Mark Zuckerberg Says Fake News on Facebook Affecting the Election Is a 'Crazy Idea' (fortune.com) 232
A lot of questions are emerging about Facebook's role in this year's election cycle, especially given the proliferation of sensationalistic and even outright fake news stories, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has responded. From a report on Fortune: "I think the idea that fake news on Facebook -- of which it's a very small amount of the content -- influenced the election in any way is a pretty crazy idea," he said on Thursday at the Techonomy conference in Half Moon Bay, Calif., just two days after Donald Trump was elected president, according to media reports. "There have been hoaxes on the Internet, there were hoaxes before," he said. "We do our best to make it so that people can report that, and as I said before, we can show people the most meaningful content we can."
Show us the data (Score:5, Insightful)
He is in a position to obtain and have analysed the data - not just about whether the fake stories and lies are a "small proportion" of FB's content, but just how much that "small proportion" gets liked, reposted and commented on. Being a small proportion is meaningless if it is influential. And it is the influence that these fake stories have, not the quantity of them, which is important.
One could also say that The Washington Post reaches only a small proportion of the world. But Zuckerberg considered it worth buying.
Re:Show us the data (Score:5, Informative)
Not to detract from the rest of your post, but it was Jeff Bezos who bought The Washington Post.
Re:Show us the data (Score:5, Insightful)
To be blunt, what Zuckerberg "thinks" is irrelevant.
He knows its irrelevant because they tried to bias the content against trump and for hillary, and it still didnt work.
Re:Show us the data (Score:5, Informative)
Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News [gizmodo.com]
Facebook Unblocks DNC Email Leak After WikiLeaks Accuses Them of Censorship [mediaite.com]
just two that I quickly found
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Show us the data (Score:4, Funny)
Which is worse?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, because you can't beat industrial scale clickbait networks and clickfarms. For every buck made by Google and FB on ads, Russians exploiting the internet advertising networks can make two, and only a small amount of profit for arbitrage goes to the 3rd tier players and guys with captive marketplaces.
This is "The King is Naked" fact of the online ads industry. Ad industry really dislikes people digging in their rigged audit reports. I myself once worked for a private ad marketplace and was made to sign a
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly you are wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
He is hiding his income and taxes
Keeping private is not "hiding". Are you "hiding" your phone number? No? Post it then.
He clearly hates non-white
That's not what his black employees say, nor just that mesh with him picking Omarissa [vanityfair.com] years ago to win The Apprentice (which also meant he would have to work with her).
non-straight non-male people
Trump is the most pro-gay GOP candidate [conservativereview.com] there has ever been, far better for the LGBT community than Hillary would have been.
As for women, well if Trump hates women so much why did he keep hiring them to lead his campaign [dilbert.com], including the last one that led him to victory?
He incites violence.
Sorry I'm having trouble seeing the Trump violence over Portland burning, and the fake protestors the DNC hired to mess up Trump rallies.
He knows next to nothing about anything.
And yet he still won, so obviously what he does know is how to find and hire the right people who do know how to accomplish things.
That he's a child molester?
Claimed just before the election, and we are supposed to believe that.... meanwhile Hillary was covering for Bill having sex with under-age females for decades. Don't see you very against that you monster.
Re: Clearly you are wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
And his VP is most anti-gay. Just wait.
Yes I would agree (Score:3)
However, would you agree with how his goals are accomplished? For example, this election was aggressively hostile and almost completely devoid of substance.
True of both sides, so I would say Trump did what he had to to win. There was no other way - two other Republicans tried and were steamrolled by a Democratic candidate and press that were "aggressively hostile". You didn't want a campaign like that, you should have voted you wanted a submissive candidate.
He frequently threatens to sue as a tactic to i
Hearts and Minds (Score:2)
He won the system, not the hearts and minds of the majority of Americans voters.
True enough, no-one did - Trump and Hillary had equal numbers of votes within the counting margin of error, but the large majority of people did not vote for either. He didn't win their hearts but apparently they also do not dislike him any more than Clinton or they would have acted.
But that did not matter because the contest was not for "hearts and minds" it was for the presidency - hearts and minds can be won over a longer p
Re: (Score:3)
The major urban areas voted overwhelmingly for Clinton.
Not all of them. Trump did very well in major urban areas of the rust belt.
In fact if you removed California, Trump overall received over two MILLION more total votes than Hillary. He did better with minorities and women than other Republican candidates before, and managed to get a crossover vote of around 20% Democrats in some key states.
