This is not an insult. It is a statement of FACT.

I have posted that link at least three times in this discussion. You've read it ZERO times.

You say "There only was one single school shooting in german history." when theirs been AT LEAST three since 2000. Now you can say "but less than the US"... I'm sure you're thinking that because it would be a very stupid thing for you to do.

The US has roughly 4 times the population of Germany. So look at that list and imagine it being 4 times larger. Because just factoring for population... it would have to be.

You listened to NOTHING. In the last 60 years, it would take "FIVE" dead kids in Ireland to match US statistics. 5. Actually take your brain damaged head out of your ass and look at the data. Factor for population. Apperciate the statistics are very thin.

In the US since 1959 we've had something like 242 kids get killed in a country of 325 million. So... 242/325 million people/59 years = 0.0126205997392438 dead kids per million per year.

Your narrative is just that. It's a story. It is dragons and unicorns.

You said: "There only was one single school shooting in german history."... You're wrong.

Because ALL news is fake

[Anonymous Coward]

With the near-zero journalistic integrity of all basically all MSM in America, the obvious problem for Facebook is whatever objective criteria you set for labelling "Fake News", you would include basically all MSM, and also including a lot of (if not all) advertising.

The day FB successfully combat Fake News is the day FB lost all its ad revenue. Of course they aren't going to solve this.

Re: Because ALL news is fake

[Anonymous Coward]

nìggers

Re:Because ALL news is fake

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you seen this Slashdot video yet? Have you bought the Goat C shirt?

- FatCashewsLoveMe

Re:Because ALL news is fake

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that. 'Fake news' is a meme to let people dismiss what they do not like. Their problem is it backfired on its creators. So they do not know how to react to having a mirror held up to their own power plays.

Re: Because ALL news is fake

[Reverend Green]

Maybe it's not about journalistic integrity. Maybe ALL news has ALWAYS been "fake news".

There's no such thing as objectivity about social, political, economic issues. Everything is propaganda of one flavor or another.

What we're seeing now is a mass awakening. Whole classes of people suddenly seeing the truth, that formerly was recognized only by a few philosophers and curmudgeons.

Re: Because ALL news is fake

[ememisya]

A post truth world. This is it folks, your government has failed you. I realize that's dramatic, but if you look at what we are facing here, it's pretty much the result of our intelligence agencies giving up on protecting your ... data. There was a time a program would not be authorized because it violated your private information. Now we are at a point where we are implementing ways to gauge every person's stress levels. We got here because we wanted to be safe. We were afraid, and getting rid of our fight to protect privacy was a pesky hinderance. Remember the Patriot Act? It was the first move which made permanent this idea that we can't stop people from collecting and processing intimate information of unsuspecting citizens, so we might as well embrace it and create this world where all the decisions worth anything are made in secret, and the story of acceptance is auto generated based on your data. That's what you are facing as a feeling breathing human being, people with greater economical positions accurately deviding how you should feel. It's not just America, nobody is doing anything to inform you of it, we have managed to make permanent social standing. There still are some people who see this and advocate for privacy, but they will soon stop because they will grow tired of it and run out of money. *sigh*

Re: Because ALL news is fake

[ememisya]

*** We were afraid, and our fight to protect privacy was a pesky hinderance.

Re: Because ALL news is fake

[Anonymous Coward]

There has always been a slant on news, a bias in how and what things where reported on.
BUT there are some actual qualitative differences between news today and half a century ago

30 years ago they didn't publish something as fact unless there were 2 independend confirmations of that 'fact'

30 years ago they only had to fill a half-hour to an hour of news content a day, so you heared about a tragedy once, not 3 weeks running in a constant bombarding of distorted attention

here are some fun facts:
- there were more bombings in 70's and 80's then today, in other words terrorism has gone down (it was communists and anarchists back then, it's islamists today)
- the number of mass shootings has gone down (it used to be post offices or other bureaucracies that got shot up then, its schools now, but there has always been the occasional mass shooting)
- same thing with stranger abductions, the number of abductions has gone down drastically, but our impression is that the danger has gone way up (to the tune that people get child protective services called on them for letting their 10 or 12 year old children roam the neighborhood unaccompanied )

Re: Because ALL news is fake

[Anonymous Coward]

Privacy as understood by most people is strictly a construct of the modern age. In historical times people only had privacy because they kept something a secret or travels to a new place where they were unknown. In their home town everyone knew everything about them. Which is why it was important that a person keep their word and not lie, because when they did no one would do business with them, It was no accident that Franklin said three people can keep a secret if two of them were dead. His point was that secrets never stay secrets.
That anyone believes they might is foolishness. Want to be respected and not penalized for what you do? Don't do things you are ashamed of and own what you do. Realize that will piss some people off and live with it. You won't be able to hide your misactions.
A free people is one where the government fears them not where they fear the government. A police state is a state where only the police are armed.

Re:Because ALL news is fake

[DedTV]

Of course Facebook, other companies or Governments can't solve the problem. Because the problem isn't 'fake news', it's the people who believe it.

So long as we have anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, creationists, pizzagaters, science deniers, conspiracy theorists and a million other flavors of stupid, crazy and blissfully ignorant people making up a very significant portion (if not the majority) of the world's population, it will remain a problem that is well outside the scope of a for-profit business or Government entity, who is encouraged by unrestrained capitalism to exploit the stupidity of others for power and profit, to address.

fake propaganda?

[Anonymous Coward]

What does this mean? Was Goebbels stuff the real thing or was it fake, too?

Re:fake propaganda?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fake propaganda is propaganda which includes lies. Real propaganda is propaganda which is based on truth. Real propaganda is usually biased, but biased is not the same as deliberate lies.
The purpose of propaganda is to shape opinion. One can use the truth to shape opinion as well as lies. It is still propaganda when used to shape opinion for the purpose of effecting public opinion to effect a political change.

Translation

[Shane_Optima]

Translation: Democrats still refuse to admit that they have a problem getting their own party members to give a shit about them, insist that fake news is the only possible explanation for Trump. (Despite numbers clearly showing that it was a lack of turnout among Ds that screwed Hillary, not a surge in the Pizzagate swing vote.)

Oh yes, and I'm still interested in knowing what Facebook plans to do the next time the New York Times, The Guardian, and others do something like fraudulently insert the words "without consent" in their paraphrase of the contents of the Pussygate tape while excluding the words "and they let you do it." If the answer is 'nothing', where exactly is the line going to be drawn?

(Blah blah blah, anti-Trump disclaimer, Republicans are worse in almost all respects than Democrats, etc.)

Re:Translation

[Required Snark]

So you want Putin to run the USA, right?

Because Republicans seem to be perfectly happy keeping his puppet Trump in power with zero oversight.

Re:Translation

[Mashiki]

So you want Putin to run the USA, right?

How is Putin going to run the USA? He's having problems running his own country. Then again, I'd be much happier with a further thawed US/Russia relations then Clinton who wanted to attack Russian troops in Syria. You know, for a supposed puppet he seems to be doing a much better job then those globalist democrats and neocons, especially after their epic adventure in destabilizing the middle east.

Re:Translation

[Required Snark]

"How is Putin going to run the USA? He's having problems running his own country. "

The short answer: Both Putin and Trump do an absolutely crappy job running their respective countries, so if Putin was telling Trump what to do it would make no difference. Crap in, crap out.

Make no mistake. Except for getting caught, Putin was telling Trump what policy he wanted from the US and Trump wanted to give it to him. I assume it has something to do with the blackmail material that Russia has on Trump. It might or might not be a sex tape, but Putin has Trump under his thumb somehow. I think it has to do bribes and international money laundering at a minium. This was going on years before Trump even got into politics.

Putin has Trump by his (tiny) balls and you don't care. He's a traitor and you are on his side. What does that make you?

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Still waiting for the actual EVIDENCE of all the russian collusion BS we have been hearing about for two years...

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

There already is plenty of evidence of wrong-doing of Trump's nearest associates. Do you really think Trump didn't know about their deeds? Would Trump really act the way he is if he were not guilty?

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Were you demanding actual EVIDENCE of any wrong doing from Hillary Clinton before declaring her corrupt and criminal ?

Typical trumptard hypocritical filth.

Re: Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Huge claims, zero evidence... And I'm completely willing to believe anything credible that you have.

Zero indictments related to collusion or election tampering by Trump. Zero documents leaked that even suggest such a thing took place.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

fraudulently insert the words "without consent" in their paraphrase of the contents of the Pussygate tape while excluding the words "and they let you do it."

Because not reacting due to shock or fear is clearly the same as consent in your mind? You are part of the problem.

Re:Translation

[jedidiah]

> Were you demanding actual EVIDENCE of any wrong doing from Hillary Clinton before declaring her corrupt and criminal ?

Didn't need too. She promised a direct military confrontation with Russia during the debates. I understood this was what she was promising because I read the military press. I don't limit my sources to CNN.

The MSM gets basic verifiable facts wrong. That's not even getting into their political agenda or editorial narrative.

The thing that really intrigues me is how liberals can still screech about giving the government a monopoly on their future cancer treatment when the government is currently in the control of a hated enemy. You basically want Bernie and Trump to put your life in the hands of Trump and Ryan. That's utterly deranged.

