Facebook allows NASA child slave colony on Mars posts

[Stefan Payne]

4 hours ago, ivan134 said:

Perpetrators of fake news do not fall under any of these things.

How do you define Fake news so that it is an objective fact?

You can't!

And if you do, you have to ban most mainstream outlets as well, as they are equally guilty of Fake News. And do that on a regular basis. There are a ton of examples for articles, that are fake news, total bullshit and based on hearsay at best. In some cases they had to apologize for their fake news.

 

Take for example the PewDiePie hitpiece from the WSJ. That is the best example because its NOT political.

 

Or what about the cases where the Mainstream Outlets misrepresents people (like Jordan Peterson), would you call that also "Fake News" and ban them for that?

 

[Stefan Payne]

1 hour ago, Syntaxvgm said:

And believe me, facebook will sweep up political leanings it doesn't agree with along with actual fake news.

...wich is what they actually do. Just watch Tim's Video about the stuff.

Facebook admits to throtteling of "Fake News", they just don't ban them.

 

And with what's going on and where they are based, they will censor the stuff they don't like because they don't like it.

59 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

As much as i can clearly see the cons a scheme like this  , the fact that websites sites like breitbart and infowars are thriving right now very much shows that no , most people are not capable of doing so.

Ever heard of Candace Owens??

You know what she says about Media??

Do you know what she says about Breitbart? They were the only one who somewhat correctly reported her case while all the other Mainstream Outlets did not.

 

 

Or take for example the times where Jordan Peterson trys to talk with Mainstream Media. 

The Infamous Cathy Newman thing in Great Britan, though luckily for us that is not edited.

 

Or how Vice or the New York Times tried to misrepresent him.

 

The point is that Corporate Media is dying. All and everywhere. Breitbart and Infowars a bit less than the rest maybe. 

 

 

And thus, whenever you see something like this, you know its to discriminate against alternative media outlets and to protect the dying, traditional ones who didn't get the Internet.

[asus killer]

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

How do you define Fake news so that it is an objective fact?

i am going out on a limb here but i would say fake news are news that aren't real, like fake as in the opposite of real. I can use it a sentence if it helps: saying kid actors staged a school shooting or 9/11 is a hoax or that linus hates sandals are all fake news

[Stefan Payne]

2 minutes ago, asus killer said:

i am going out on a limb here but i would say fake news are news that aren't real, like fake as in the opposite of real.

And how do you determine if somthing is real or not?

pls watch the Video I linked earlier. Tim mentions all angles.

 

And he is NOT on the right, he doesn't even lean right. 

 

2 minutes ago, asus killer said:

I can use it a sentence if it helps: saying kid actors staged a school shooting or 9/11 is a hoax is fake news

How do you know it is fake news?? 

How can you know that the article is false without taking other articles into account?

 

 

Do you know the case of the 91year old Mexican Immigrant that got a brick in his face? What can you say about this, what is fake news and what is not?

Why did the Woman throw a brick in his face?

 

[asus killer]

9 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

And how do you determine if somthing is real or not?

 

 

i think this works best with real world conditions, even because this is comments on real news and examples and not some theoretical discussion. What do you think of:

 

the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax with actors.

9/11 was a so-called false flag

the moon landings were faked. 

I have no idea what pizzagate is but feel free to comment

 

but comment on it as a all.

 

 

[Stefan Payne]

10 minutes ago, asus killer said:

What do you think of:

the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax with actors.

9/11 was a so-called false flag

the moon landings were faked. 

I don't think anything about that because I don't know.

Or rather I can't know because I was there and there is no way to prove either way.

 

PS: What we know about 9/11 is that the russians tried to warn the US Authorities wich ignored the warnings....

 

10 minutes ago, asus killer said:

I have no idea what pizzagate is but feel free to comment

Child prostitution ring that used codewords, in wich allegedly, the Clintons might have been involved in.

 

10 minutes ago, asus killer said:

but comment on it as a all.

The Point I was trying to make is that you don't know wich one is real and wich one is not.

It is impossible to know for an outsider 

 

SO it comes down to who do you want to trust or who pays the best money.