He clearly in fact won over a LOT of hearts that were not swayed before.
It's a shame you can't admit the truth just
Re: (Score:2)
While I would like to see Trump's tax returns, I would be happy to trade not knowing that for a president who values privacy. Well, one can hope.
Re:Show us the data (Score:5, Interesting)
The burden of proof is on the person doing the accusation.
It is not up to Zuckerberg to show that facebook did not influence the elections.
It is up to the people accusing facebook to show that the fake news influenced the elections.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since the same fake news in the rest of social and conventional media were visible, then you are saying "It is up to the people accusing the 'media' to show that the fake news influenced the elections."
And frankly, despite the horror and pain this will cause, if the media had been honest (and the DNC not been complicit in primary vote and convention rigging), Hillary would not have been nominated. And Trump would not have been nominated either. Part of a pretty big influence.
But, fortunately, this has worke
Re: (Score:2)
And frankly, despite the horror and pain this will cause, if the media had been honest (and the DNC not been complicit in primary vote and convention rigging), Hillary would not have been nominated.
Please explain how the media were not honest here. You realize, don't you, that it was the media, the New York Times as a matter of fact, [nytimes.com] which first broke the story on Secratary Clinton's use of a private email server. And it was that very same media which went on and on about Clinton's email issues, right up until the very end of the campaign. According to Media Matters, using data from the Tyndall Report, reporting of Hillary Clinton's email issues eclipsed all other reporting combined on any other is [mediamatters.org]
Re: Show us the data (Score:3)
A third of the minutes spent on Trump (and those largely neither neutral nor positive) were spent on the email issue.
Not that volume is the proper measure. None of the MSM presented the issue as a criminal act, though that is an obvious conclusion when the statements of the FBI director are considered, nor did they present it as a reasonable issue to be investigated, but at every opportunity chose to describe it as either a minimal problem or a partisan attack.
Reasonable people may argue for last point, b
Re: (Score:3)
Liberals want something convenient to blame because they can't accept the fact that there is a huge core of this country between NYC and LA that's not on-board with their SJW agenda. These are the states that got left out of the economic boom, populated by people who the Democrats don't seem to give a shit about anymore (unless they're minorities or women). And people in those "flyover" states are sick of smug liberals calling them stupid and racist when they complain about how free trade and immigration ar
Popular vote is just trivia ... (Score:2)
I remind you that Trump actually lost the popular vote ...
The problem with the popular vote argument is that its just trivia. Neither candidate was going for the popular, both were going for the electoral. Both allocated time and money for the electoral. If the popular had been the goal then they would have allocated time and money very differently and we would have a very different popular vote as a result.
Its like the losing side in a football game saying we moved the ball more yards. Yes, but such yardage wasn't the goal. If such yardage had been how a game wa
Re: (Score:3)
This should be modded up. Furthermore, many Republicans in California and Democrats in Texas don't even bother as they know it's a foregone conclusion. Basically, if things were different, they'd be different. But they aren't.
No mandate with 0.2% difference (Score:2)
Popular vote creates a mandate.
Not when the difference between the two candidates is 0.2%. The popular vote is effectively a tie. Its even a closer tie than Bush/Gore where the difference was 0.5%.
Re: (Score:2)
I remind you that Trump actually lost the popular vote
Has it been fully tallied yet? If so can I get a link to the final results?
Quit looking for scapegoats (Score:2)
And it is the influence that these fake stories have, not the quantity of them, which is important.
Democrats lost this election because the DNC screwed it up at every step.
Anointing the most unpopular candidate they could find instead of letting voters select one.
Encouraging people to vote for Trump in the primary.
Organizing protests against Trump that backlashed by motivating his supporters.
Ignoring states that would decide the election.
Spending too much time talking about issues that aren't relevant to most voters (e.g. Hillary's glass ceiling instead of the economy)
Re: (Score:2)
What they didn't do is yell "Trump's going to take away your Medicare". That's the surest way to win any election.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's why the stories have influence, which is important. I give zero fucks about anyone's measurements of the influence itself.
You can frame it as a problem with a particular website, or you can frame it as people-enjoy-lying-and-being-lied-to. IMHO the former is worthless way of looking at things, and the latter gets us closer to diagnosis.
No, not fake news (Score:4, Insightful)
Fake news on facebook did not effect the election. It was the people stupid enough to believe them.
