Facebook allows NASA child slave colony on Mars posts

[rcmaehl]

Sources:
Tech Crunch

Business Insider

 

TL;DR:

Despite attempting to combat "fake news" Facebook has refused to ban Infowars in fear that it would create a Martyr in the conspiracy community

 

Quotes/Excerpts:

Quote

Infowars is a fake news-peddler. But Facebook deleting its Page could ignite a fire that consumes the network... This week Facebook held an event with journalists to discuss how it combats fake news. explained that, “I guess just for being false, that doesn’t violate the community standards." sites like it that constantly and purposely share dangerous hoaxes and conspiracy theories “We don’t have a policy that stipulates that everything posted on Facebook must be true — you can imagine how hard that would be to enforce,” rumors and fake news spread through forwarded WhatsApp messages have led to crowds lynching people in India and attacks in Myanmar.

Quote

has claimed that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax with actors. The outlet has also said 9/11 was a so-called false flag and that the moon landings were faked. Jones also promoted the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, for which he apologized after being threatened with lawsuits.comments drew criticism from journalists, Facebook followed up with a series of posts on Twitter defending its position. A group of brands including Nike suspended their advertising on YouTube after they discovered their ads were being run alongside Infowars' channels.

 

My thoughts:

I can understand allowing Satire such as TheOnion on Facebook, even with Facebook marking it as Satire nowadays. However, obvious repeat offenders of obvious Conspiracy theories should not be allowed.

[TacoSenpai]

I'll take the potentially unpopular opinion here.  Why should I let Facebook...no anyone for that matter tell me what is fake news?  Are they basically trying to tell the individual that they are incapable of doing that themselves and we need Big Brother Zucc to do it for us?

[infamoustrey]

4 minutes ago, LordOTaco said:

I'll take the potentially unpopular opinion here.  Why should I let Facebook...no anyone for that matter tell me what is fake news?  Are they basically trying to tell the individual that they are incapable of doing that themselves and we need Big Brother Zucc to do it for us?

Agreed, it's up to the individual not a corporation with it's own sets of interests and agendas to determine which information is relevant and factual. If you believe everything you see on the internet, that's your own fault. It's basic common sense to take everything you see on the web with a grain of salt.

[captain_to_fire]

Now that "fake news" has been tossed around left and right, I highly recommend this video regardless which part of the political spectrum you position yourself which details the history of fake news and why do people fall for it and what are echo chambers. 

 

[Syntaxvgm]

they shouldn't ban anything. Fuck em. If people wanna believe people are space enslaving children on mars, fuck em. Low gravity is easier labor anyway 

[rcmaehl]

3 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

they shouldn't ban anything. Fuck em. If people wanna believe people are space enslaving children on mars, fuck em. Low gravity is easier labor anyway 

62% less gravity means 62% more work right?

[Syntaxvgm]

1 minute ago, rcmaehl said:

62% less gravity means 62% more work right?

All I know is a person that is 18 in martian years is probably about 33 ish in earth years, so they really probably aren't children by earth standards, so this is certainly fake news. 

[Lurick]

2 minutes ago, rcmaehl said:

62% less gravity means 62% more work right?

Eventually it will run so efficiently that all the physical labor will be done by a single Australian man!

[TacoSenpai]

5 minutes ago, rcmaehl said:

62% less gravity means 62% more work right?

Bruh do you even Gravity?

[rcmaehl]

2 minutes ago, Lurick said:

Eventually it will run so efficiently that all the physical labor will be done by a single Australian man!

Saxton Hale? Junkrat? That one dude with a "survival" show?

[TidaLWaveZ]

26 minutes ago, LordOTaco said:

I'll take the potentially unpopular opinion here.  Why should I let Facebook...no anyone for that matter tell me what is fake news?  Are they basically trying to tell the individual is incapable of doing that themselves and we need Big Brother Zucc to do it for us?

Agree, this is like banning the tabloid magazines at the grocery.

 

Infowars has plenty of crazy nonsense, but they also have plenty non conspiracy theory content involving politics, etc. Hell, look at Alex Jones documentary inside Bohemian Grove, that documentary alone proves that Jones is not 100% full of shit, though I'd believe he's close to 70%. 

 

Furthermore conspiracy theories and fake news are mutually exclusive by definition. If a conspiracy theory were proven incorrect, in which fake news must be, then it is no longer a conspiracy theory.

 

17 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

they shouldn't ban anything. Fuck em. If people wanna believe people are space enslaving children on mars, fuck em. Low gravity is easier labor anyway 

Exactly, any blocking of media sources for news(bogus or not) is basically public thought control no matter how trivial the outlet.