 

But watch the Video!

Tim already made some of these points.

[Sir Asvald]

On 13/07/2018 at 2:13 PM, huilun02 said:

Wait people still use Facebook?

Wait, people still comment on people whether still using Facebook?

 

Yes people do still use Facebook, it might not be for you but people still use it

[Godlygamer23]

On 7/13/2018 at 10:59 AM, sanfilippo12 said:

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.

They're already doing that by enforcing Community Standards, just like this forum does. I don't think that makes anyone a publisher, but if you want to post on someone's website, they can absolutely have their own rules and change whatever they want, even if they inevitably produce an echo chamber. But then again, that already occurs on Facebook anyway.

[GilmourD]

35 minutes ago, asus killer said:

i think this works best with real world conditions, even because this is comments on real news and examples and not some theoretical discussion. What do you think of:

 

the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax with actors.

9/11 was a so-called false flag

the moon landings were faked. 

I have no idea what pizzagate is but feel free to comment

 

but comment on it as a all.

 

 

Just sum it up by saying that fake news simply isn't based in verifiable fact.

 

As far as your PizzaGate example, it was purported that Hillary Clinton was involved in a human trafficking ring selling children out of the basement of a pizzeria in DC. For one, the building that houses that pizzeria doesn't even have a basement and that has been factually verified, thus PizzaGate is a prime example of fake news.

[asus killer]

14 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

 

9/11 example.

 

It's real to say it was an attack on America perpetrated by a group of fundamentalists. These are the real news. People don't have to agree with news, they are the way they are. 

 

Now. If you have an opinion, those are opinions not facts. You are allowed to your own opinions not your own facts.

 

Further. If some day someone proves 9/11 was a hoax of some type, those will be the real news. But only then.

 

[Bcat00]

On 7/13/2018 at 8:57 AM, 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?

Your point stands but i've seen first hand from those i thought were quite smart taking these fake news articles as real. 

 

 

[Drak3]

Trusting Facebook (or Google) to filter "fake news" is pure stupidity.

[Syntaxvgm]

3 hours ago, asus killer said:

i am going out on a limb here but i would say fake news are news that aren't real, like fake as in the opposite of real. I can use it a sentence if it helps: saying kid actors staged a school shooting or 9/11 is a hoax or that linus hates sandals are all fake news

Twisting the facts in a way that benefits your agenda is also fake news, where one can lie by omission, or even use surface statistics. 

Per example of the top of my head- assault rifle deaths in america are an inflated number because more people kill themselves with rifles/shotguns than handguns. They are an "assault rifle victim". Also any incident with a gun withing a several mile radius of a school is classified as a school shooting by some statistics. Armed robbery at a  gas station down a street? School shooting. The right does this a lot more than the left of course, just these examples are easier to come up with off the top of my head. 

Now, where do you draw this line? Did they know the nuances or flaws to the studies they quoted and knowingly use it to mislead? Or did they take it at face value and right something they interpreted from it with the belief that these are the facts? Is bad research fake news? 
 

Here's a better example of taking facts wildly different ways-
Did you know black people commit the most murders by far per capita, and an even greater disproportionate amount of them are in prison compared to other races?

One person could go "Blacks are more violent". Another interpretation is "black people are more likely to be stuck in poor living situations (years of oppression?), who are also more like to live in a heavily populated city, and poor/city people are more violent?" A third view could focus on the relationship to being black and the justice system, our prison system in particular the private prison industry, and the likelyhood to re-offend after going through it. 
Yet another view is to pretend these are "fake facts", which I assure you, is just as fake news as people pushing "black people are incarcerated more therefore black people are violent" agenda. 
Where is the fake news line? Typically, the person in that situation who attacks the racist viewpoint will attack the statistics as being false with no disproof or they may  even acknowledge the statistics are real yet literally call them "hate facts", no joke, and attempt to say you cant ever talk about facts that back stereotypes. The correct thing to do is attack the interpretation of the facts, and fill in the "why". Systematic oppression. Poverty. The prison and justice system. But instead they attack the very real facts, and even acknowledge their legitimacy yet say they cant be used, which means the racist viewpoint, in terms of "fake news", is technically more factually legitimate. The right is good at this, taking good studies from legit sources and spinning them to their agenda. No one says "your interpretation of the facts is wrong", or "here's more to fill in gap" and try to find what was omitted, they just write off any facts that aren't pretty as "fake news" 

