|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 16 2016 23:26 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 23:14 Ayaz2810 wrote:
I was hopeful that Trump wouldn't be as bad as all the lefties said he would be. This last couple weeks is making me think they were right. Almost every single decision he has made so far I disagree with, and I'm not even a democrat. If he doesn't fuck the country up economically, start a civil war, start World War 3, or get impeached for doing something stupid, then it'll be a miracle. I never thought I would say it, but I'm starting to approve of all the efforts to de-legitimize his win. Half hoping a bunch of electors rise up against his election. Fat chance though =( You're worried about Trump starting a civil war but you're hoping enough electors flip to deny him the election victory? Should i put two and two together for you? If Trump is not selected by the college it's a civil war and societal breakdown guaranteed.
The only people who would take up arms are the same people who said they would assassinate Hillary if she were elected and the hillbillies shouting Jew-S-A at rallies. They make up a much smaller proportion of the population than normal humans. I have more faith in humanity than you I suppose. Also, the fact that he could have taken himself out of his businesses, or at the very least created a plan to do so if he won the election, and he didn't (and it appears he never will).... makes me kind of sick. It's obvious that he is going to use his power to enrich himself and his family, and that just stinks to high heaven. The president is supposed to be the ultimate public servant, and it is clear to everyone that he doesn't give two shits about the people.
|
On December 17 2016 01:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +Facebook detailed a new plan Thursday to target the rapid spread of fake news across its site, a phenomenon that received renewed attention in the weeks following the 2016 election, with accusations that it may have influenced the behavior of voters.
The problem reached a breaking point two weeks ago when a gunman entered a pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C., to investigate an internet-based conspiracy theory about a child-sex ring that does not exist.
Now the move from the internet’s largest social-media platform has some intentional fake-news writers, who created their websites to “satirize” right-wing conspiracies or exploit Facebook’s algorithm, believing they’ll soon be out of business.
But the new program also has conspiracy theorists, ones who believe Hillary Clinton’s fictitious ties to the occult are the “real news,” excitedly drawing battle lines over the future of the news on social media.
Should Facebook’s fact-check initiative take off and result in censorship of propagandist sites, editors at websites like Infowars and alt-right leaders insist it will only reinforce the belief that certain ideas are being suppressed in favor of facts from mainstream outlets. One editor told The Daily Beast the Facebook plan proves that now the “‘Infowar’ isn’t a cliché, it’s perfectly apt.”
If Facebook’s experiment is applied correctly, authors of intentionally fake news face a potential hurdle for generating advertising revenue for their sites, if not the banning of their stories from the social network outright.
Marco Chacon, the creator of the intentional fake news website RealTrueNews.org, says Facebook is finally taking a positive step toward making sure websites like his no longer go viral on the social network. In an article for The Daily Beast in November, Chacon wrote that he created his site to make those who share fake right-wing news on Facebook more aware that they’re “susceptible to stories written ‘in [their] language’ that are complete, obvious, utter fabrications.”
Chacon’s larger aim, he wrote, was to force Facebook to work out a solution for a fake-news epidemic he believed was “deeply entrenched” and easily monetized.
“This is the right approach,” said Chacon of Facebook’s new plan Thursday. “The people who fear censors fear a whitelist of ‘approved news sites.’ This sounds like a more intelligent heuristic that is exactly the kind of thing a company like Facebook should employ.”
Chacon, who said he was preparing for NBC News to interview him about his antics in his home later in the day, added that the new safeguards “will give people some greater responsibility in what they spread.” Source. We'll have to wait and see what Facebook actually does, but it is becoming pretty clear that these major tech platforms (particularly Twitter) are aligning themselves with the Left. I tend to think that this is going to be a mistake long term.
Pretty sure anti-fake-news is not left or right, unless you are willing to concede that reality has a liberal bias (mainly because conservatives have taken pants-on-heads anti-science stances on a number of issues ranging from climate change to trickle-down economics)?