Re:Translation

[jedidiah]

> Because not reacting due to shock or fear is clearly the same as consent in your mind? You are part of the problem.

Groupies are a pretty mundane thing in show business. You want to assume facts not in evidence because it suits your political agenda.

Re: Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the part I never understood. Trump was talking about the celebrity worship culture where women (and men too probably) would throw themselves at celebrities. That celebrities didn't have to "get away" with things. These things were on offer.

Is it wrong to accept what is being offered? The women who are doing this; don't they have a right to put themselves in that situation? It seems like both celebrity and groupie are consenting.

Re:Translation

[Attila Dimedici]

Do you really believe that? Or are you trolling? Because after two years of investigation the only evidence of collusion between a presidential candidate and the Russian government is the evidence that the Hillary campaign worked with the Russian government to create the "Steele dossier".

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of Trump voters readily admitted what kind of filth Trump is, but chose to still vote for him, because they perceived they had no choice because in their view Hilary was worse. You know, the lesser evil thing.

Well, governements are a mix of corruption and incompetence. But corporations are a mix of corruption and pure evil. So when you say that liberals would rather give control of their future cancer treatment to governments, they are in fact doing the same thing: choosing the lesser evil.

Re:Translation

[Mashiki]

The short answer: Both Putin and Trump do an absolutely crappy job running their respective countries, so if Putin was telling Trump what to do it would make no difference. Crap in, crap out.

Let's be fully realistic here, if Trump was doing such a 'crappy job' of running the country, his popularity wouldn't be over 50%. Unless of course you're saying that it's all lies, in which case he both controls the media, but doesn't control the media(since 93% of the articles about him are negative). Let's compare Trump to Trudeau, you know the international love child of the media, and world leaders. Trump says if you're illegal or want to enter the country illegally, GTFO. Trudeau opens his mouth and illegals start flooding in to the point where it's broken the entire welfare and social service systems of Quebec and Ontario. Now Trudeau is asking the US to start kicking out people because Canada can't handle the numbers illegally entering. Now let's talk popularity, Trump is nearly universally hated by the media. Trudeau is loved by the media. We're looking at 50% approval for Trump vs 23% and dropping like a rock for Trudeau. Wages in the US are increasing for the first time in over a decade. Wages in Canada are stagnant, while inflation is going through the roof. Let's talk economic policy. Trumps actions are to reduce regulations and taxes, business took off. Trudeau's actions were to push more taxes, then decide he wants to implement a carbon tax on a heavily taxed business and residential sector. To the point where business have stopped expanding and are contracting.

Now you're probably wondering wtf is this Canadian talking about? You probably haven't figured out just how closely both countries are linked, more then any other two country in the world.

Make no mistake. Except for getting caught, Putin was telling Trump what policy he wanted from the US and Trump wanted to give it to him. I assume it has something to do with the blackmail material that Russia has on Trump. It might or might not be a sex tape, but Putin has Trump under his thumb somehow. I think it has to do bribes and international money laundering at a minium. This was going on years before Trump even got into politics.

Really? Have you given this intel to anyone, how about posting your proof? Oh...right...no proof. It's just your feeling that it's true.

So let's see if I've got all this progressive anti-trumper garbage right. Trump is both a genius and idiot, who's bankrupt but rolling in cash. He's both under and not under Putin's thumb. He's blackmailed Putin, and Putin has blackmailed him. Putin both controls him and at the same time, Trump does things that hurt Putin. He's both colluding with Russia, but at the same time acting in a manner that's going to cause WWIII with Russia. He's both a retard and an idiot, but also a Machiavellian super-genius. It's almost like the entire anti-Trump movement is full of the kids on the short bus.

Putin has Trump by his (tiny) balls and you don't care. He's a traitor and you are on his side. What does that make you?

If Trump is a traitor, then Obama was a seditious pile of shit that nearly destroyed the US through unlawful wiretapping and FISA abuses, using EO's as a tool of fiat control, jeopardized multiple long-standing alliances with friendly countries by spying directly on them and wiretapping the leaders of those countries and has probably killed the EU while he was at it. So what does that make me? By the looks of it, smarter then you.

Re:Translation

[Mashiki]

You forgot the interesting bit. That it wasn't just the Hillary campaign, it was also actors and agents within the UK government who also helped out. Actors outside the UK government working as "security and intelligence experts" and that there were numerous big name democrat donors who continued to fund the dossier after the election. And you can't forget that this was the basis of multiple FISA warrants, but let's follow the entire chain. Steele shopped the dossier to several new outlets who published it. This was then used as citeogensis to prove that it was true. The media published the story, so the dossier is fact. This was then shopped to the fisa court as proof that there was something going on.

Supposedly people who are against fisa court abuses would rail against this, but since it's Trump it's apparently okay. It's doubleplusgood comrade.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

There already is plenty of evidence of wrong-doing of Trump's nearest associates.

In several of the cases we're looking at over 15 years ago, when the people you're talking about were working for the DNC. The Podesta Group(DNC), were registered as foreign lobbyists(for the DNC or associated groups). That's not just in a single case, that's in multiple cases. Mmm...doesn't that just smell like...a witch hunt.

Right along with Comey the leaker, who sent classified information to a one-time protegee, who was later working as a professor in order to get the special council. Oh and how it goes on and on...like Comey being fired by Trump under the recommendation of Rosenstien, but this also is a reason to investigate Trump. What do we call that one kids? Parallel construction or simple witch hunting? Mmm...smells like fruit of the poisonous tree.

Re:Translation

[Dorianny]

Is that why 3 people working with Trump 's campaign have been indicted so far, while Trump's own attorney general refuses his very public calls to investigate the Clinton campaign? Unless of course Jeff Sessions, the first major GOP figure to endorse Trump is also "Deep State." Forget the tin-foil hat, i'm locking myself in my tin-foil faraday-cage

Re: Translation

[drinkypoo]

That's the part I never understood. Trump was talking about the celebrity worship culture where women (and men too probably) would throw themselves at celebrities. That celebrities didn't have to "get away" with things. These things were on offer.

Sometimes, those things were on offer. Other times, they weren't. The problem is assuming that they are. One might well believe that they let him grab them by the pussy because they wanted him to do it, but that would be ignoring the weight of his position. They can equally well not object when he grabs their pussy because they fear the repercussions.

Re:Translation

[Mashiki]

Yeah, that's funny. Those 3 people who were working for Trump's campaign and they were indicted on things that happened over a decade before they had anything to do with Trump. In one case, while the person was working for the Podesta Group on behalf of the DNC(you know John Podesta don't you?) You know that there's ~29,000 sealed criminal indictments outstanding, those were all filed by the DoJ in the last year. Just to give you a scope the normal per-year is around 1,100.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

"Parallel construction"?

Did you mean parallel obstruction? Or are you actually a less-than-quality bot?

(You can blame your phone's text substitution, that's a common excuse. Then you'd merely be lazy.)

But if you did mean "parallel construction" then never mind, and have a nice day here on what used to be Slashdot.

Re:Translation

[Dorianny]

Perhaps the Trump's campaign should have done its due diligence on the shady characters it was hiring, or perhaps it did and hired them because of that reason

Re:Translation

[Attila Dimedici]

As, Mashiki pointed out, those 3 people from trump's campaign who were indicted were not indicted for anything to do with Russia. One of them, Paul Manafort, was indicted for something that happened long before the campaign, which had previously been investigated by the DoJ. In that previous investigation, the DoJ decided there was insufficient evidence to charge him.

However, regarding Hillary's collusion with Russia, are you aware that she paid Perkins Coie to pay Fusion GPS to pay Christopher Steele to obtain information from agents of the Russian government which could be used to smear Trump? That is not conspiracy theory, that is a matter of public record.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

corporations are a mix of corruption and pure evil

Go fuck yourself, Trotsky. When your revolution comes, you'll be in for a surprise when you find yourself up against your own wall, you bourgeois twat.

Re: Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes, those things were on offer. Other times, they weren't.

You were there, were you?

The problem is assuming REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

In short, you're shitting out your mouth and fucking your own delusional argument in the ass by making absurd assumptions with zero evidence, because REEEEE DRUMPF ORANGE HITLER.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but we have emails that are clearly classified on the FBI vault and copies of the forms she signed promising to properly handle classified info. That's even before we get into leaked emails. Then we have inconsistent testimony in congress, we have the texts of Page & Strzok and Comey's memos and the inconsistent timeline that show that they didn't so much "investigate" this mishandling as to whitewash it. Not to mention they somehow "lost" chain of custody of a server! And that's even before we get into the fact that a negligence standard doesn't require intent by definition, that is, intentional negligence is literally a contradiction in terms legally speaking.

So feel free to invoke Hanlon's razor if you like, but if this is incompetence, it's sufficiently advanced so as to be indistinguishable from actual malice.

Re:Translation

[serviscope_minor]

Let's be fully realistic here, if Trump was doing such a 'crappy job' of running the country, his popularity wouldn't be over 50%.

In Mashiki land "more than half" is less than 50%.

Now you're probably wondering wtf is this Canadian talking about?

With you, that's almost always the case, no matter the topic.

Re: Translation

[Reverend Green]

You tell 'em, Comrade Wang!

Re: Translation

[Reverend Green]

Hunt that witch!