Re:No, not fake news (Score:5, Insightful)
Fake news on facebook did not effect the election. It was the people stupid enough to believe them.
I have several friends who are Trump supporters, and a lot of them posted some of the most ridiculous stuff from non-credible news sources (think "less credible than InfoWars"). I wouldn't call any of them geniuses, but I wouldn't call them stupid either. Were they gullible and guilty of wishful thinking? Sure, but definitely not stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
OK. People don't need to be actually stupid and you put it into much better words, but it's still not something you can blame facebook for.
And I would prefer if ou could (technically fake also) satire stories on fb without having to nerf dem down with the infamous sarcasm tag
Re: (Score:2)
OK. People don't need to be actually stupid and you put it into much better words, but it's still not something you can blame facebook for.
The problem is with the blame Facebook theory is even if they didn't believe these types of stories, the people I know who were Trump supporters NEVER would have voted for Clinton.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not even that would have been neccessary. They could have changed the outcome also by staying home.
Re: (Score:2)
The one election-related Facebook post that sticks in my memory was from OccupyDemocrats. Can't remember it well enough to quote it verbatim, but it was roughly, "If Hillary were found in the parking lot of a 7-11 in the Middle East trading blowjobs and state secrets for crack cocaine, I would still vote for her over Cheeto Hitler." I guess that sums up "the lesser of two evils" for some people. Personally, I didn't see it as a choice between two evils, but as a choice between two unacceptable alternatives.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you realize NYT is less credible than InfoWars?
Yep. Especially their poster child Paul Krugman [nytimes.com]. Claimed that the markets will never recover, then this happened [npr.org].
Re: (Score:2)
That couldn't possibly influence a majority opinion...
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Only if you're more keen on finding an easy target to blame.
Pointing at facebook is much easier than starting to educate people.
Next step. Sue him for something. Anything. But it's easy taking a crap shot at someone with deep pockets.
Re: (Score:2)
Just out of curiosity, would we also have lost had Clinton won? Or would that have been a win in your book? Truly curious, not trying to pick a fight. Disclaimer: not a Trump supporter.
Re:No, not fake news (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I can answer that. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were the best and most qualified for the highest office among all living Americans at age 35 or above. Nobody else is smarter or otherwise better equipped for the highest duty for his country, or else why would they have become presidential candidates in the first place? So there can be no loss either way. President Trump represents the best that America could possibly offer right now in terms of what voters and the electoral college think, directly followed by H. Clinton who won the popular vote. Not even Chuck Norris would have been better suited to become the next president of the US of A, which is why even he himself advertised for Trump. If you pardon me this French phrase, Trump and Clinton are both the creme de la creme of American society.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I can answer that. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were the best and most qualified for the highest office among all living Americans at age 35 or above....If you pardon me this French phrase, Trump and Clinton are both the creme de la creme of American society.
I refuse to accept that...[insert diety here] help us all if I am wrong -- something we'll never know. Or, do we already know?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I can answer that. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were the best and most qualified for the highest office among all living Americans at age 35 or above. Nobody else is smarter or otherwise better equipped for the highest duty for his country, or else why would they have become presidential candidates in the first place? So there can be no loss either way. President Trump represents the best that America could possibly offer right now in terms of what voters and the electoral college think, directly followed by H. Clinton who won the popular vote. Not even Chuck Norris would have been better suited to become the next president of the US of A, which is why even he himself advertised for Trump. If you pardon me this French phrase, Trump and Clinton are both the creme de la creme of American society.
Did you hold your nose while typing that?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a demonstration of the gulf between Left and Right in America, and actually in the entire world.
The mainstream Left is absolutely convinced of their correctness. Their leadership I will not grant such standing, for I believe the leadership of the Left is merely seeking power at the expense of the rest of us.
The Right is also absolutely convinced of the correctness of their intentions. They differ primarily in that they do not react to rejection with rioting, fires, and threats of murder. They regrou
Re: (Score:2)
The Right is also absolutely convinced of the correctness of their intentions. They differ primarily in that they do not react to rejection with rioting, fires, and threats of murder. They regroup, attack each other as the cause of failure, and fail to respond to the Left's absolute dominance of education, media, and culture.
Is this snark of some sort? Because AFAICT, the Right is throwing their fine morals overboard and lining up behind their unwanted candidate, and their involvement with rioting and fires and threats of murder were all threats made _during_ the election, not in response to it.
