Facebook allows NASA child slave colony on Mars posts

[GilmourD]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

By whose metric?

By reality. If something actually exists it's real news. If something simply does not exist on this plane of existence it's fake news.

[asus killer]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

What about primary source news?

fair enough. But do you get really a problem from it. I mean so and so went to a peace conference and did so and so. It either happened or not. Then you have Infowars, government puts drugs in the water to make people gay, yes it's primary source... of BS

[GOTSpectrum]

On 13/07/2018 at 2:43 PM, Mihle said:

40-60 year olds mostly, but yes.

(If you ignore messenger, young people use that)

I will have you know I use Facebook on a regular basis to find cute videos of cats, parrots, dogs and most of all raccoons. Also sometimes to stalk my ex a little here and there. 

[LAwLz]

51 minutes ago, asus killer said:

fair enough. But do you get really a problem from it. I mean so and so went to a peace conference and did so and so. It either happened or not. Then you have Infowars, government puts drugs in the water to make people gay, yes it's primary source... of BS

What about conflicting articles where the actual truth is not accessible to everyone?

For example closed door meetings, and two people have conflicting stories about what was said?

 

Should Facebook be the arbiter of whose story is real or fake, despite Facebook not having any more or less clue what was said than you or I?

What about my example with AMD vs Intel/Nvidia? Do you want moderators on this forum to delete any post where they think the incorrect product is being recommended?

 

You keep going back to "well, just leave the truth up and take down all the fake news", but reality isn't that simple. There are a lot of cases where we don't know what the truth is, and a lot of cases where the truth is a matter of how you slant things. It might be possible for two conflicting stories to both be correct.

[Stefan Payne]

2 hours ago, GilmourD said:

By reality. If something actually exists it's real news. If something simply does not exist on this plane of existence it's fake news.

So what about the Snowden documents and the excessive survailence of some Agencies in the US, in cooperation with other entitys.

Does it exist or doesn't it?

How do you prove its existance? How do you prove its non existance?
 

21 hours ago, LAwLz said:

All I am saying is that Facebook shouldn't be in charge of classifying what is and isn't "true".

Exactly, nobody should!

Because everything that is done is done by humans and they have their preferences.

Especially if there isn't a discussion...

 

17 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/30/facebook-russia-fake-accounts-126-million i probably have a different opinion than most people here and think that facebook should actively combat "fake news". stuff like this is really scary

...and proves the Problem with the Corporate Media entitys...

And you could classify that as a hit piece in the direction of Facebook...

 

 

4 hours ago, asus killer said:

it's not abuse of power, it's their duty.

Yes, Fake News is Abuse of Power by the Media, and it is their duty to check the facts!

Not a third party they use to communicate the Things they are doing.

The Problem isn't facebook, the Problem is the Libel Laws of of the Media.

 

They can destroy your life, call you names and you can't do anything about that or against them. 

 

4 hours ago, asus killer said:

If they do a bad job you can complain, you know who to complain. In fake news there is just no appeal, they become fact.

ANd you can also stop to consume the primary media like Wallstreet Journal and talk with people about the shit they did...

But again, its not the job of a third party, that is to communicate that you did, to censor whatever you do, as long as it is legal and not propagating racism.

 

Since you didn't look up the Article of the New York Times I mentioned a couple of times, here a Link to it:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/opinion/sunday/interracial-friendship-donald-trump.html

 

You can call it what you want, but that is just blatant outright racism.

Just switch around the Identities used in the Article and it is clear that that is just racist garbage and should never have seen the light of day ever because of that!

 

4 hours ago, asus killer said:

It's too taxing for Facebook to do it? cry me a river. If LTT can do it. Whatever stops them from doing it is either lack of will or a broken site/business model.

Its not their job to do that!

Just look at the Job Description!

Facebook doesn't advertize themselves as Fact Checkers or news site, it advertizes themselve as a Social Media Plattform.

Sharing of Information is Social.

Sharing of News is Social.

 

So what exactly should they do?

Because Censoring is Anti-Social.

4 hours ago, asus killer said:

Should LTT forum not be moderated or is it dangerous to have someone watching the posts and the topics and deciding, this is news, this goes to general? You are shit posting, your banned, etc...

It isn't moderated!

We have Moderators that police the Content/People, not moderate it.

Big difference!

 

Because "moderating" is equal to an editor of the Paper, they decide what you can see or not because they look at the stuff you've written and decide if others can see it or not. That is what moderated in FOrums means.

 

That is not their job, their job is the literal "Moderator" from the latin word "moderare" -> to keep something down, direct, control. 