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're confusing his disapproval rating with his approval rating. The vast majority of polls show his approval rating is much closer to 40% and his disapproval rating is around 53%

Also, do you really think you have to be a progressive to dislike Trump? I'm not a Democrat and I dislike Trump because he's insecure, narcissistic and lacks the maturity to be President of the United States. I didn't like Obama's policies, but despite the fact that I disagreed with him, I still recognized that he was an intelligent, thoughtful person who just happened to have different ideas than I do about how best to run our country.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

> smarter then you.

ahahah ha ha

> then

Re:Translation

[Mashiki]

In Mashiki land "more than half" is less than 50%.

Lastest polls put him at 51.5% popularity. Don't let the stupid hurt you.

With you, that's almost always the case, no matter the topic.

Well when you're that ignorant, I can only help you so far. Maybe in a few more years you'll put on the big boy pants too.

Re:Translation

[Mashiki]

Perhaps the Trump's campaign should have done its due diligence on the shady characters it was hiring, or perhaps it did and hired them because of that reason

You must have missed the part where the Obama administration were the ones to recommend the people *and* took it in good faith that they had done due diligence. Have you figured out why Trump absolutely hates Obama era hold-overs now?

Re:Translation

[Mashiki]

Those same polls are the ones that also said Hillary had a 97% chance to win. The only poll that was even close to reality also has Trump's approval rating over 50%.

Considering there's a strong correlation between progressive(and democrat) aligner stupidity in "the resistance" I'm simply taking it at face value. So let's see if this is right: Trump is insecure, narcissistic, and lacks maturity. But somehow was able to build a multi-billion dollar empire. Obama on the other hand was intelligent, thoughtful, and had different ideas. That intelligence, thoughtfulness and different ideas, lead to disintegration of racial continuity, the implementation of policies that created Title IX which has ruined the lives of thousands of young men. The implementation of obamacare which has led to more people losing their health insurance due to costs, then had no insurance BEFORE obamacare. So thoughtful, so intelligent.

Re:Translation

[Mashiki]

If that's the best you've got princess, I don't have to worry.

Re:Translation

[MonteCarloMethod]

Let's be fully realistic here, if Trump was doing such a 'crappy job' of running the country, his popularity wouldn't be over 50%.

Let's pause for a moment on the assertion that Trump has an approval rating above 50% and start our fake news discussion there. Can you source that popularity poll? Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight.com has the results of a pretty wide collection of popularity polls and my cursory glance shows only 1-2 this calendar year which have him at or above 50%, with the vast majority of the poll population showing significantly lower. Before that you have to go back almost a full year to the second half of May 2017 to find a poll that delivered a result greater than 50%. https://projects.fivethirtyeig...

Re:Translation

[nine-times]

As, Mashiki pointed out, those 3 people from trump's campaign who were indicted were not indicted for anything to do with Russia.

The people from Trump's campaign were convicted of lying to the FBI about their connections to Russia. It doesn't make sense to say, "it has nothing to do with Russia, it was just lying to the FBI" when they were lying about Russia. Manifort is basically being investigated for money laundering to hide the payoffs he was receiving from Putin's cronies. Again, it's about Russia. Plus, there were a dozen Russians indicted for meddling with the campaign.

If that weren't bad enough, the convictions so far have been plea bargains, which means that the prosecution had evidence of worse crimes, but they offered some evidence against a bigger fish. So though we don't know exactly who did what yet, we know that several people in the Trump campaign had some kind of nefarious contacts with Russia that were worth lying to the FBI about. Also, that Mueller had evidence against them to convict of something worse that merely lying to the FBI, but that they got plea deals because they could prove that someone else in the Trump campaign had even more nefarious dealings with the Russians.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

The latest polls put him at about 41% approval and 52% disapproval. I think you got your approval and disapproval polls backwards.

Re:Translation

[Mashiki]

Try rasmussen. 538 also said Hillary had a 90% chance of winning.

Re:Translation

[Attila Dimedici]

Let's see, one of the people "convicted" of lying to the FBI was Michael Flynn, about whom James Comey testified to Congress under oath that the agents who interviewed him believed he was being honest...these were the same agents he was supposed to have lied to. Additionally, the judge who oversaw that plea bargained conviction was involved in granting the FISA warrant under suspect circumstances AND was suddenly recused from the Michael Flynn case (note, the judge did not recuse themselves, they were recused by someone with higher standing in the court system). Finally the judge who took over the case ordered the Mueller team to turn over all evidence they have regarding the case to Flynn's lawyers (the wording suggests that the judge believes that the Mueller team was hiding exculpatory evidence from the defense).

As to the Manafort case, the judge overseeing one part of it asked the Mueller team to explain how the charges fell under Mueller's mandate and the response from Mueller's team was that, in addition to the public statement from Rod Rosenstein they had a secret mandate that expanded their power further. The judge told them to produce that secret mandate for him to judge whether the case fell under their mandate. The reason the judge was questioning their authority to prosecute the crime was because he could see no connection between the charges and the Trump campaign.

Re:Translation

[nine-times]

Let's see, one of the people "convicted" of lying to the FBI was Michael Flynn, about whom James Comey testified to Congress under oath that the agents who interviewed him believed he was being honest...

So what...? The FBI interviewed someone and believed at the time that the person was being honest. Later, they learned otherwise.

the judge who oversaw that plea bargained conviction was involved in granting the FISA warrant under suspect circumstances...

What suspect circumstances, exactly? Or are you just asserting that the circumstances were suspect?

(the wording suggests that the judge believes that the Mueller team was hiding exculpatory evidence from the defense)

Citation needed.

And if Flynn is so innocent and there's all this exculpatory evidence, why the plea bargain at all? If Mueller had been caught hiding exculpatory evidence, why hasn't the conviction been overturned?

At this level, plea bargains happen because the criminal has evidence of a different crime, and the prosecutor believes that crime is of greater importance. From the fact that there was a plea bargain, we know that Mueller had Flynn on a worse crime than lying to the FBI, and that Flynn had evidence of someone else committing an even worse crime.

the response from Mueller's team was that, in addition to the public statement from Rod Rosenstein they had a secret mandate that expanded their power further.

Regarding the whole "secret mandate" thing, that's some clever propaganda from Trump's goons. Mueller works with the DoJ, and as his investigation discovers additional crimes, he goes back to Rosenstein for instruction on what to follow and what not to follow. It's not a "secret mandate". It's how the process works when you're going by the book. They're not going to publicly discuss the particulars of every crime, divulging everything they know to the people they're investigating because that would be improper and stupid.

Mueller is investigating Manafort for laundering money from Putin's stooges. Manafort's lawyers challenged it, not on the basis of innocence, but on the basis that Mueller was only supposed to be investigating the Trump campaign. The judge asked if Mueller could justify that it's connected to the Trump campaign, and Mueller did just that.

Re:Translation

[MonteCarloMethod]

That's kind of the point. There are 1-2 polls that show Trump as having a popularity greater than 50% and those are outliers in the poll population. The assertion that Trump has a > 50% approval rating is disingenuous at best.

Re:Translation

[Mashiki]

Citation needed.

And if Flynn is so innocent and there's all this exculpatory evidence, why the plea bargain at all? If Mueller had been caught hiding exculpatory evidence, why hasn't the conviction been overturned?

Citation given. The reason that the plea bargain has been rejected is because directly of that. Don't forget that the guy mortgaged his house and drained his kids university funds to pay for his defense. The fact that muller has refused to disclose exculpatory evidence means that the plea was rendered in bad faith, the government MUST disclose all evidence, failing to do so is a one-way-ticket to having the entire case tossed out with an automatic double-jeopardy being applied.

Regarding the whole "secret mandate" thing, that's some clever propaganda from Trump's goons

That's what Muellers team told the judge, not Trump, not people working under him, not random people. Muellers team. The judge was not amused, gave him 2 weeks to provide the unredacted proof that's it.

Re:Translation

[nine-times]

Sullivan’s order did not come due to any known request from the defense team and he did not explain his rationale for releasing it. Instead, he said only that the order was issued “sua sponte,” in other words, at his own volition.

That's not an assertion that Mueller was withholding exculpatory evidence. There's no assertion of impropriety at all. Just an order that if he has exculpatory evidence, that Mueller provide it. Your own source indicates that nobody knows exactly why the order was issued.

The reason that the plea bargain has been rejected is because directly of that.

Citation needed. I'm having trouble finding news that the plea bargain was rejected. I don't know if you're aware of some breaking news that's not on the Internet yet, but all I can find are some paranoid articles from far-right sources claiming, back in February, that the plea was about to be rejected. And then some more recent articles arguing that Flynn should withdraw his plea.

That's what Mueller's team told the judge, not Trump, not people working under him, not random people.

Again, citation needed. From what I've been able to find, there are some crazy conspiracy-theory sites pushing the term "secret mandate", but that's not what it is, and that's not what . It seems to be that Mueller received official guidance from the DoJ that Manafort's crimes fall under his existing mandate. That guidance was "secret" in the sense that it came in the form of a classified memo, and neither Mueller nor the DoJ are in the habit of publicly disclosing classified information about ongoing investigations, but there's not some alternate "secret mandate" in addition to investigating Russian interference in the election.

