Facebook allows NASA child slave colony on Mars posts

[TetraSky]

On 7/13/2018 at 8:57 AM, LordOTaco said:

Are they basically trying to tell the individual that they are incapable of doing that themselves

The "individual" has proved time and time again that they are unable to differentiate fake news from real news, resulting is real consequences. (Just think of PizzaGate for example... which was also promoted by InfoWars.)

[Teddy07]

Facebook LOL

It is more like Propagandabook

[Syntaxvgm]

1 hour ago, asus killer said:

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.

This is so true. And even worse when the report the news before the facts came in, throwing out wild speculation just to be first. 

I remember when cnn interviewed that person that was still inside the building after a shooting. These people will try to get phone interviews with people that are still experiencing a traumatic event, and people walking off the scene they shove a mic in their face. Oh god they almost seems happy to have these events happen. 

[Christophe Corazza]

29 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

Oh god they almost seems happy to have these events happen. 

 

It's all about the views... and trauma sells...

[Kamina]

I don't need Facebook to babysit me.

[Syntaxvgm]

6 hours ago, Drak3 said:

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

 

[DildorTheDecent]

I'm glad they're keeping it up.

 

Sounds hilarious. Mega lulz all round.

 

Would be even funnier seeing the single mums taking it seriously. Apex kek would certainly be reached.

[Drak3]

7 hours ago, GilmourD said:

There are no lizard people.

Oh, also.

I understand the confusion with Hillary. I concluded with the her being lizard people thing with that first look too.

 

 

Kappa.

[Syntaxvgm]

6 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Oh, also.

I understand the confusion with Hillary. I concluded with the her being lizard people thing with that first look too.

 

 

Kappa.

her eyes didn't move in sync sometimes. I didn't notice until I look at one of my recorded debates a while ago when I was dumping old footage into handbrake to compress it. She might actually have an eye condition. 

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

her eyes didn't move in sync sometimes. I didn't notice until I look at one of my recorded debates a while ago when I was dumping old footage into handbrake to compress it. She might actually have an eye condition. 

I meant more along the lines of 'she be a drab lookin' bitch' but okay.

[Stefan Payne]

12 hours ago, asus killer said:

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.

exactly that was my point!

You don't/can't know if it is fake news or not. You have to treat all news storys equally.

As long its not blatantly to attack or discredit someone or something or being just awful racist/bigoted bullshit.

 

Quote

The news should report the facts not fiction,

They should.

But nobody does it...

There is always a (confirmation) bias. And when you accept that, you can not discard "the other side" just becaouse you don't like them.

But exactly that is what is happening. What will be happening when the censoring goes through.

 

Quote

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.

We know the mindset of the perpetrator and why they did it, if you are a bit in that religious shit.

What's not totally certain is who paid for that.

But what we do know is that the russians knew/had a hunch and told "the US".

And that is where the conspiracy theorys start.

 

For whatever reasons the US didn't do much with that information.

And now you can speculate because it was incompetence, orders from above, political reasons or whatever.

My guess: All of those but mostly incompetence and political power plays...

 

 

Quote

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.

I like the Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction Storys more.

Because almost all mainstream outlets lied in this ragard because they wanted to go to war with Iraq.

 

Quote

But this is even an unnecessary discussion. 

Yes, because:

a) you can't determine what makes "true news" true and what "fake news" makes fake.

b) censoring is wrong and should not be done

 

That is why its theoretically in every western constitution...

 

Sadly they are not treated as highly as they should.

 

Quote

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.

Agrees.

 

And have you looked it up, what I mentioned?? You don't need to read much. But be warned: It is #NSFL...

And pretty daming for the New York times to have printed this utterly races piece on their Plattform...

[MrDynamicMan]

On 7/13/2018 at 3:14 PM, rcmaehl said:

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

Hi My names Steve Irwin and today we're extractin' some wiiild copper deposits.

[LAwLz]

Good that they are not deleting it.