This is the problem. This is why fake news is so hard to define. And sometimes you need both skewed viewpoints to find the truth in the middle. Remember, stereotypes are often statistically supported, but it's both wrong to assume anything about an individual based on a group and just because something's true, like crime or incarceration rates, there's a deeper explanation to be found. In this way, factual information is used as a weapon, but is less fake news than the opposition. 

[ivan134]

9 hours ago, Syntaxvgm said:

Wutt? Herp derp. Treat me like what I said was retarted, but dont actually respond to what I said, Genius. 
Way to rephrase that in a way I never said. I'm talking about the morality of censorship, not specifically the morality of "allowing fake news to spread". And 'fake news' is almost up there with terrorism and "think of the children" as an excuse now. Not everyone believes it's anyone's "Moral duty" to police information people share, and many believe undertaking those actions has consequences that outweigh the benefits. I dont give a shit about what facebook is doing, but I dont like when twitter and youtube pick political favorites for example. I can complain about that all I want. I believe that a social media platform should not censor its users. That's my personal belief, and if enough people are of the same opinion, it's our right to pressure these platforms to behave the way we want. Telling people they cannot complain because a company can legally do something is bullshit. Bitching about what they do is our only avenue of change, as I said before, how hard is that to grasp? 
And believe me, facebook will sweep up political leanings it doesn't agree with along with actual fake news. I still wonder how people would feel if left of center politics were censored instead. But, I dont give a shit about FB, so I really have no strong feeling one way or the other there. 

Lmfao @ "morality of censorship". 

[Syntaxvgm]

1 hour ago, ivan134 said:

Lmfao @ "morality of censorship". 

I'm not sure what you find so funny about that.Censorship is typically immoral in my, and many others view. 

[ARikozuM]

Unpopular opinion coming through... You've been warned.

 

Facebook should NOT block Infowars. This is a very dangerous road that I would rather not see occur. Censorship is good when there's a collective and public discussion to do so, but not for any one company or individual to act with. They'll start with this "it's for the greater good" spiel and then they'll attack everything that doesn't fit the motivations. Allowing Facebook to ban Infowars may lead into another attempt of social engineering. 

 

Edit:

Spoiler

 

[asus killer]

6 hours ago, Syntaxvgm said:

Twisting the facts in a way that benefits your agenda is also fake news, where one can lie by omission, or even use surface statistics. 

Per example of the top of my head- assault rifle deaths in america are an inflated number because more people kill themselves with rifles/shotguns than handguns. They are an "assault rifle victim". Also any incident with a gun withing a several mile radius of a school is classified as a school shooting by some statistics. Armed robbery at a  gas station down a street? School shooting. The right does this a lot more than the left of course, just these examples are easier to come up with off the top of my head. 

Now, where do you draw this line? Did they know the nuances or flaws to the studies they quoted and knowingly use it to mislead? Or did they take it at face value and right something they interpreted from it with the belief that these are the facts? Is bad research fake news? 
 

Here's a better example of taking facts wildly different ways-
Did you know black people commit the most murders by far per capita, and an even greater disproportionate amount of them are in prison compared to other races?