But platforms that people consider important sources of information (although why people think Facebook is a good source of news is beyond me) should take care of the information they are providing. They either shut down their "sponsored links", or they curate it, because they are the ones who are responsible for what shows up on their site. And if that is stuff like "Pope Francis says Hillary is devilspawn" (or whatever the fake headline along those lines was), then that is (partially) their responsibility.
|
On December 16 2016 23:22 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 23:14 Ayaz2810 wrote:
I was hopeful that Trump wouldn't be as bad as all the lefties said he would be. This last couple weeks is making me think they were right. Almost every single decision he has made so far I disagree with, and I'm not even a democrat. If he doesn't fuck the country up economically, start a civil war, start World War 3, or get impeached for doing something stupid, then it'll be a miracle. I never thought I would say it, but I'm starting to approve of all the efforts to de-legitimize his win. Half hoping a bunch of electors rise up against his election. Fat chance though =( fortunately there are limits to how much damage one president can do. do you classify yourself as an Independent?
Yes I'm registered as an Independent. And it's not even that I want Hillary as president. I just want someone who is not retarded. The way I see it, I would rather have a lying career politician who may or may not follow through on their promises than an egotistical moron who uses Twitter like a 15 year old girl.
EDIT: When you let idiots into office who are easily manipulated, you end up with shit like George W. Bush. I don't wanna go through that kind of thing again.
|
Facebook is a social media platform that continues to try to find long-term relevance in the face of a user base that is prone to lose interest (social media, it's like that), requiring expensive purchases to prop up itself. News is evidently one direction they're trying right now.
|
|
|
On December 17 2016 01:48 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 23:22 zlefin wrote:On December 16 2016 23:14 Ayaz2810 wrote:
I was hopeful that Trump wouldn't be as bad as all the lefties said he would be. This last couple weeks is making me think they were right. Almost every single decision he has made so far I disagree with, and I'm not even a democrat. If he doesn't fuck the country up economically, start a civil war, start World War 3, or get impeached for doing something stupid, then it'll be a miracle. I never thought I would say it, but I'm starting to approve of all the efforts to de-legitimize his win. Half hoping a bunch of electors rise up against his election. Fat chance though =( fortunately there are limits to how much damage one president can do. do you classify yourself as an Independent? Yes I'm registered as an Independent. And it's not even that I want Hillary as president. I just want someone who is not retarded. The way I see it, I would rather have a lying career politician who may or may not follow through on their promises than an egotistical moron who uses Twitter like a 15 year old girl. EDIT: When you let idiots into office who are easily manipulated, you end up with shit like George W. Bush. I don't wanna go through that kind of thing again.
hillary is a bad option at this point;
top option if trump is avoided is pence; or maybe ryan.
they really shouldve pushed that strategy.
seems sloppy they didn't push that already, as it's the best plan for avoiding a trump presidency.
ah well, strategy isn't many people's forte.
personally I'd try to push for ryan.
(I'm assuming the strategy I'm talking is obvious, but now I'm thinking maybe it isn't and people need a clearer explanation?)
|
TO KEEP READING PLEASE ENTER YOUR E-MAIL
|
On December 17 2016 01:45 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 01:29 xDaunt wrote:Facebook detailed a new plan Thursday to target the rapid spread of fake news across its site, a phenomenon that received renewed attention in the weeks following the 2016 election, with accusations that it may have influenced the behavior of voters.
The problem reached a breaking point two weeks ago when a gunman entered a pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C., to investigate an internet-based conspiracy theory about a child-sex ring that does not exist.
Now the move from the internet’s largest social-media platform has some intentional fake-news writers, who created their websites to “satirize” right-wing conspiracies or exploit Facebook’s algorithm, believing they’ll soon be out of business.
But the new program also has conspiracy theorists, ones who believe Hillary Clinton’s fictitious ties to the occult are the “real news,” excitedly drawing battle lines over the future of the news on social media.
Should Facebook’s fact-check initiative take off and result in censorship of propagandist sites, editors at websites like Infowars and alt-right leaders insist it will only reinforce the belief that certain ideas are being suppressed in favor of facts from mainstream outlets. One editor told The Daily Beast the Facebook plan proves that now the “‘Infowar’ isn’t a cliché, it’s perfectly apt.”