The original mandate was to investigate Russian interference and anyone who might be involved. Manafort was caught running afoul of FARA by taking large payments from the Ukraine to influence US politics. Literally, that's what happened. Trump's campaign manager took tens of millions of dollars in illegal payments from people connected to Putin, laundered it to hide where it was coming from, and in return promised political influence in the US. How could that not be considered a reasonable area of investigation for a special counsel tasked with investigating Russian attempts to influence the election?

Re:Translation

[Mashiki]

Why not try looking yourself if you want to find those sources then? It appears that even when someone gives you a source, you ignore whatever is stated. Why not go read the court transcript, it should be easy for you to find. That's the exact reasoning that Muller's team gave the judge, that they don't have to disclose because the mandate itself is "secret" and they don't have to.

Re:Translation

[nine-times]

You provided a source, but the source didn't say what you claimed it said. Can you provide a real source that backs you up?

Re:Translation

[Mashiki]

https://www.redstate.com/strei...

You mean besides all the other sources out there? This isn't rocket surgery.

Re:Translation

[nine-times]

So you're citing an editorial on a conservative rag that doesn't seem particularly reputable, which spends most of its time quoting another disreputable source, and again, it doesn't back up the things you were saying.

Karmashock = fake name massive human fail

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Your MASSIVE FAIL in this life is you're nothing more than a chattering little do-nothing "ne'er-do-well" online & you know it...

* Is that the best your "phantasyland FAKE NAME" (for your fake lie of a so-called 'life') can manage?

When a FAKE NAME do nothing like YOU does better than I have? Then talk (you're all talk & no action)...

You can't help you're an immature little BUTTHURT no-mind, lol! I blew you away in TONS OF PLACES and easily dust your no-mind bullshit blatherings.

APK

P.S.=> The TRUE PRICE of your UNIDENTIFIABLE FAKE NAME do-nothing selves like you that I can ALWAYS CASH IN ON (lol) is that I can use FACT/TRUTH on them to SHATTER their all TOO fragile delusional egos that they actually know A DAMN THING in computing, lol... apk

Re:Karmashock = fake name massive human fail

[Karmashock]

you know, we've had some polite conversations on here, APK.

Maybe you remember my screen name? Maybe not.

Anyway, the video I posted speaks for itself on this issue.

peace.

They don't want to know

[pdavisgenoa]

"We have no real understanding of what the scope of misinformation is" What a load of crap. Politics are covered by a wide range of media instruments: local and national TV news, print media, international journalists, video recordings, audio recordings etc. You bloody well can check almost all news as to whether it's "fake" or not if you bother one tiny bit to actually verify it with sources known to be accurate. And by "known to be accurate" I mean sources that consistently show high standards of accuracy. They do exist and are pretty easy to identify. The problem with these social media giants is the same problem with individual people: when you've made up your mind about a thing there's no desire or motivation to check that it's true. In the case of these companies it's also greed. They'll take anyone's money and look the other way when it comes to their associations. It's intellectual laziness and avarice on a corporate scale.

Re: They don't want to know

[Anonymous Coward]

níggers

Re: They don't want to know

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If our founding fathers recognized that a government, even one elected by the people, cannot abridge the rights of a free people to speak... why would you think a company could do better?

Stop trying to stop speech you don't like. Speak your own truth.

On Facebook, it's the recommender, stupid!

[shanen]

And foolish people will recommend fake or stupid news. I'm much less concerned about the sincere fanatics as the paid propagandists and professional trolls. As it exists now, Facebook is their perfect tool. Not just for propagating the BS but for dividing and conquering the opposition.

Solution time? I feel like I'm wasting the keystrokes since the same solution applied to a recent story and elicited no detectable interest. (ACs don't count and I don't see their comments.) However I think EPR (Earned Public Reputation) would be a strong solution approach. You can think of it as karma on steroids, but the basic insight is that positive interactions (in various dimensions) should earn reputation that is then (among other uses) reflected in the news sources you choose to recommend. In a contrasting example, if you tell (or propagate) a lie and someone is willing to take a bit of time to prove it, then your reputation should go down and your further comments should be seen in that light.

Actually, mostly not seen. The real reason I want EPR is to focus my time on reading comments from people who are demonstrably nicer or better informed or even funnier than I am. The other people would be invisible for me, if'n I had my druthers.

Re: On Facebook, it's the recommender, stupid!

[pdavisgenoa]

My druthers too. You can tell which dogs this stones likely to hit by who's criticizing the EPR idea. They don't want anything to interfere with their troublemaking so their going to fight anything like this tooth and nail.

Re: On Facebook, it's the recommender, stupid!

[Anonymous Coward]

niers

Re:On Facebook, it's the recommender, stupid!

[Anonymous Coward]

However I think EPR (Earned Public Reputation) would be a strong solution approach.

On paper this looks like a nice idea, until you realize that an army of trollbots is better at upvoting each other than you, your family and friends together, or any person of 'real' interest, unless they happen to be famous already which a zillion followers, and thus are unlikely to vouch for you.

Since we're talking about solutions, here's a simpler one: instead of the usual 'like' button FB also ought to have a 'dislike' button. They don't want to do that, as they only want to advocate positivism, but it would be far easier to weed out controversial posts if there was some sort of a downvote button.

While i don't know why sites don't want stuff that works (like + / - buttons) and only want stuff that doesn't work (only a + button, 5-star rankings) the reason most certainly is commercial. And thus the circle is round: FB doesn't give a sh*t as long they can sell advertisements; and fake-news happens to be popular.

Re:On Facebook, it's the recommender, stupid!

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... there's a filter that makes them good-as-invisible-to-you-while-visible-to-others-(if they like). (Part of the only reason for this reply.)

You do realize that people can still dogpile stupidly onto things/topics/people whether or not they have any "reputation"?

It's just breaking down mob rule into smaller subsections. So the ones that get enough people pissed off will be censored by the "right" people and so on. Still a limitation of ideas by a majority, not a good idea.

Also... most people forget the truth hurts. Even if you say it "nicely". (How does a person "be nice" when you tell another that you think they're wrong nowadays? Sometimes that's even too much for them!)

Re:On Facebook, it's the recommender, stupid!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Earned Public Reputation"

Another form of tyranny that China is actually in the process of implementing.

Since we know you won't respond to this, it is more directed at anybody who reads your bullshit and and might go along with it. The moderator for instance, though a 'funny' mod would seem appropriate.

The problem isn't propaganda, it's the people who believe, the ones who prattle on about "blood and soil". Deal with them before anything else.

Re:On Facebook, it's the recommender, stupid!

[tinkerton]

Well the Chinese have started up the Social Credit System. You'll love it.

Re:On Facebook, it's the recommender, stupid!

[shanen]

Well the Chinese have started up the Social Credit System. You'll love it.

My initial impression is that you saw a headline on the idea. I actually read a couple of articles on it and could critique it in detail, but there doesn't seem to be any reason to go there on the basis of your bit of fluff.

Re: On Facebook, it's the recommender, stupid!

[Reverend Green]

How is EPR different from China's "social credit" automated tyranny system?

Re:On Facebook, it's the recommender, stupid!

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the social justice scoring system is two sided. You get to decide who you want to interact with, and decide you don't want to waste your time on anyone that doesn't fit your specific set of parameters.

Well, so do they. What if you don't fit into the parameters of any of these people that you are trying to connect to?

You should be watching Black Mirror...

Re:On Facebook, it's the recommender, stupid!

[tinkerton]

In fact the idea of reputation scores on the web is being implemented. It's called the war on fake news and every player with any clout is elbowing in to have the reputation system tilt their way.
The result is that the reputation system works for power. For a lot of people that is fine, if they have a comfortable place in the whole thing.

The approach that enforcing a reputation system is good provided we take some measures to minimize mistakes is doomed to fail.

Looking at it another way we can't do without reputation systems, they're always there, but then
- we at least need to have multiple systems available where we can plug in to.
- most reputation systems are weak so you have to keep the consequences of a low reputation minimal as well.

This may explain why I am very skeptical when I encounter anyone being enthusiastic about reputation scores. I recognize the need for it though. We all have our strategies for that.

Re:On Facebook, it's the recommender, stupid!

[Anonymous Coward]

My god, why is this being modded up??! He advocates the very definition of authoritarian dystopia that we are seeing in China. The mob becomes the world's dictator. People should know he lives in Japan, so is very comfortable with powerful authority (and in this case mob rule), refusing to acknowledge that tyranny is tyranny, whether by one or by many.

Re: On Facebook, it's the recommender, stupid!

[shanen]

Neutral enough question, though not exactly enthusiastic. Not knowing what aspects you are actually asking about, I'm basically forced to guess, and not knowing about your reputation I'm only going to give brief elevator responses. Perhaps you merit more, but I have no way to know that.

The goals matter. The Chinese are primarily concerned with controlling the flow of information and with stifling the news they don't like.

The goals of EPR would be to encourage positive reactions and to tilt the scales of reputation in favor of several positive dimensions. The easiest example is actually the negative side of the true dimension, where the person making the negative report should have the extra burden of proving the lie (but with provisions for appeal that won't fit in the elevator). Next floor...

Imagine a second icon next to the avator (or a EPR link next to the user ID). That link would take you to the EPR summary and the links to the actual data. Next floor.