One person could go "Blacks are more violent". Another interpretation is "black people are more likely to be stuck in poor living situations (years of oppression?), who are also more like to live in a heavily populated city, and poor/city people are more violent?" A third view could focus on the relationship to being black and the justice system, our prison system in particular the private prison industry, and the likelyhood to re-offend after going through it. 
Yet another view is to pretend these are "fake facts", which I assure you, is just as fake news as people pushing "black people are incarcerated more therefore black people are violent" agenda. 
Where is the fake news line? Typically, the person in that situation who attacks the racist viewpoint will attack the statistics as being false with no disproof or they may  even acknowledge the statistics are real yet literally call them "hate facts", no joke, and attempt to say you cant ever talk about facts that back stereotypes. The correct thing to do is attack the interpretation of the facts, and fill in the "why". Systematic oppression. Poverty. The prison and justice system. But instead they attack the very real facts, and even acknowledge their legitimacy yet say they cant be used, which means the racist viewpoint, in terms of "fake news", is technically more factually legitimate. The right is good at this, taking good studies from legit sources and spinning them to their agenda. No one says "your interpretation of the facts is wrong", or "here's more to fill in gap" and try to find what was omitted, they just write off any facts that aren't pretty as "fake news" 

This is the problem. This is why fake news is so hard to define. And sometimes you need both skewed viewpoints to find the truth in the middle. Remember, stereotypes are often statistically supported, but it's both wrong to assume anything about an individual based on a group and just because something's true, like crime or incarceration rates, there's a deeper explanation to be found. In this way, factual information is used as a weapon, but is less fake news than the opposition. 

OMG what are you ranting about? if what you say are supported by facts then it's real, if not they are fake. What "line"? the line of reality?

Then you can have your own opinion not based on any fact. Why is this so complicated. Why does people have to define "true" and "false", isn't that already a thing.

 

Syntaxvgm is a LTT forum? it is real news.

Syntaxvgm eats cats? It could be true, see is avatar? where is the "fake news line" here? is there a "truth in the middle", does he just eats parts of the cats? could we agree on that. Nice, now really dude stop eating parts of cats that's not ok.

 

see the difference!

 

In your blacks example, facts don't have "views", either blacks do more crimes or not, just see the statistics. News should stop there. Anything else are opinions. If they are a tv host opinions (the kind that has background is economics but he has an opinion on everything from cooking to nuclear engineering) they are bullshit.

if they are some sociology major with years of experience they are his informed opinion, if his not biases, if other peers working in the same field of sociology think like him probably you can trust his opinion not to be true but at least to be informed and not come out of his ass

 

there are "lines" and "views" and "truth in the middle" for opinions, not for facts.

[Stefan Payne]

10 hours ago, asus killer said:

It's real to say it was an attack on America perpetrated by a group of fundamentalists. These are the real news. People don't have to agree with news, they are the way they are. 

Yes, but how do you know that?

How do you verify it?

Just because everyone is reporting on it doesn't make it necessarily true, as we have seen a couple of times in the past. 

 

 

10 hours ago, asus killer said:

Now. If you have an opinion, those are opinions not facts. You are allowed to your own opinions not your own facts.

Well I kinda agree.

But there are oppinions, that are just wrong. Just google "Can my children be friends with people" on the New York Times for example.

 

If you switch both positions around, you see that its an absolutely racist position that is propagated here.

 

 

And there are opinions that people seem to not like and outlets like Business Insider pull back, apologize for it and the one responsible for that article resigning because it was "too offensive", to talk about wheather or not Scarlett Jonansson can play a role or not...

 

 

10 hours ago, asus killer said:

Further. If some day someone proves 9/11 was a hoax of some type, those will be the real news. But only then.

Yeah, but that is a bad example for this discussion because you can send a person to where it happened and take a look at it.

 

There are other instances where the facts are not as clear and are not verifyable by going to the place and leave much to interpretation.

One more recent example is the attack on the 91 year old mexian.

He was attacked, that is verifyable and undoubtably true.

 

But who was the attacker?

Here it gets interesting. Because many news sites either don't mention it at all.

Don't we know who the Attacker was?? Well, some mention that there was a picture taken of the Attacker. And right now there are also some claiming that there was an arrest made in this case...

 

 

Its still not a good example, because we need something where two outlets like Fox and CNN do report something that is like the opposite of what the other claims...

There absolutely are such examples but its too political...

[asus killer]

6 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Yes, but how do you know that?

How do you verify it?

Just because everyone is reporting on it doesn't make it necessarily true, as we have seen a couple of times in the past. 