If Facebook’s experiment is applied correctly, authors of intentionally fake news face a potential hurdle for generating advertising revenue for their sites, if not the banning of their stories from the social network outright.
Marco Chacon, the creator of the intentional fake news website RealTrueNews.org, says Facebook is finally taking a positive step toward making sure websites like his no longer go viral on the social network. In an article for The Daily Beast in November, Chacon wrote that he created his site to make those who share fake right-wing news on Facebook more aware that they’re “susceptible to stories written ‘in [their] language’ that are complete, obvious, utter fabrications.”
Chacon’s larger aim, he wrote, was to force Facebook to work out a solution for a fake-news epidemic he believed was “deeply entrenched” and easily monetized.
“This is the right approach,” said Chacon of Facebook’s new plan Thursday. “The people who fear censors fear a whitelist of ‘approved news sites.’ This sounds like a more intelligent heuristic that is exactly the kind of thing a company like Facebook should employ.”
Chacon, who said he was preparing for NBC News to interview him about his antics in his home later in the day, added that the new safeguards “will give people some greater responsibility in what they spread.” Source. We'll have to wait and see what Facebook actually does, but it is becoming pretty clear that these major tech platforms (particularly Twitter) are aligning themselves with the Left. I tend to think that this is going to be a mistake long term. Pretty sure anti-fake-news is not left or right, unless you are willing to concede that reality has a liberal bias (mainly because conservatives have taken pants-on-heads anti-science stances on a number of issues ranging from climate change to trickle-down economics)? But platforms that people consider important sources of information (although why people think Facebook is a good source of news is beyond me) should take care of the information they are providing. They either shut down their "sponsored links", or they curate it, because they are the ones who are responsible for what shows up on their site. And if that is stuff like "Pope Francis says Hillary is devilspawn" (or whatever the fake headline along those lines was), then that is (partially) their responsibility.
I don't think that anyone is going to disagree with the proposition that the truly fake news (ie outright making shit up) is a problem. However, there are two problems with the Left's current attack on fake news. The first is that the breadth of the attack encompasses not just true fake news sites but also conservative media as well. The second problem is that left wing sites aren't receiving the same scrutiny and attention as the right wing analogs. For these reasons, the war on fake news looks very much like an excuse to wage an information war in the name of partisanship.
We have to wait and see what Facebook actually does, but if it goes down the same path that Twitter has, it will be a real problem.
|
On December 17 2016 01:56 a_flayer wrote:TO KEEP READING PLEASE ENTER YOUR E-MAIL
I put DICKBUTT12345@gmail.com
Fuck that enter your email shit.
|
That's not very nice of them
|
On December 17 2016 01:54 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 01:48 Ayaz2810 wrote:On December 16 2016 23:22 zlefin wrote:On December 16 2016 23:14 Ayaz2810 wrote:
I was hopeful that Trump wouldn't be as bad as all the lefties said he would be. This last couple weeks is making me think they were right. Almost every single decision he has made so far I disagree with, and I'm not even a democrat. If he doesn't fuck the country up economically, start a civil war, start World War 3, or get impeached for doing something stupid, then it'll be a miracle. I never thought I would say it, but I'm starting to approve of all the efforts to de-legitimize his win. Half hoping a bunch of electors rise up against his election. Fat chance though =( fortunately there are limits to how much damage one president can do. do you classify yourself as an Independent? Yes I'm registered as an Independent. And it's not even that I want Hillary as president. I just want someone who is not retarded. The way I see it, I would rather have a lying career politician who may or may not follow through on their promises than an egotistical moron who uses Twitter like a 15 year old girl. EDIT: When you let idiots into office who are easily manipulated, you end up with shit like George W. Bush. I don't wanna go through that kind of thing again. hillary is a bad option at this point; top option if trump is avoided is pence; or maybe ryan. they really shouldve pushed that strategy. seems sloppy they didn't push that already, as it's the best plan for avoiding a trump presidency. ah well, strategy isn't many people's forte.