[Lurick]

1 minute ago, rcmaehl said:

Saxton Hale? Junkrat? That one dude with a "survival" show?

Nah, just this guy:

[Mihle]

29 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

Wait people still use Facebook?

40-60 year olds mostly, but yes.

(If you ignore messenger, young people use that)

[GilmourD]

1 hour ago, LordOTaco said:

I'll take the potentially unpopular opinion here.  Why should I let Facebook...no anyone for that matter tell me what is fake news?  Are they basically trying to tell the individual that they are incapable of doing that themselves and we need Big Brother Zucc to do it for us?

In an ideal world with an intelligent populous I ABSOLUTELY agree with you.

However, we live in a world of dumbfucks and drooling morons that amaze me when they survive tying their shoes without using a helmet and a rollcage, so I don't expect most people to be able to parse what's real and what's fake. 

[ivan134]

1 hour ago, LordOTaco said:

I'll take the potentially unpopular opinion here.  Why should I let Facebook...no anyone for that matter tell me what is fake news?  Are they basically trying to tell the individual that they are incapable of doing that themselves and we need Big Brother Zucc to do it for us?

 

1 hour ago, infamoustrey said:

Agreed, it's up to the individual not a corporation with it's own sets of interests and agendas to determine which information is relevant and factual. If you believe everything you see on the internet, that's your own fault. It's basic common sense to take everything you see on the web with a grain of salt.

 

1 hour ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

Agree, this is like banning the tabloid magazines at the grocery.

 

Infowars has plenty of crazy nonsense, but they also have plenty non conspiracy theory content involving politics, etc. Hell, look at Alex Jones documentary inside Bohemian Grove, that documentary alone proves that Jones is not 100% full of shit, though I'd believe he's close to 70%. 

 

Furthermore conspiracy theories and fake news are mutually exclusive by definition. If a conspiracy theory were proven incorrect, in which fake news must be, then it is no longer a conspiracy theory.

 

Exactly, any blocking of media sources for news(bogus or not) is basically public thought control no matter how trivial the outlet.

FaceBook is a private entity. The can block whatever the f**k they want. How many of you are complaining about the lack of pro Hillary articles on Breitbart?

[Okjoek]

1 hour ago, rcmaehl said:

Saxton Hale? Junkrat? That one dude with a "survival" show?

[sanfilippo12]

11 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

 

 

FaceBook is a private entity. The can block whatever the f**k they want. How many of you are complaining about the lack of pro Hillary articles on Breitbart?

I agree that they are a private entity, but they claim to be a platform, not a publisher. This is where the problem lies. Breitbart, The New York Times, DailyWire, Wall Street Journal, etc. are publishers. They are responsible for everything in their publication/on their website, and they can remove an article before publishing, or take one down, if they desire. They are supposed to vet everything. If a picture is used in their publication without the creator/photographer’s permission in an article, the publisher gets sued, not the author. (That’s why publishers always give credit or use their own photographers). 

 

Facebook claims to be a platform, in the case of being a platform, they should allow all legal things to be posted. Once they start vetting and editing and such, they become a publisher.

 

Here’s a hypothetical situation that could occur in a “Facebook as a Publisher” World:

Now Joe Schmoe sets a pretty sunset as his profile picture, but Joe Schmoe didn’t take the photo, Jane Lane did. Jane Lane now knows that Facebook is now supposed to vet content, so it’s Facebook’s fault someone is using her photograph (which she had behind a paywall before it somehow got distributed) without permission. Jane Lane sues Facebook for allowing someone to use her photo on their vetted website without her permission. Will she win? Probably not, but it’s a dumb lawsuit Facebook has to deal with (and probably the first of many). 

This is one of many reasons Facebook should stick to being a platform, and not be a publisher. 

[ivan134]

4 minutes ago, sanfilippo12 said:

I agree that they are a private entity, but they claim to be a platform, not a publisher. This is where the problem lies. Breitbart, The New York Times, DailyWire, Wall Street Journal, etc. are publishers. They are responsible for everything in their publication/on their website, and they can remove an article before publishing, or take one down, if they desire. They are supposed to vet everything. If a picture is used in their publication without the creator/photographer’s permission in an article, the publisher gets sued, not the author. (That’s why publishers always give credit or use their own photographers). 

 

Facebook claims to be a platform, in the case of being a platform, they should allow all legal things to be posted. Once they start vetting and editing and such, they become a publisher.