Facebook is such a massive part of peoples' lives, despite what people who are completely out of touch with reality on here says, and letting them dictate what is and isn't fake news could potentially be extremely harmful.

Control over information is something that should be avoided at all costs. Nobody should have the power to dictate what information people have access too, because it can and will be abused to further ideologies. Just look at China and North Korea for two examples of what happens when information is controlled, and it's happening today.

[ivan134]

26 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Good that they are not deleting it.

Facebook is such a massive part of peoples' lives, despite what people who are completely out of touch with reality on here says, and letting them dictate what is and isn't fake news could potentially be extremely harmful.

Control over information is something that should be avoided at all costs. Nobody should have the power to dictate what information people have access too, because it can and will be abused to further ideologies. Just look at China and North Korea for two examples of what happens when information is controlled, and it's happening today.

The same people who were against classifying the internet under title 2, even though it's essential for people's lives, are now saying Facebook shouldn't censor morons because "Facebook is an essential part of people's lives". You can't make this shit up.

[LAwLz]

16 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

The same people who were against classifying the internet under title 2, even though it's essential for people's lives, are now saying Facebook shouldn't censor morons because "Facebook is an essential part of people's lives". You can't make this shit up.

Not sure if this post is aimed at me or not, since you marked my post as "funny".

I've always been strongly in favor of having Internet be classified under Title 2. Here is an example of my posts regarding the subject.

 

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

Since Facebook has about 2.2 billion monthly users, many of which use it as one of their top sources for news, it is incredibly dangerous if such power was to be abused (it might already be).

[ivan134]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Not sure if this post is aimed at me or not, since you marked my post as "funny".

I've always been strongly in favor of having Internet be classified under Title 2. Here is an example of my posts regarding the subject.

 

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

Since Facebook has about 2.2 billion monthly users, many of which use it as one of their top sources for news, it is incredibly dangerous if such power was to be abused (it might already be).

My bad. I misremembered you as one of the anti NN guys.

 

One the Facebook stuff, that is a false dichotomy. This is like a reverse "too big to fail" scenario, where Facebook's size is reason they're not allowed to choose how to run their business anymore. No matter what they are a private entity and can choose what their brand stands for. The people who don't like it can go start their own (the irony isn't lost on me that the people who are for capitalism with no govt regulations want the govt to tell the one company they don't like, how they can or can't run their business) . People don't get their news from Facebook. They get their news from news publications who are on Facebook. That's like saying people get their news from Comcast or any other cable provider and not the actual news stations. If Facebook closed up shop tomorrow, those people would still have other places to get their news.

 

Fake news is fake news. I'm not sure where this "who determines what fake news is" nonsense came from. Especially when it pertains to Alex Jones. People need to stop acting like words don't have meaning anymore. If something is verifiable, it is true. If it isn't verifiable, it is either false or pending more investigation (and no, we don't need an investigation to know whether there is a child slave colony in Mars).

 

It's also hilarious that people who think anyone to the left of them is a Marxist, communist, Islam loving, sjw libtard are using a platform owned by someone they consider to be all those things and getting mad that his company isn't catering to their lunacy. Still not sure what's stopping these people from starting their own platform.

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

I'm not sure where this "who determines what fake news is" nonsense came from.

The abuse of power that comes from 'verifying and filtering "fake" news,' as Google has proven with YouTube.

 

3 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

People need to stop acting like words don't have meaning anymore.

There are things that don't have inherent meaning, such as:

Fake News

Assault Rifles

Common Sense Gun Laws

Reverse Racism

 

Basically, politicalized topics used explicitly for propaganda.

15 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

No matter what they are a private entity and can choose what their brand stands for.

They can choose what THEY stand for, but if they do it under the guise of "Fake News," they're either going to actively lie to the user (propaganda), or exclude ALL opinion pieces, all politically charged stories, and most on going stories. If they do the latter, all is good.

 

But they won't. To think they will is lying to one's self. Facebook, and all large companies serving media, serve their political agenda over the user if they operate as an effective monopoly.