Don't misunderstand. I meant I would have preferred Hillary during the election. Now, I would settle for anyone who isn't Donald Trump. Be it Ryan, Pence, Bernie, or Lindsey Graham. Just not that guy.
|
On December 17 2016 01:56 a_flayer wrote:TO KEEP READING PLEASE ENTER YOUR E-MAIL
A Chinese naval ship seized an unmanned ocean glider that was being used by the U.S. Navy to test water conditions in international waters in the South China Sea, according to a U.S. defense official.
The glider was about 500 yards from the USNS Bowditch, an oceanographic survey vessel with a mostly civilian crew. The U.S. ship contacted the Chinese ship and asked for the glider, which collects unclassified data, but the Chinese ship, which had brought the glider aboard, left the area.
“The United States has through their proper diplomatic channels demarched the Chinese, demanding return of our stuff,” the officials said.
The incident occurred about 24 hours ago, the official said.
"give back our glider you just took!"
*leaves*
|
On December 17 2016 01:58 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 01:56 a_flayer wrote:TO KEEP READING PLEASE ENTER YOUR E-MAIL I put DICKBUTT12345@gmail.com Fuck that enter your email shit.
I either do that (whoever has bla@bla.com is receiving a shitton of spam), or if an actual email is required, www.10minutemail.com is awesome. My yahoo mail is my last ditch choice if they insist on something that's persistent and I'll have to check occasionally.
|
On December 17 2016 02:02 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 01:58 Ayaz2810 wrote:On December 17 2016 01:56 a_flayer wrote:TO KEEP READING PLEASE ENTER YOUR E-MAIL I put DICKBUTT12345@gmail.com Fuck that enter your email shit. I either do that (whoever has bla@bla.com is receiving a shitton of spam), or if an actual email is required, www.10minutemail.com is awesome. My yahoo mail is my last ditch choice if they insist on something that's persistent and I'll have to check occasionally.
Oh wow. That 10minutemail thing is cool as hell. Thanks for introducing me to it.
|
Some sites block 10minutemail but it's a great tool for sure.
|
|
|
On December 17 2016 01:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +Facebook detailed a new plan Thursday to target the rapid spread of fake news across its site, a phenomenon that received renewed attention in the weeks following the 2016 election, with accusations that it may have influenced the behavior of voters.
The problem reached a breaking point two weeks ago when a gunman entered a pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C., to investigate an internet-based conspiracy theory about a child-sex ring that does not exist.
Now the move from the internet’s largest social-media platform has some intentional fake-news writers, who created their websites to “satirize” right-wing conspiracies or exploit Facebook’s algorithm, believing they’ll soon be out of business.
But the new program also has conspiracy theorists, ones who believe Hillary Clinton’s fictitious ties to the occult are the “real news,” excitedly drawing battle lines over the future of the news on social media.
Should Facebook’s fact-check initiative take off and result in censorship of propagandist sites, editors at websites like Infowars and alt-right leaders insist it will only reinforce the belief that certain ideas are being suppressed in favor of facts from mainstream outlets. One editor told The Daily Beast the Facebook plan proves that now the “‘Infowar’ isn’t a cliché, it’s perfectly apt.”
If Facebook’s experiment is applied correctly, authors of intentionally fake news face a potential hurdle for generating advertising revenue for their sites, if not the banning of their stories from the social network outright.
Marco Chacon, the creator of the intentional fake news website RealTrueNews.org, says Facebook is finally taking a positive step toward making sure websites like his no longer go viral on the social network. In an article for The Daily Beast in November, Chacon wrote that he created his site to make those who share fake right-wing news on Facebook more aware that they’re “susceptible to stories written ‘in [their] language’ that are complete, obvious, utter fabrications.”
Chacon’s larger aim, he wrote, was to force Facebook to work out a solution for a fake-news epidemic he believed was “deeply entrenched” and easily monetized.
“This is the right approach,” said Chacon of Facebook’s new plan Thursday. “The people who fear censors fear a whitelist of ‘approved news sites.’ This sounds like a more intelligent heuristic that is exactly the kind of thing a company like Facebook should employ.”