 

Here’s a hypothetical situation that could occur in a “Facebook as a Publisher” World:

Now Joe Schmoe sets a pretty sunset as his profile picture, but Joe Schmoe didn’t take the photo, Jane Lane did. Jane Lane now knows that Facebook is now supposed to vet content, so it’s Facebook’s fault someone is using her photograph (which she had behind a paywall before it somehow got distributed) without permission. Jane Lane sues Facebook for allowing someone to use her photo on their vetted website without her permission. Will she win? Probably not, but it’s a dumb lawsuit Facebook has to deal with (and probably the first of many). 

This is one of many reasons Facebook should stick to being a platform, and not be a publisher. 

A platform isn't under any obligation to do anything.

[sanfilippo12]

3 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

A platform isn't under any obligation to do anything.

Correct. They should take no responsibility for what is posted on their platform. 

For example, AT&T takes no responsibility for what is said over their platform. They don’t vet, edit, or censor phone calls. 

If Facebook is going to claim to be a platform, they need to act like it and do nothing about the user-posted content. 

Once they vet, edit, and censor, they become a publisher and they become responsible for everything posted. 

[Jtalk4456]

1 hour ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

Hell, look at Alex Jones documentary inside Bohemian Grove, that documentary alone proves that Jones is not 100% full of shit, though I'd believe he's close to 70%. 

Actually I would argue that point. I'd heard about this and how it was supposed to be better than other of his stuff. Really it's poorly researched and he makes up a bunch of crap about it too. I found someone who described the problems well, and they are a conspiracy theorist themselves pointing out his crap

http://skepticproject.com/articles/alex-jones/dark-secrets-inside-bohemian-grove/

[rcmaehl]

10 minutes ago, sanfilippo12 said:

Correct. They should take no responsibility for what is posted on their platform. 

For example, AT&T takes no responsibility for what is said over their platform. They don’t vet, edit, or censor phone calls. 

If Facebook is going to claim to be a platform, they need to act like it and do nothing about the user-posted content. 

Once they vet, edit, and censor, they become a publisher and they become responsible for everything posted. 

According to the new Supreme Court pick ISPs have a first amendment right to filter and edit content as they please.

[ivan134]

21 minutes ago, sanfilippo12 said:

Correct. They should take no responsibility for what is posted on their platform. 

For example, AT&T takes no responsibility for what is said over their platform. They don’t vet, edit, or censor phone calls. 

If Facebook is going to claim to be a platform, they need to act like it and do nothing about the user-posted content. 

Once they vet, edit, and censor, they become a publisher and they become responsible for everything posted. 

Nope. You're just making shit up.

[sanfilippo12]

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

Nope. You're just making shit up.

I’m really not making stuff up. Why would I do that?  I did research and posted my findings. Would you like my sources?

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, LordOTaco said:

I'll take the potentially unpopular opinion here.  Why should I let Facebook...no anyone for that matter tell me what is fake news?  Are they basically trying to tell the individual that they are incapable of doing that themselves and we need Big Brother Zucc to do it for us?

I agree, but at this point they either get rid of all fake news or none of it... paradoxically, by removing other fake news but leaving infowars alone they are basically endorsing it.

2 hours ago, huilun02 said:

Wait people still use Facebook?

More people than ever as a matter of fact. Also, let me remind you that facebook owns whatsapp and instagram too so you can expect this sort of policy to affect those platforms in the long run.

2 hours ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

Infowars has plenty of crazy nonsense, but they also have plenty non conspiracy theory content involving politics, etc. Hell, look at Alex Jones documentary inside Bohemian Grove, that documentary alone proves that Jones is not 100% full of shit, though I'd believe he's close to 70%. 

From what little I've seen of Alex Jones, even the stuff that isn't conspiracy theories is mostly bullshit or a selective, twisted outlook on the facts. Maybe he does tell the truth at times, but only if it suits him - I'd say he can't be trusted.

51 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

FaceBook is a private entity. The can block whatever the f**k they want. How many of you are complaining about the lack of pro Hillary articles on Breitbart?

Legally they can do whatever they want on their own site (as long as it's not, well, illegal), and blocking content on their platform is not censorship - this doesn't mean we can't criticize them for what they do.

26 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

A platform isn't under any obligation to do anything.

Yes they are, although it doesn't apply to this specifically. They must remove illegal stuff if it is brought to their attention, for instance.

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, rcmaehl said:

Sources:
Tech Crunch

Business Insider

 

TL;DR:

Despite attempting to combat "fake news" Facebook has refused to ban Infowars in fear that it would create a Martyr in the conspiracy community

 

Quotes/Excerpts:

 

My thoughts:

I can understand allowing Satire such as TheOnion on Facebook, even with Facebook marking it as Satire nowadays. However, obvious repeat offenders of obvious Conspiracy theories should not be allowed.

They should probably ban posts that insight violence like the ones references in the article that caused violence in India. Much easier to enforce than trying to ban all fake information.