Its not their Job to censor, its their job to keep the discussions civil, stop flamewars, stuff like that...

[asus killer]

2 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

 

Because Censoring is Anti-Social.

 

It isn't moderated!

We have Moderators that police the Content/People, not moderate it.

 

and spreading fake news, allowing it, being an enabler for it, isn't Anti-social? Besides censoring it would be selectively editing it, if you just forbid fake news that is not censorship. 

 

It really doesn't matter the "how", it works. It's not for me to decide how they should do it. 

[Stefan Payne]

5 hours ago, asus killer said:

and spreading fake news, allowing it, being an enabler for it, isn't Anti-social? Besides censoring it would be selectively editing it, if you just forbid fake news that is not censorship. 

 

It really doesn't matter the "how", it works. It's not for me to decide how they should do it. 

You got it backwards.

Its the responsibility of the News Media Outlets to not do fake news, not any 3rd Partys.

 

And that is also the reason why we need Elon Musk's News Media Rating site -> Yelp for News.

 

[Drak3]

6 hours ago, asus killer said:

if you just forbid fake news that is not censorship. 

Yes, it is.

 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship

 

 

And "Fake News" isn't just lie. "Fake News" also includes propaganda and news supporting an opposing political view or figure.

[asus killer]

5 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

 

Its the responsibility of the News Media Outlets to not do fake news, not any 3rd Partys.

 

that doesn't even make sense, facebook doesn't do news, so that doesn't apply even remotly. I think it's their responsibility not to spread them

 

5 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Yes, it is.

a bit of a overreach to link that definition to not allowing news that aren't real.

[mr moose]

Fake news is what caused this:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/secret-facebook-group-reveals-how-10944477

 

I have no time for it,  some people are desperate, some people will try anything and some people are just dumb. Any news article or website that allows this kind of practice where desperate parents are mislead and inveigled of reality,  should be punished somehow, it is nothing more than causing physical harm through deception.

 

[Drak3]

4 hours ago, asus killer said:

a bit of a overreach to link that definition to not allowing news that aren't real.

It's not an overreach at all. It's a perfect example of censorship.

[asus killer]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

It's not an overreach at all. It's a perfect example of censorship.

is it censorship to not allow profanity on tv, to outlaw racism on publications, to not allow child pornography on the net?

[Stefan Payne]

23 minutes ago, asus killer said:

is it censorship to not allow profanity on tv,

Yeah, kinda...

 

Quote

to outlaw racism on publications,

Taken a look at the Link I've providet to the New York times?
How is THAT not outright racism??

 

Quote

to not allow child pornography on the net?

illegal content in most parts of the World is one thing.

 

But you are promoting censorship.

Because it will be used to censor one side of the political discord, that is waht you can see right now that one side tries to get rid of the other one, censors what ever is possible.
 

And _THAT_ is the Problem.

And also that anti racism bullshit doesn't work and only can lead to extremists!
If you can't talk about one subject, you are making new radicals in that field because free Speech is a Deterrent to radicalism!

 

 

With that said:
Facebook, Twitter and other sites already censor the conservatives!

 

An example of what is already going on is this:

 

A radical site that calls for violence is still not banned...

 

Censorship is the first step to authoritarian dictatorships!

Is that what you want? Dictators in the West? 

"Nice guys" like Josef S.?

[Drak3]

34 minutes ago, asus killer said:

is it censorship to not allow profanity on tv, to outlaw racism on publications, to not allow child pornography on the net?

Yes to all.

[asus killer]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Yes to all.

that's like saying putting someone in jail for a crime is an attempt at their liberty, freedom and rights. Technically it is, still there is a difference i think you're missing in my humble opinion.

[Stefan Payne]

1 hour ago, asus killer said:

that's like saying putting someone in jail for a crime is an attempt at their liberty, freedom and rights.

You mean like Count Dankula, Ursula Haverbeck, Kevin Crehan, Tommy Robinson and some other people.

Depends on the crime though, if it is a "Hate (speech)/Blasphemy Crime", where no real damage was done or some violent crime like robbery or worse.

 

1 hour ago, asus killer said:

Technically it is, still there is a difference i think you're missing in my humble opinion.

I think you are missing the point and don't get that everything censoring will be used against YOU!

 

Anoter Hate Piece of the Mainstream/Corporate Media:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.87c927198312

 

What do you say about that? Is that OK to hate 50% of the Population or call for the hate of those?

Shouldn't she loose her job and go to jail for this Hate Crime?