Chacon, who said he was preparing for NBC News to interview him about his antics in his home later in the day, added that the new safeguards “will give people some greater responsibility in what they spread.” Source. We'll have to wait and see what Facebook actually does, but it is becoming pretty clear that these major tech platforms (particularly Twitter) are aligning themselves with the Left. I tend to think that this is going to be a mistake long term.
Remember how many people here posted stuff about the Clinton campaign hiring people to disrupt Trump rallies? This stuff is legitimately bad. It feels like you're ignoring the downside to straight up bullshit being propagated and believed by swaths of people.
|
The problem with combating "bullshit" is that sometimes it's hard to differentiate from straight-up censorship of opinions not popular with the mediaverse. In that sense xDaunt's concerns are perfectly valid.
|
On December 17 2016 01:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 01:45 Acrofales wrote:On December 17 2016 01:29 xDaunt wrote:Facebook detailed a new plan Thursday to target the rapid spread of fake news across its site, a phenomenon that received renewed attention in the weeks following the 2016 election, with accusations that it may have influenced the behavior of voters.
The problem reached a breaking point two weeks ago when a gunman entered a pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C., to investigate an internet-based conspiracy theory about a child-sex ring that does not exist.
Now the move from the internet’s largest social-media platform has some intentional fake-news writers, who created their websites to “satirize” right-wing conspiracies or exploit Facebook’s algorithm, believing they’ll soon be out of business.
But the new program also has conspiracy theorists, ones who believe Hillary Clinton’s fictitious ties to the occult are the “real news,” excitedly drawing battle lines over the future of the news on social media.
Should Facebook’s fact-check initiative take off and result in censorship of propagandist sites, editors at websites like Infowars and alt-right leaders insist it will only reinforce the belief that certain ideas are being suppressed in favor of facts from mainstream outlets. One editor told The Daily Beast the Facebook plan proves that now the “‘Infowar’ isn’t a cliché, it’s perfectly apt.”
If Facebook’s experiment is applied correctly, authors of intentionally fake news face a potential hurdle for generating advertising revenue for their sites, if not the banning of their stories from the social network outright.
Marco Chacon, the creator of the intentional fake news website RealTrueNews.org, says Facebook is finally taking a positive step toward making sure websites like his no longer go viral on the social network. In an article for The Daily Beast in November, Chacon wrote that he created his site to make those who share fake right-wing news on Facebook more aware that they’re “susceptible to stories written ‘in [their] language’ that are complete, obvious, utter fabrications.”
Chacon’s larger aim, he wrote, was to force Facebook to work out a solution for a fake-news epidemic he believed was “deeply entrenched” and easily monetized.
“This is the right approach,” said Chacon of Facebook’s new plan Thursday. “The people who fear censors fear a whitelist of ‘approved news sites.’ This sounds like a more intelligent heuristic that is exactly the kind of thing a company like Facebook should employ.”
Chacon, who said he was preparing for NBC News to interview him about his antics in his home later in the day, added that the new safeguards “will give people some greater responsibility in what they spread.” Source. We'll have to wait and see what Facebook actually does, but it is becoming pretty clear that these major tech platforms (particularly Twitter) are aligning themselves with the Left. I tend to think that this is going to be a mistake long term. Pretty sure anti-fake-news is not left or right, unless you are willing to concede that reality has a liberal bias (mainly because conservatives have taken pants-on-heads anti-science stances on a number of issues ranging from climate change to trickle-down economics)? But platforms that people consider important sources of information (although why people think Facebook is a good source of news is beyond me) should take care of the information they are providing. They either shut down their "sponsored links", or they curate it, because they are the ones who are responsible for what shows up on their site. And if that is stuff like "Pope Francis says Hillary is devilspawn" (or whatever the fake headline along those lines was), then that is (partially) their responsibility. I don't think that anyone is going to disagree with the proposition that the truly fake news (ie outright making shit up) is a problem. However, there are two problems with the Left's current attack on fake news. The first is that the breadth of the attack encompasses not just true fake news sites but also conservative media as well. The second problem is that left wing sites aren't receiving the same scrutiny and attention as the right wing analogs. For these reasons, the war on fake news looks very much like an excuse to wage an information war in the name of partisanship. We have to wait and see what Facebook actually does, but if it goes down the same path that Twitter has, it will be a real problem.