Remember the primary motivation of the new Chinese reputation system is social control, and the motivation of existing reputation systems is linked to profit, but EPR should be linked to such objectives as saving time and becoming a better person by finding other good people to pay attention to.

Re:On Facebook, it's the recommender, stupid!

[shanen]

Short response, basically an ACK. Longer response to the more polite question in the other branch of this thread.

I am primarily enthusiastic for using my time as well as possible, but I also prefer to spend time with nice people. These days "nice people" mostly means old friends, but I also want to be open to new ideas from sincere people I don't know. In contrast I am unenthusiastic about wasting time with trolls, even the time to recognize that they are trolls when their own trollish reputations could precede them.

Re:On Facebook, it's the recommender, stupid!

[tinkerton]

Who could object to a modest guiding system which advises you what music to pick. It is no problem if it dismisses a lot of good music as long as it provides a few good suggestions each day. It doesn't hurt anyone.
There is a need to balance the quality of the scoring system with its power. I reacted because I perceived an aspiration for a more ambitious scoring system.

I do have complaints about the current system and I don't use it as a filter. I would like to make anonymous posts an exception rather than the rule. When people have an online persona they tend to care about its reputation and that reduces abuse.

Re:On Facebook, it's the recommender, stupid!

[shanen]

I feel like we have some underlying areas of agreement, but we are having trouble finding them. I do think you are misleading yourself to some degree about how you filter your input and manage your time. The main area of agreement seems to involve the value of "an online persona", but right now I think you are confused about how much you and I values ours in contrast to how little the trolls and sock puppets don't value theirs.

Does it make sense to worry about problems unless solutions, or at least approaches that might lead towards solutions, are included in the worrying? I can definitely see solutions using EPR, which would help me see how to respond most effectively to you in such a discussion as this.

Actually, the main aspect of your reputation that I am interested in is whether you are the kind of person who could cause positive changes to happen. If so, then it could be worth pursing the topic farther. If not, then we're just amusing ourselves at best but more likely just wasting time.

Does any of Trump make sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump said he'd do his own daughter. Nothing else need be known than that.

Re:Does any of Trump make sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, while I have a moral problem with that, I do not have an intellectual one. Incest does not make one unqualified to work on or solve a problem.

The issue with Trump is that a lot of things make him unqualified to work on or solve a problem.

I would really rather that we cease focus on issues of a persons morality in politics, all it does it force them to camouflage their true selves so we get an empty sock puppet stitched together with everything they believe we want (family, marriage, little dog, approved religion, approved sex, approved skin tone etc).

It does not really matter if the president is a gay inuit woman who eats michelin star chef prepared dog meat dishes while being a very public member of the church of Satan, what matters is if they can come up with a realistic and workable legal plan to assist the country. We need a solid problem solver, we do not need an ideologue made flesh for our own masturbatory ego fantasies where we superimpose ourselves in that position and imagine that only someone like us could possibly solve anything.

Re:Does any of Trump make sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

He said that when she was 15.

Re: Does any of Trump make sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

In his defense, she is fucking hot...

Also, he did qualify it with, "if she wasn't my daughter", so your statement isn't true.

Re: Does any of Trump make sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of the children!

Objectively what is fake?

[Karmashock]

You can say "well, the stuff that isn't true"... well, how do you know what is and isn't true?

Its going to basically boil down to "because X told me it was true and they wouldn't lie." Or "X, Y, and Z all agree so it can't be a lie."

problem is that X will sometimes be wrong whether they're intentionally wrong or not. And thus "X says its true" does not equal truth.

X, Y, and Z agreeing doesn't help either because often information will only have one or two sources. And if you eliminated all news that didn't have lots of sources the news would basically say almost nothing every day. And that would simply cause any news feed that did that to be ignored in favor of more responsive and topical news. What is more, like the first problem... whilst it might be unlikely that X, Y, and Z could be wrong... they can be still. Sometimes lots of people are wrong. And strictly speaking when someone is wrong... if "untrue = fake news"... then "wrong = untrue = fake news"...

Boiling it all down, the fake news argument is a consequence of increasingly politicized and biased press on ALL sides. Coverage is biased. And it is frequently overtly biased. Given publications will sell themselves to readers in fact on being "the most progressive" or "the most conservative" or whatever.

That doesn't mean that partisan press is real or unreal or true or untrue. But it does speak to an increasing intolerance for media other than what you are consuming. And it is totally understandable that when someone is exposed to media that is 180 degrees off their political echo chamber... whatever that is... they woudl see that as "fake news." They'd see it as biased and not trust it.

Totally understandable... at first glance. However, here is where some basic integrity comes to the rescue. "IF" you hear something that you think is fake news... just check it out. It may or may not be fake. And don't just go to your political echo chamber to find out if THEY think it is right or wrong. Play devil's advocate with the position. Honestly vet it.

Typically when there are disagreements on these issues people are just reacting badly to opposition media that isn't saying anything that isn't verified by a lot of sources. And in the few cases otherwise it is often still true but not widely reported. In a very small number of cases, you're dealing with real crap. But by and large its just hostile presentation or obscure information.

Re: Objectively what is fake?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're making it sound like it's just too complicated to figure out what's true and not. When a politician tells a reporter he didn't say something and the reporter then runs the tape of them saying the thing they said they didn't (this has actually happened several times lately) then you know he's lying. Period. Most all "fake news" stories that really are fake are just as easily proven. There's always going to be gray areas of disagreement over what someone meant or intended but even then you can look at past statements or actions by individuals and reason out to a high level of accuracy what their meaning was.
We do not live in a "post truth" society. There are recordings and documentation from multiple sources that can be checked against each other on almost every political story there is. People either choose to verify what they accept as fact or blindly believe lies because they confirm their inner biases. But it's pure bs to say it's too hard to tell the difference.

Re:Objectively what is fake?

[Anonymous Coward]

As an average Joe, your post bored me. I stopped reading after a few sentences. There were no explosions, no gossip, no WTF moments. Heck, there were no names given. Time to open a can and relax watching a match of football.

Re: Objectively what is fake?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fake news is a very specific thing, as I see it.

Biased news is not necessarily fake news. Fox News is heavily biased toward conservative views and the bias is overt. However, Fox News is not fake news, and there are reporters there who are very credible and work hard.

Errors and sources providing misleading information are not necessarily fake news, either. Even the most credible of reports make mistakes and can be duped by sources. It becomes a problem if the news outlet doesn't make an effort to vet their sources or doesn't issue retractions when they make mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes and even the best journalists sometimes get fed bad information.

Fake news is when a story is completely fabricated, without any credible sources of information. People who are only exposed to a single point of view are probably more susceptible to believing fake news, so bias may have an effect here. But biased news is not the same as fake news.

The media has always been biased. I will argue that media bias is why the freedom of the press is explicitly protected by the first amendment. The colonial press was heavily biased against the British rulers, frequently criticizing them and running satirical articles. This led to crackdowns on the free press, which is exactly why it's now protected in the Bill of Rights. The American Revolution probably would have occurred very differently, if at all, were it not for the biased press to promote dissent against British rule. In the political climate of the present day, one can imagine the British rulers decrying the colonial press as fake news. Biased news isn't fake news.

Re: Objectively what is fake?

[Anonymous Coward]

... like when Bin Laden immediately gets blamed despite not having the means or opportunity from a cave on the other side of the planet... like not even mentioning Larry Silversyein's double indemnity insurance policy as a motive.

Yeah, sure buddy, whater fake TV news says. ae911truth dot org

Re: Objectively what is fake?

[phantomfive]

There is no agreement on what actually constitutes fake news, either. Some pieces are clearly fake, but what about Brietbart or can?

Re: Objectively what is fake?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that the same "Fox News" who sued all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to knowingly lie about the "news" and still legally call itself a news channel? Those guys with the NRA's hand up their ass?

BIGLY such news. Very real.

Re: Objectively what is fake?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about when a reporter dishonestly edits a video, publishes the edited video as 100% truth, and then their target disputes it?

Or did you actually believe Trump tried to kill koi fish in Japan by over-feeding them? CNN selectively edited the video, and you called Trump the liar, even after they published a correction.

Re: Objectively what is fake?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been reading Brietbart for two years now and I have never read something that was overtly fake. Absolutely biased, and with an agenda, but never fabricated.

CNN on the other hand, which I also read daily, publishes a full-stop and intentional lie once or twice a month... All while claiming to be unbiased.

Re: Objectively what is fake?

[jedidiah]

"and the reporter then runs the tape of them "

Except this pretty much never happens. It's up to you to track this stuff down and chances are you will find that there's some bits the reporter left out.

Pretty much any "Trump said" narrative falls into this category. I stopped paying attention to this bogus nonsense during the campaign. Forget about now.

Re: Objectively what is fake?

[jedidiah]

The liberal hate in the mainstream press over Breitbart is a classic case of "fake news".

Re:Objectively what is fake?

[tomhath]

There's a fundamental error in your argument - that people want to verify something they have read in their echo chamber.

People get their "news" from biased or known fake news sources because they want to hear what they already believe: Trump colluded with the Russians, Clinton ordered the hit on Seth Rich, Bush was dumb, Obama wasn't a citizen. They're all absurd stories, can't be verified, and people keep repeating them because that's what they want to hear.