[rcmaehl]

Looks like Facebook content moderation is again a part of controversy as the company it out-sources to says videos of child abuse are okay to be posted to the platform

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44859407

[asus killer]

3 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

 

I think you are missing the point and don't get that everything censoring will be used against YOU!

 

will you feel that, if someone here says to you "you can't post pictures of naked children"? don't censure pedophile content because then censorship will be used against me!?

 

There must be rules everywhere and that's not censorship, it's good sense. My country had censorship for a long time, it wasn't prohibiting any particular subject, it was not allowing the subjects you didn't care about. If you don't allow fake news, any fake news that's not censorship in my book.

[Stefan Payne]

4 minutes ago, asus killer said:

There must be rules everywhere and that's not censorship, it's good sense.

Yes, but not against oppionion.

And especially political orientation.

 

Explicit Pictures is NOT an oppionion. 

[asus killer]

4 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Yes, but not against oppionion.

And especially political orientation.

 

Explicit Pictures is NOT an oppionion. 

i don't think the "fake news" discussion includes opinions, in fact i'm pretty sure it isn't the case. If you label them as opinion of course. 

 

Opinions aren't fake or real by definition. They can be wrong or right, not fake or real.

 

 

[rcmaehl]

56 minutes ago, asus killer said:

i don't think the "fake news" discussion includes opinions, in fact i'm pretty sure it isn't the case. If you label them as opinion of course. 

 

Opinions aren't fake or real by definition. They can be wrong or right, not fake or real.

I can assure you, people can be paid to make a statement of opinion that is against their beliefs. I would believe that that would be a "fake" opinion.

[Drak3]

2 hours ago, asus killer said:

will you feel that, if someone here says to you "you can't post pictures of naked children"? don't censure pedophile content because then censorship will be used against me!?

 

There must be rules everywhere and that's not censorship, it's good sense. My country had censorship for a long time, it wasn't prohibiting any particular subject, it was not allowing the subjects you didn't care about. If you don't allow fake news, any fake news that's not censorship in my book.

Censorship is censorship REGARDLESS of it following the will of a society. Some censorship is necessary, but only a little, and only concering subject matters such as child pornography, violent call to action, and call to action with intent to harm.

 

Whereas, AGAIN, "fake news" is not used often to describe factless claims, but to try to discreditting politically opposing views, sources, and facts.

[asus killer]

3 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Censorship is censorship REGARDLESS of it following the will of a society. Some censorship is necessary, but only a little, and only concering subject matters such as child pornography, violent call to action, and call to action with intent to harm.

 

Whereas, AGAIN, "fake news" is not used often to describe factless claims, but to try to discreditting politically opposing views, sources, and facts.

you're going to literal to me. Going by the book definition on censorship. Ok censorship is censorship. But i don't see the relevance of that for the topic discussion.

No one is discussing Facebook not allowing what they don't like as some crazy dictator would do. We are talking about moderating, or yes censuring by definition, something without a biases, without an intention to steer the discussion, just because no wants fake news or child porn there. If you disallow all fake news from any sides how can this be a problem?

 

Going overboard in the panic seems crazy. If then Facebook uses the moderation needed to do unwanted censorship then we can have this discussion. 

[Drak3]

10 minutes ago, asus killer said:

No one is discussing Facebook not allowing what they don't like as some crazy dictator would do. We are talking about moderating, or yes censuring by definition, something without a biases, without an intention to steer the discussion, just because no wants fake news or child porn there. If you disallow all fake news from any sides how can this be a problem?

Because Facebook's war on "fake news" is not moderating what is factual and what is not. It's moderating what agrees and disagrees with the political agenda of Facebook (far left, FYI).

 

They don't give a shit about the news section being factual. Same with Google.

 

Trusting them, for even a nanosecond, is something only someone ignorant or outright stupid would do.

[asus killer]

6 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Because Facebook's war on "fake news" is not moderating what is factual and what is not. It's moderating what agrees and disagrees with the political agenda of Facebook (far left, FYI).

 

They don't give a shit about the news section being factual. Same with Google.

 

Trusting them, for even a nanosecond, is something only someone ignorant or outright stupid would do.

No one is trusting them. Do you have a reason or examples to give or is it just some crazy paranoia?

 

They dont have section news, what the hell are you talking about.

 

Again facts are important, even in such claims. You are doing exactly what we are diacussing. If they block one side and just show the other then you can complain. Easy on the paranoia, and its even crazier as you sujest to have it all fake news because you think they might do this or that with zero evidence. 

 

Because they might do a bad thing (i have no idea if they will) lets allow them to do another bad thing and one we are absolutely sure its happening.

 

God sense?

 

 

 

 

Edited July 19, 2018 by asus killer