[spartaman64]

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

[sanfilippo12]

On 7/13/2018 at 11:52 PM, ivan134 said:

Lmao, no. The supreme court isn't going to do shit about this. Trump's case was special because he's the president and that's the platform he chooses to talk to citizens. The president works for the people, therefore he can't block people. Carry on with your wishful thinking though. 

 

Moral basis....of not allowing fake news to spread???? What????

 

No, I meant making stuff up about what constitutes being a platform

Hey. First of all, I’m sorry that it took me so long to respond, my father was readmitted to the hospital. He’s going to be fine, but I’ve been spending a lot of time there. 

 

As for where I came up with the ideas as to as to what constitutes being a platform, here is where I got the ideas:

This is the first article that sparked my interest on the topic.  It was this article that caused me to look into more articles on the topic. 

This article talked a little bit about the blurring of the lines now happening between publishers and platforms.   (What I believe to be a mistake being made by Facebook currently). 

This article I found is 5 years old and talks about the early stages of the controversy.

 

These were the articles that helped to shape my idea of the platform vs publisher debate. 

 

Again, I’m sorry it took my so long to respond, and please let me know if the links don’t work. 

[LAwLz]

12 hours ago, ivan134 said:

Fake news is fake news. I'm not sure where this "who determines what fake news is" nonsense came from. Especially when it pertains to Alex Jones. People need to stop acting like words don't have meaning anymore. If something is verifiable, it is true. If it isn't verifiable, it is either false or pending more investigation (and no, we don't need an investigation to know whether there is a child slave colony in Mars).

It's not that simple. News stories aren't as simple as 1+1=2.

There is a lot of room to twist some facts, highlight particular parts while leaving other parts out completely or just mention them very briefly.

Also, what about those "pending more investigation" claims? Should those be allowed, or not?

[asus killer]

 

12 hours ago, Drak3 said:

The abuse of power that comes from 'verifying and filtering "fake" news,' as Google has proven with YouTube.

 

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

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.

 

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...

[Drak3]

5 minutes ago, asus killer said:

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

It's abuse of power, and it is not the duty of these companies to filter it. It's your duty to fact check yourself.

6 minutes 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...

LTT moderates on the basis of a CoC. Not under the guise of "Fake News." Any online platform can, and should, moderate on that.

 

But not filter news based on "Fake News" that doesn't fit THEIR view.

[LAwLz]

17 minutes ago, asus killer said:

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

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.

 

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...

LTT does not moderate "fake news".

Would you be happy if moderators started deleting posts recommending AMD products if the moderator thought an Intel or Nvidia product was better for some specific purpose?

The moderator might not even be wrong. An Nvidia or Intel product might be better than the AMD product for the purpose discussed, but it is very important to still allow others to recommend the AMD product. If the moderator thinks the Intel or Nvidia product is better then that should be solved through discussion, not through silencing the opposing view and not letting the AMD side respond.

[asus killer]

16 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

It's abuse of power, and it is not the duty of these companies to filter it. It's your duty to fact check yourself.

LTT moderates on the basis of a CoC. Not under the guise of "Fake News." Any online platform can, and should, moderate on that.

 

But not filter news based on "Fake News" that doesn't fit THEIR view.

oh come on, who can fact check every single subject, even here with just a focused content and informed users is difficult let alone in facebook that ranges from but diseases to nuclear weapons?

 

I don't mean labeling every news and some ccftech sources, ok. But it has to have a link, a opinion, if it's stupid is deleted and/or moved out of the news sections. It's enough. I mean someone that doesn't understand tech doesn't came here and read AMD CPU's makes you infertile. You really learn stuff.

And rumors are clearly marked by the ones posting the news for the majority if not all the cases. 

[Drak3]

39 minutes ago, asus killer said:

But it has to have a link

What about primary source news?

 

40 minutes ago, asus killer said:

opinion

Having an opinion does not constitute something as "real news" or "fake news," nor is it even remotely necessary to include them.

 

45 minutes ago, asus killer said:

if it's stupid is deleted and/or moved out of the news sections

By whose metric?