Re: Objectively what is fake?

[Anonymous Coward]

To say that is to neglect what technology can do. The average poor quality surveillance video feed was proven to be easy to put new footage into quite well, as well as audio splicing being a technique used long before digital audio was a thing (it was written about briefly in The Godfather, which was set in the 1950s or so at the time it was mentioned).

Don't forget that lies repeated often enough become truth. (Can't reliably find who said that first after a quick Internet search, ironically. Several people said similar things, apparently.)

It is not easy to find out what's true anymore because people have reason to put their biases more heavily into news because it stirs up outrage and anger for attention/views/clicks for advertising (not a good business model IMO, but eh).

Basically, the cure is this: go where the mainstream media doesn't want you looking for news. The more panned the source is by MSM, the better. Judge for yourself what's real or not after that.

Re:Objectively what is fake?

[fustakrakich]

And it is totally understandable that when someone is exposed to media that is 180 degrees off their political echo chamber... whatever that is... they woudl[sic] see that as "fake news." They'd see it as biased and not trust it.

Totally understandable...

Yes, As Pavlov and Skinner proved in their labs. From single cell lifeforms all the way up, conditioning is everything. Expecting 'integrity' would be going against nature.

But by and large its just hostile presentation or obscure information.

Precisely... Unfortunately presentation is the message to most people.

Re:Objectively what is fake?

[Mashiki]

It's right there beside "what is hate speech." Or whatever some whiny little authoritarian is crying over because they don't like what someone is saying.

Re: Objectively what is fake?

[Anonymous Coward]

The average poor quality surveillance video feed was proven to be easy to put new footage into quite well, as well as audio splicing being a technique used long before digital audio was a thing.
Basically, the cure is this: go where the mainstream media doesn't want you looking for news.

Yeah, pick the one-shot troll that doesn't have a reputation to uphold. His backers aren't specialist in deepfake.

Re:Objectively what is fake?

[Karmashock]

Oh I am aware, the "fake news" meme started as a means to discredit and no platform alternative media.

that was then flipped around and used on CNN etc as they were if anything more vulnerable to claims of making intentional misstatements regarding events.

That lead to a general food fight with everyone calling everyone fake news.

Facebook doesn't care about fake news. They're just trying to placate fussy users that want control of their space.

And I agree with the users that want control. Not because I think they should be able to control other people but because I think they should be able to control their own corner of the internet.

The big problem with social media is that everyone is put largely in the same room when it comes to facebook and twitter.

This is socially unworkable because humans are not merely defined by who we hang out with but by who we do not hang out with.

On a friday night, the bikers go to the biker bar and the college kids go to the college bar, and the whatever else go to their respective social hangouts.

On face book, you have this suggestion that everyone be in the same space. Same problem with Youtube. You have people reviewing sex toys on the same site where people are sharing jam making recipes and children's programming is happening and bible studies are being recorded and etc etc etc. You need some dividers on that thing. And that is what has to happen with facebook etc. It needs to have different spaces where different rules apply.

If people take that behavior outside of their own space then smack them down. If other people intrude into their space then smack down the people intruding.

There is no one size fits all solution to human society. So stop trying to make one. Make lots of different solutions and just embrace the chaos.

Re: Objectively what is fake?

[Karmashock]

Well, let us say that a small news source breaks a case and they're the only source. How do you know if they're legit or fabricated it 30 minutes after they posted it?

Sure, you can do investigations that will figure things out eventually... but we're talking about facebook here... they're going to look at it for between 30 seconds and 5 minutes and make a decision.

Re:Objectively what is fake?

[Karmashock]

Gotcha... more tits less talk. I'll work on it.

Re: Objectively what is fake?

[Reverend Green]

But muh FACTS!!!!1!!1!?!?!!!

Re:Objectively what is fake?

[nine-times]

Boiling it all down, the fake news argument is a consequence of increasingly politicized and biased press on ALL sides.

That's some relativistic BS. Your argument is like saying, "Nobody is perfect, so we have to trust all people equally." There might be occasional instances of bias within any new outlet, but it doesn't follow that we should treat them all as equally reliable.

Real news organizations at least make an effort to weed out completely false or unsupported assertions. They make some effort to be fair. Maybe you shouldn't believe every single thing you read in the New York Times, Washington Post, or the BBC, but if something is reported as fact, there's probably some basis for it being reported as fact. New outlets like Fox News, Infowars, or Stormfront, on the other hand, are straight-up propaganda. If they report something as fact, it might coincidentally be factually true, but that's not why it's being reported. It's being reported because it reenforces some narrative that the person running that organization is pushing.

Re:Objectively what is fake?

[Karmashock]

You're proving my point and don't even realize it.

Everything out side of your political safe space just so happens to be fake news.

Hell of a coincidence. And so thick is the cognitive dissonance that you don't see it. You can't.

And before you say "nuh uh"... consider that IF you were suffering form cognitive dissonance here, you would NOT be able to see it. You would conclude just as you are now... that that is so.

Actually back up and process things again. Take a double take. Go through some examples empirically.

No one is better at fooling you than you are... and you've succeeded in fooling yourself.

Its everywhere, sport. Sorry to say. You've got no purity in your safe space.

Re:Objectively what is fake?

[nine-times]

Everything out side of your political safe space just so happens to be fake news.

No, blatant propaganda is propaganda. I'm not sure if you're part of the propaganda machine, you're being fooled by it, or both, but you're part of the problem.

Oddly, you're disproving your own point: You're claiming to have some kind of access to objectivity-- at least to the point that you can absolutely judge the relative credibility of all news sources. And before you say, "nuh uh", you can only claim that two news sources are equally credible if you have an accurate judgement of their credibility. And not only are you somehow in touch with the source of all "objective truth" enough to say that all news organizations are equal, but you can even tell me what's going on in my own head, and that it's completely different from what I think is going on in my own head. Now that's a neat trick.

So go back and process things again. If things are all so relative and uncertain that no claim is more credible than any others, then why should anyone listen to you? Why can't any random person refute you thoroughly just by saying "nuh uh". Or if some sources are more credible than others, then do you think it might be possible that The New York Times is more credible than Infowars.

Nobody is suggesting that we trust any one source absolutely, but it doesn't follow that therefore all sources should be given a small and equal amount of trust. Some sources prove themselves to be more reliable than others, and when a group of those reliable sources are all saying the same things, it's worth listening. When a bunch of crackpot nut-jobs spout repeated nonsense, the smart response is to stop listening.

Re:Objectively what is fake?

[Karmashock]

Of course I'm part of the Illuminati big feet alien jewish conspiracy. I'm not in your tin foil hat safe space. So I must be a Russian bot.

Cite media outside of your safe space that isn't propaganda. Try. I bet its mentally like trying to pull your foot out of tar isn't it?

Seriously, get help.

No really.

Re:Objectively what is fake?

[nine-times]

I wouldn't say you're a Russian bot. I'm pretty sure you're a person. I don't know if you're a Russian, a skinhead, or a moron, but you're certainly spreading some nonsense propaganda.

And talk about snowflake. You can't even take criticism about your favorite news agency without crying about how unfair it is.

Re:Objectively what is fake?

[Karmashock]

What is my favorite news agency? I professed no affiliation with any news agency.

Seriously. Get help.

Re:Objectively what is fake?

[nine-times]

Aw, did I hurt your feelings? Poor little snowflake.

And yet, for some reason, you don't object to the idea that you might be a Russian or a skinhead. You're upset that I said you had a favorite news agency.

Re:Objectively what is fake?

[Karmashock]

... Does projection normally rhetorically work for you? Because part of your problem in that case might be that you mostly interact with idiots.

monoculture and illness as applied... to facebook

[lkcl]

we're all quite familiar with the concept of a monoculture, from biology. once a population gets dominant it is vulnerable to viruses that take down the *entire* population in one fell swoop. when microsoft was dominant we saw the same concept being analogously applied: computer viruses propagate because of a *monoculture* operating system, the great joke being when Wine was "good enough" to run windows viruses it was actually celebrated - i'm sure there was a story before this one, i remember seeing one on /. involving a word macro-virus https://linux.slashdot.org/sto... ... so with that concept established, let's look at facebook (except from a *psychological* perspective rather than a technical one). it's dominant... it's a mono-culture... and it has the ability to... spread memes. it's therefore perfect for spreading "sickness".

question. is facebook going to *stop* spreading "sickness"? no, of course not, because its *entire business model* revolves around spreading information^sickness.

question. can facebook discern which information is "sick" and which is "well"? clearly they can't.

question. *should* facebook be the one that "determines" which information is "sick" and which is "well"? honestly no they should not, because that's *our* responsibility, as *individuals*, not theirs.

question. if facebook cannot serve us, and we are not being served by facebook, what is the next logical step to stop the "illness" from spreading?

answer: don't have a monoculture. that means terminating facebook as it stands, forcefully (by law) or voluntarily (#DeleteFacebook) or by creating an alternative and communications interoperability standards.

bottom line: an internet-connected world culture is great... until you get internet-connected world cultural "disease". one way or another this is going to get "solved". i'd like it to be the case that people take advantage of that funding that's being made available: https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...

NO SEPARATE TOILET

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the problem with fb, it IS the toilet.