 

i think there is a misunderstanding there in your part, news aren't news only when they are something you can verify. If the source is purposely lying then the news can be false at it's core. But if you have no way of even doubt it that's still the real news. Until someone disproves it. But then first report wasn't fake news, it was news that latter were discredited.

 

I give you an example: 9/11. The news should report the facts not fiction, so the news is that it was Bin Laden that did it because those are the facts you are presented. That doesn't mean in the future we don't find out it was a hoax but that's besides the point for NOW. But that is true for any news.

 

Another example that Iran contra scandal. It only became real news the US did it when someone verified, until then the real news were that the US had done nothing wrong.

 

But anyone at anytime are allowed to an opinion about 9/11, you can think it was a hoax and present your opinion but that doesn't make it real news, or news would be any lunatic's ranting. The moment someone uncovers the US was the one that planed 9/11 only then with becomes real news it was a hoax.

 

But this is even an unnecessary discussion. When someone was a show that all he does is present an alternative version of events, for every frickin event, and worst just the events you clearly see he dislikes because of is party affiliation and believes resulting from it. You don't have to be a genius to know the guy from Infowars is full of shit. Someone may like to have their ice creams eaten via the forehead but that's a personal choice. Sorry but this is just insane.

 

the guy's lawyer confirmed it in court for the love of god (and he didn't denied it)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4418934/Alex-Jones-s-lawyer-says-s-just-playing-character.html

 

What you said about opinions i agree, some are just so wrong it hurts. A wise man once said opinions are like underwear, almost everyone has one, those that have one, some are ok, some are good, and some are just full of shit.

[Drak3]

So, what's the difference between "Fake news" Info Wars and propaganda machines CNN, Vox, The Young Turks, Samantha Bee, and the likes?

[GilmourD]

2 hours ago, Drak3 said:

So, what's the difference between "Fake news" Info Wars and propaganda machines CNN, Vox, The Young Turks, Samantha Bee, and the likes?

There are no lizard people.

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, GilmourD said:

There are no lizard people.

Sorry, answer we were looking for is "Turn the frickin' frogs gay." Better luck next time.

[Syntaxvgm]

11 hours ago, asus killer said:

 

 

In your blacks example, facts don't have "views", either blacks do more crimes or not, just see the statistics. News should stop there. Anything else are opinions. If they are a tv host opinions (the kind that has background is economics but he has an opinion on everything from cooking to nuclear engineering) they are bullshit.

if they are some sociology major with years of experience they are his informed opinion, if his not biases, if other peers working in the same field of sociology think like him probably you can trust his opinion not to be true but at least to be informed and not come out of his ass

 

I thought you were missing the point up until this. I do agree that there is too much editorialism (lol not a word) in the news. Still, reported as fact with nothing else attached, that example is called fake news. You see people dont just use "fake news" to mean just that, it means any news with a political agenda they dont like that's reporting the facts with huge political slant. And in some cases people use just facts, often cherry picked or simply with a different reason, and will write lies based on them. How people can editorialize the facts is dangerous, or so people think 

[asus killer]

10 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

I thought you were missing the point up until this. I do agree that there is too much editorialism (lol not a word) in the news. Still, reported as fact with nothing else attached, that example is called fake news. You see people dont just use "fake news" to mean just that, it means any news with a political agenda they dont like that's reporting the facts with huge political slant. And in some cases people use just facts, often cherry picked or simply with a different reason, and will write lies based on them. How people can editorialize the facts is dangerous, or so people think 

if you look closely to some American news clips on youtube it's just insane on both sides, it's more "opininews" than news, more opinions than facts. You learn so little it's crazy. A tv station picks a side like they are supporting a sports team and that's that.

And even when they just report the news there is always some biases and opinions mixed in, in the most obvious way, it's like professionalism and shame just don't count anymore.

 

This is starting to influence media outside of the US (the world loves to copy them, for better or worst), at least in my country i start to see it.

[EPENEX]

Trusting news sources is a mistake in the first place. Most of them are highly opinionated and if they use facts, they only use the ones that help whatever political argument they are trying to make. I take what they all say with a grain of salt, and will check to see what other sources say and compare to try to get the most accurate view.