I don't know if claiming news media that denies science and scientists can be considered real news.
|
On December 17 2016 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 01:57 xDaunt wrote:On December 17 2016 01:45 Acrofales wrote:On December 17 2016 01:29 xDaunt wrote:Facebook detailed a new plan Thursday to target the rapid spread of fake news across its site, a phenomenon that received renewed attention in the weeks following the 2016 election, with accusations that it may have influenced the behavior of voters.
The problem reached a breaking point two weeks ago when a gunman entered a pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C., to investigate an internet-based conspiracy theory about a child-sex ring that does not exist.
Now the move from the internet’s largest social-media platform has some intentional fake-news writers, who created their websites to “satirize” right-wing conspiracies or exploit Facebook’s algorithm, believing they’ll soon be out of business.
But the new program also has conspiracy theorists, ones who believe Hillary Clinton’s fictitious ties to the occult are the “real news,” excitedly drawing battle lines over the future of the news on social media.
Should Facebook’s fact-check initiative take off and result in censorship of propagandist sites, editors at websites like Infowars and alt-right leaders insist it will only reinforce the belief that certain ideas are being suppressed in favor of facts from mainstream outlets. One editor told The Daily Beast the Facebook plan proves that now the “‘Infowar’ isn’t a cliché, it’s perfectly apt.”
If Facebook’s experiment is applied correctly, authors of intentionally fake news face a potential hurdle for generating advertising revenue for their sites, if not the banning of their stories from the social network outright.
Marco Chacon, the creator of the intentional fake news website RealTrueNews.org, says Facebook is finally taking a positive step toward making sure websites like his no longer go viral on the social network. In an article for The Daily Beast in November, Chacon wrote that he created his site to make those who share fake right-wing news on Facebook more aware that they’re “susceptible to stories written ‘in [their] language’ that are complete, obvious, utter fabrications.”
Chacon’s larger aim, he wrote, was to force Facebook to work out a solution for a fake-news epidemic he believed was “deeply entrenched” and easily monetized.
“This is the right approach,” said Chacon of Facebook’s new plan Thursday. “The people who fear censors fear a whitelist of ‘approved news sites.’ This sounds like a more intelligent heuristic that is exactly the kind of thing a company like Facebook should employ.”
Chacon, who said he was preparing for NBC News to interview him about his antics in his home later in the day, added that the new safeguards “will give people some greater responsibility in what they spread.” Source. We'll have to wait and see what Facebook actually does, but it is becoming pretty clear that these major tech platforms (particularly Twitter) are aligning themselves with the Left. I tend to think that this is going to be a mistake long term. Pretty sure anti-fake-news is not left or right, unless you are willing to concede that reality has a liberal bias (mainly because conservatives have taken pants-on-heads anti-science stances on a number of issues ranging from climate change to trickle-down economics)? But platforms that people consider important sources of information (although why people think Facebook is a good source of news is beyond me) should take care of the information they are providing. They either shut down their "sponsored links", or they curate it, because they are the ones who are responsible for what shows up on their site. And if that is stuff like "Pope Francis says Hillary is devilspawn" (or whatever the fake headline along those lines was), then that is (partially) their responsibility. I don't think that anyone is going to disagree with the proposition that the truly fake news (ie outright making shit up) is a problem. However, there are two problems with the Left's current attack on fake news. The first is that the breadth of the attack encompasses not just true fake news sites but also conservative media as well. The second problem is that left wing sites aren't receiving the same scrutiny and attention as the right wing analogs. For these reasons, the war on fake news looks very much like an excuse to wage an information war in the name of partisanship. We have to wait and see what Facebook actually does, but if it goes down the same path that Twitter has, it will be a real problem. I don't know if claiming news media that denies science and scientists can be considered real news.
Do scientists ever bullshit? Is scientific consensus ever bullshit, especially on political issues?
The skepticism is usually wrong but absolutely warranted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