Metafake News

[Hognoxious]

They're lying.

Fake news?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what is fake news? where do we draw the line? Is it when someone hears a rumor about someone else and shares it on Facebook? Is it when that rumor happens to be about a person in power?
Or maybe you prefer a different definition? Is it where someone gets paid for the information? So, if some writes a modern day fiction that involves people in power, and people believe it, is that fake news? Is it where someone who gets paid delivers news about someone in good faith of the truthfulness of it, and it later turns out to be wrong. What if the someone the news is about is in power and the reporters loses his/her job? What about the person in power not liking the news being reported about him/her by a "real" news organization? Can they be labeled as fake news and be shut down? What if you prefer alternative news sites that have a different narrative then mainstream media? I cringe when I hear gray terms come out of government officials mouths, as it can, and you can be absolutely sure, it will be used to define more and more groups of people that think, feel or believe differently than those in power.

Crap summary as usual from ediduh Javaid

[edittard]

Headline saus exec - singular.

Suammery says three, but doesn't bother to state their names or job titles.

The one name mentioned is Juniper Downs. I can't tell if this is one of the execs who is somehow more important that the other two, the host/moderator of the conference, or a community for discerning semi-independent folks in their twilight years.

Facebook *NEVER* wants to be objective

[Anonymous Coward]

You can say "well, the stuff that isn't true"... well, how do you know what is and isn't true?

What is true, or isn't true, is immaterial to Facebook

Facebook never wants to be objective

Facebook positions itself as the platform for the left (liberals), they never want those who do not agree with the liberal viewpoints to have a voice

Facebook actively censors the conservatives - to the points of closing down many of the accounts of the conservatives

In fact, Facebook treats the conservatives as their enemies

The so-called 'fake news' is but an excuse for Facebook to further censor those who do not agree with their liberal viewpoint

Facebook already used 'hate speech' as a tool to suppress the conservatives, now they are preparing to use 'Fake News' to further shut out their enemies

Re: Facebook *NEVER* wants to be objective

[Reverend Green]

No, can't be! Big Brother Facebook loves us all.

STOP rewarding bullshit peddlers.

[geekmux]

Demonetization is likely the only way you're going to get any traction to curb the fake news problem. You sure as hell aren't going to fix stupid. In fact, it would seem the masses are actually becoming more gullible these days, evidenced by how often fake news goes viral.

When we stop financially rewarding bullshit peddlers, the justification to peddle bullshit tends to go away.

Re:STOP rewarding bullshit peddlers.

[liquid_schwartz]

Demonetization is likely the only way you're going to get any traction to curb the fake news problem. You sure as hell aren't going to fix stupid. In fact, it would seem the masses are actually becoming more gullible these days, evidenced by how often fake news goes viral.

When we stop financially rewarding bullshit peddlers, the justification to peddle bullshit tends to go away.

If you want to consider how gullible people are then consider the past two presidents. Who really expected hope and change from a Chicago politician? That takes a certain flavor of stupid. Along the same lines, draining the swamp from someone from New York City is just as unlikely. Economic desperation is allowing these clowns to get into office. Until the economics get better expect ever more extreme politicians.

Re: STOP rewarding bullshit peddlers.

[Reverend Green]

People who disagree with my political opinions don't DESERVE to earn a living!

Provide filters to users

[VikingNation]

I personally would like to see a capability to allow me to block all politically oriented content (ads and posts from friends). There was a lot of conflict between individuals on Facebook during and after the 2016 election. I also say this spilling over and impacting friendships outside of the Facebook platform. Facebook needs to deliver more options to allow users to filter out certain types of content.

I'm pissed

[AndyKron]

Fuck YouTube taking down innocent video after video. It's absolute bullshit. And FUCK their demonetizing policies. Just fuck them all over the place. I'm pissed.

Re:I'm pissed

[Anonymous Coward]

And fuck Zuck! fuckzuck.com

Re:I'm pissed

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh shut-up and grow the fuck up. You right-wing retards really get on my nerves. Aren't you all supposed to be about individual liberty, personal responsability and all that ? But when a private corporation does exactly what you all claim every individual and corporation should have the God-given right to do, i.e. run their business however the fuck they want to run it, then you get all pissed off !

You don't like Youtube and its policies ? Well this is a free country, and you're totallty free to start your own video sharing site, where you and all right wingers like you will be totally free to post all the pro-gun, pro-violence, pro-incest, anti-immigration, anti-black, anti-women videos, and all that other right-wing filth that you like so much.

Re:I'm pissed

[Anonymous Coward]

You and I both know that if the shoe was on the other foot you would singing a different song. Great virtue signalling tho.

Re: I'm pissed

[Reverend Green]

Self-described "leftists" sure do love corporate oligarchy.

Fake news is their cash cow

[VeryFluffyBunny]

Why should they give up fake news? It makes a lot of money and brings them a lot of free publicity and political attention. That's just what rich and powerful people love.

Google's and Facebook's policies have effectively turned most online news into clickbait. Media outlets have to do this to compete with each other and gain advertising revenue in the environment created by them.

Facebook runs on the same principle: If you can incite/provoke enough indignant moral outrage, you can get your messages out there and make some money.

In an environment like that, do you really think that anyone who's in it to make money is worried about journalistic integrity or the truth?

Inciting/provoking indignant moral outrage has always been a problem in news, i.e. there's always competition for people's attention, which is in short supply. What companies like Google and Facebook have done is to magnify this problem to the point where it overwhelms everything else.

Re:Fake news is their cash cow

[Anonymous Coward]

Serious news is getting replaced by clickbait because it's difficult to make money in the internet age where there is more competition.

What does that have to do with Google or Facebook though? What should they be doing differently that would make a big difference other than trying to apply soem form of censorship? If it weren't for online advertising, the news companies would be even more fucked than they already are. And ironically fake news is completely immune to this problem since they have an independent source of income: the people who want to spread specific misinformation.

Re: Fake news is their cash cow

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe because in true Capitalism truth is up for sale to the highest bidder?

Re:Fake news is their cash cow

[eaglesrule]

The example that comes to mind is the George Zimmerman case. Never was there a more obvious example of a media determined to drive a narrative for the sake of maintaining public interest and thus profits, and at the extreme cost of the individuals involved.

Re:Fake news is their cash cow

[allo133]

we're all quite familiar with the concept of a monoculture, from biology. once a population gets dominant it is vulnerable to viruses that take down the *entire* population in one fell swoop. when microsoft was dominant we saw the same concept being analogously applied: computer viruses propagate because of a *monoculture* operating system, the great joke being when Wine was "good enough" to run windows viruses it was actually celebrated - i'm sure there was a story before this one, i remember seeing one on /. involving a word macro-virus https://linux.slashdot.org/sto... [slashdot.org] ... so with that concept established, let's look at facebook (except from a *psychological* perspective rather than a technical one). it's dominant... it's a mono-culture... and it has the ability to... spread memes. it's therefore perfect for spreading "sickness". question. is facebook going to *stop* spreading "sickness"? no, of course not, because its *entire business model* revolves around spreading information^sickness. question. can facebook discern which information is "sick" and which is "well"? clearly they can't. question. *should* facebook be the one that "determines" which information is "sick" and which is "well"? honestly no they should not, because that's *our* responsibility, as *individuals*, not theirs. question. if facebook cannot serve us, and we are not being served by facebook, what is the next logical step to stop the "illness" from spreading? answer: don't have a monoculture. that means terminating facebook as it stands, forcefully (by law) or voluntarily (#DeleteFacebook) or by creating an alternative and communications interoperability standards. https://www.quickpayportal.me/

Political speech is most difficult to regulate?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you regulate political speech when most politicians are already crooked?

shA1t

[Anonymous Coward]

be 'ver7 poorly GAY NIGGERS from

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

They made money by encouraging neo-nazis and rohinga ethnic cleansing.

Why would ANYONE believe their bullshit now?

Re: The Best Filter

[Anonymous Coward]

..Is never using that human garbage can. Grow up and turn off Facebook.

Re: You sooo woke!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Saudi billionaires have no means and hide in caves while openly running telethons in their home country.

Son. You're so fucked.

Don't cuck!

[Anonymous Coward]

Contribute to Richard Spencer's defense fund today!

Excuses, excuses ...

[PatternRecogger]

Facebook and Google could stop a lot of this. They don't want to identify some content as misinformation/fake because they would lose users that way. All about the bottom line.

Some idiot's impersonating me... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Some idiot's been impersonating me on /. for months now & has gone off the deep end the past few weeks doing it.

* Wasn't I you replied to Karmashock...

APK

P.S.=> To the moron doing it: GROW UP, get over your "butthurt", weasel... apk

2nd time I've been impersonated today... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & the rest listed here + why (butthurt ac who destroyed himself on hosts kernelmode) https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12012911&cid=56473441/ vs. slower usermode (the little fuck that's doing this is a SERIOUS screwup, lol, hence the WEAK butthurt effete attempts @ "impersonating" me, via harassing others).

I STAND BEHIND my words... Karmashock = fake name MASSIVE human FAIL. He's probably impersonating me as a BUTTHURT AC because I EASILY DUSTED his bullshit blatherings about guns.

* Unbelievable... lmao!

APK

P.S.=> That's probably the RESULT of being raised as a "soyboy" weasel for the whimp trying to make me look "bad" impersonating me - RoTfLmAo... apk

Oh please.

[Anonymous Coward]

the US actually has normal to LOW numbers of mass shooting deaths.

Compared to Guatemala, Somalia, FARC controlled Columbia - sure.

Now, compared to advanced countries? Nope.

And then there's this. Gun killings fell by 40 percent after Connecticut passed this law

But I'm sure that will fall on YOUR deaf ears.

Re:Oh please.

[Karmashock]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

242 school shootings in the US since 1959 with a population of 325 million... our numbers are lower than canada and germany.

I can crunch the numbers different ways.

If you go to FBI and DoJ statistics then you see that US crime stats are actually very low EXCLUDING what the DoJ calls "Urban drug and gang violence"...

Outside of the big cities US crime stats are very low... in US suburbs the crime rate is very low... in urban areas where there are no gangs the crime rate is very low.

It isn't helpful to just get a national number that removes all the detail and then presume to know you have answers to complex questions.

You deleted the complexity when you averaged the numbers and washed out all the complexity from the stats.

I live in a city that has about 600 murders per year. In my part of town which has roughly 30~40 thousand people in it, we have had zero murders in the last 10 years. Not one.

Now you go to the bad part of town and there's a murder there practically every day. The city collectively ignores it because its street thugs killing other street thugs... like... 90 percent of it. The murders mostly go unsolved... the police are not especially welcome or obliged any cooperation in that part of town... and so what are you going to do?

Do you honestly think that a bump stock ban is going to do anything to that situation? Of course not. Most of the people using guns over there don't even buy their guns from registered gun dealers. they don't get their guns registered... they're already illegal guns.

What is more, a lot of the people that commit mass shootings with guns were supposed to have their gun buying privs pulled because of psychological or criminal behavior. A lot of the reason why that doesn't happen is due to various government organizations not filing paper work, not doing a proper background check, or deciding they don't want to cause someone trouble.

So the laws were already passed that pertain to the mass shootings... the mass shootings are statistically pretty rare and not higher than other first world countries.... and the only issue the US has is with the street gangs in urban areas selling drugs.

If your solution doesn't pertain directly to that context then you're wasting everyone's time.

There is an easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

All people with a facebork account should be sent back to the AOL dial-up kiddy pool where they belong

Re: There is an easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Same with most of the trolls posting on this thread. It is easy to dominate the message boards with funding from Putin and Neo-Nazi groups. A few million dollars goes a long ways. Tens of millions go even further.

Re: There is an easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh c'mon Lukas, everyone knows Soros pays you and the rest of his troll army in Euros, not dollars.

The only "fake news" is fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

Propaganda, shills, and puff pieces have existed since news media existed. It will never be eliminated. All you can do is take everything with a skeptical mind and read multiple, differently biased, sources.

This is only a hot topic now because an election didn't go the way it was supposed to according to a bunch of journalism majors who are completely disconnected from reality, and they're desperately casting around for an explanation. Surely the only reason someone wouldn't vote for Hillary is because they were duped somehow!

purple monkey dishwasher

[Anonymous Coward]

will the real APK please stand up... please stand up

these some truly insane ramblings

Re:purple monkey dishwasher

[PopeRatzo]

We are all APK.

Re: purple monkey dishwasher

[Anonymous Coward]

You win the thread, good sir. Thanks for the grin you just gave me; it was sorely needed today. -PCP

The West is finished.

[coastwalker]

Political debate in the west has been pushed into a war between the supposedly right and left. The casualty is information because the right led by billionaire funded think tanks discovered that winning a propaganda war was a paychological question as illustrated initially by cancer and tobacco. It is no longer a debate between opposing political philosophies it has become a propaganda war fueled by lies and hatred. There is no place left for rational debate about the consequences of political choice. Effectively society is run by whoever pumps out the most frightening lies. Democracy has failed, the United States is becoming just as repressive a regime as China.

Re:The West is finished.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like right wing billionaires such as Soros, Schmidt, Zuckerberg, Steyer?

Re: The West is finished.

[Reverend Green]

rightist = leftist = centrist = authoritarian financialist

Using Karma as a currency is for Fools.

[Anonymous Coward]

Using Karma as a currency is for Fools.

If you get your news from social media or Fox News

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a fucking nimrod.

well no shit

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because it was a statement by a retarded politician to distract people

Teach critical thinking

[ahoffer0]

I'm old now, but when when I was a lad my high school taught critical thinking. The term "fake news" wasn't in vogue at the time; schools used words like "fallocies" and "evidence". I feel like the principles were the same.
Anyway, the idea was that you can't stop people from spewing crap, so let's teach students how separate bullshit from cogent thinking.
All-in-all, I think it worked well.

It gets worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember how they then sued all those random Russians claiming they planted fake news or whatever?

One of those parties has lawyers fighting it and (oddly enough!) they suddenly aren't eager to go to trial any longer. Despite the fact that the lawyers have made an appearance and subjected their client to the courts (despite being in Russia), the government is now trying to question whether they were properly served and should be in court at all!

See, the trick is they were going to use this to rack up an unopposed victory by having the other parties not show up--and why should they agree to be bound by US law when they're Russians, any more than we should willingly subject ourselves to Russian courts? They could then use this as 'proof' despite the fact that they would have never had to prove even one tiny thing to get a default judgement.

So they're left either answering discovery questions they don't want to or to drop the charges. Honestly? My bet is on the latter, they try to sever the charges against the one party and claim unopposed victory over the other, but we'll see...

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/04/mueller-russia-interference-election-case-delay-570627

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000163-2d3b-d9b5-af73-ffff51b70001

Phew.

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, whatâ(TM)s that smell? Zuckerberg just took another diarrhea shit on privacy.

Re: Phew.

[Anonymous Coward]

Zuckerberg. Back up in your ass.

How about some honest journalism?

[Anonymous Coward]

If there were news sources that were always truthful, then a person could check these fake stories against the gold standard. But since Obama lifted the ban, every newspaper lies.

As for Facebook, it is pure evil. Nuke it from orbit, is the only option.

One of these days somebody will start up a truthful newspaper or website and have the whole marketplace for truth for themselves. And make a piss pot full of money.

Technically, that is how you should begin

[DrYak]

Because ALL news is fake
With the near-zero journalistic integrity of all basically all MSM in America, the obvious problem for Facebook is whatever objective criteria you set for labelling "Fake News", you would include basically all MSM, and also including a lot of (if not all) advertising.

Seriously, the first step should always be to start by considering ANY NEWS as fake

Then you should be doing your due diligence :
  - What is the source ?
  - Is the source even actually stated or is a completely unsourced post ?
  - If you follow the source trail, do can you go back to a primary source ? Or are you stuck in an endless loop of clickbait/internet meme/etc. cheap websites citing each other ?

Further, regarding sources :
  - is the image actually relevant to the article, or is some old or unrelated photo that the article attempts to use to excite an emotion and google image search reveals that it has nothing to do with the subject (e.g.: illustration use to make you thing that people are "behaving like animals and opportunistic thieves" during a natural disaster, actually doesn't date back from the disaster and wasn't even taken in the area).
  - Is the primary source actually contactable (e.g.: the initial article sites some officials. Are they named, can you reach them out for a comment)

Also you could consider some heuristics :
  - Is the title giving out some information "Study find that 10% of population does bla" ? or is it the usual 100% emotion and 0% data click bait "10 things that will save your life, you won't believe when your see number 7 !"
(Warning it's a heurisitc, but a very good one to eliminate ton of crap from your feed)

  - Is the information coming from a reputable newspaper
(Again, it's just a heuristic. Even big newspaper make mistakes, and even serious people can be wrong. So don't trust them blindly, it's only a heuristic when you're in a hurry - But at least the more serious newspaper will usually put some effort to publish retractions, corrections, etc.)

  - Prefer offline media (newspapers) which have time to do some more in-depth analysis, or written on-line media that doesn't rely on ads for survival (They don't have such a high incentive to attract clicks to survive). Be really wary of TV (their business model is trying to attract your attention to have more eyeballs to sell to the advertising network. Being fast and catchy is more important to them than being right. Avoid heavily ad-sponsored websites at all costs.
(It's just a heuristic, but some people have no strong incentive in telling you the truth)

  - And last but no least : If you heard about it in the news, don't panic. It's just something new, they are called "news" for a reason after all. It's probably more a freak accident that gets overblown than an actual menace.

It's Simple, Really

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything you read on Facebook that doesn't come directly from a family-member or friend and relate directly to your relationship with that person is fake (i.e. no hearsay).

Folks, this isn't a new phenomenon. In the olden days when people interacted in person, it was called gossip.

Way back then, children were raised to believe that gossip was bad and that those who spread it should not only be ignored, but also shunned as gossip mostly consists of lies and innuendo used by passive-aggressive personalities as their only defense mechanism.

Anything you read on social media that is not first-hand knowledge coming from a friend or family member is coming from someone with an angle, someone trying to manipulate you. Why do you think advertisers were so quick to embrace it?

Just ignore it like the old-timey folks were taught to ignore gossip and those who peddled it.

Now this is FAKE NEWS

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump is not over 50% in popularity.. except perhaps in the Kremlin?