But the Right has a different goal, and theirs permits individual liberty.
Also, are there a lot of hate crimes against people on the right just now? I guess technically the hate crimes aren't against people on the left, since it's challenging to visually distinguish that kind of thing. It's just those perfo
Re: (Score:2)
Are there a lot of hate crimes? It's hard to distinguish between all the fake news, the biased "real" news, and shit that is shared on social media without any citation or evidence... If there are a lot of hate crimes, is it more than usual? Can it be attributed to Trump for the vitriol he spouted during the campaign? Is Hillary free from guilt despite inciting hate on the other side of the political aisle? I cannot blame Trump for what others do in response to his election. Nor can I blame those who voted
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The mainstream Left is absolutely convinced of their correctness.
Which is why they doubled down on the candidate they knew would win.
A woman president, how can she lose! We don't need an independent socialist, he's not a real democrat anyway. I know we're right, ignore anyone that says otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking right now of that exchange between Eros and Trent in "Plan 9 From Outer Space". (After an election that would have made Ed Wood say "Naaahhh, nobody would believe that.")
As someone of a conservative/libertarian/federalist/"#NeverTrump since 1980-something" bent, I have a bit of an inclination be fine with the left continuing to run around, hair on fire, shrieking "HITLER RACIST HITLER BIGOT HITLER HOMOPHOBE HITLER SEXIST HITLER HITLER HITLER"; it isn't exactly the sort of behavior that's going
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-Hillary posts [...] caught in the web of lies and hate
Nothing about Clinton's 40 year record of corruption, the blatant nepotism that jumped started her political career, and the ongoing felonies she committed by dodging FOIA requests and public records law? It's all "lies and hate".
Trump had a pretty bad record himself, an epic poorly run campaign, a rich guy which voters are traditionally hugely hostile towards, and he ran his mouth and posted all sorts of crap to Twitter. A normal candidate without the huge negatives of Clinton would have walked all over
Facebook affected the election. (Score:4, Insightful)
As did E-mail, Twitter, Reddit, Instagram, Snapchat, IRC and I bet a Usenet server somewhere too.
Welcome to the Internet where people can share any information, real or not.
As it always has been, as it will be going forward.
The DNC had the opportunity to control online discussion but decided to correct the record against Sanders supporters. [imgur.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Where are those mod points when ya need them...?
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying the problem with people getting false information off the Internet is that social media is a source of information.
Thank you, Sherlock.
Re: (Score:2)
As did E-mail, Twitter, Reddit, Instagram, Snapchat, IRC and I bet a Usenet server somewhere too.
Welcome to the Internet where people can share any information, real or not.
As it always has been, as it will be going forward.
The DNC had the opportunity to control online discussion but decided to correct the record against Sanders supporters. [imgur.com].
And I'm pretty sure one or two votes were also impacted by television and printed material. Also, let me correct this for you slightly... "Welcome to Earth where people can share any information, real or not."
Re: (Score:2)
The DNC had the opportunity to control online discussion but decided to correct the record against Sanders supporters. [imgur.com]
You know, this is the second or third time I recall seeing that very same JPEG linked, but with the names and images blacked-out, it's impossible to tell who said what. Are you claiming a staffer from the Democratic National Committee made those comments? How do I know those comments weren't originally from, say, a group of cross-dressing rodeo clowns?
If you're going to use online comments to make a point, you might want to choose comments you can attribute to someone we actually care to hear about. Onli
social media site (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish more people had the time and/or inclination to fact-check what they believe and pass onto others.
No kidding. Maybe then I wouldn't receive so many texts, emails, and FB posts warning me about the latest faux virus that will destroy my phone.
"Caveat emptor" doesn't only apply to things you purchase.
Re: (Score:2)
Zucks is crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
Zucks is crazy if he thinks fake news couldn't have impacted the election.
Maybe it didn't change who got elected, but it probably did affect a handful of voters. There are some stupid people out there, and some intelligent people who get fooled, and some average people out there who might be impressionable.
Nonetheless, I guarantee you some people voted differently based on fake news they read. It might not have been a large %, it might not have impacted any state or federal level elections; however, some small local elections on a knife edge where just a handful of votes make a difference... maybe it did.
Even if someone recognizes a fake news story as fake when they read it, if it is pillorying someone, it might make that person subconsciously think slightly less of that candidate, and less likely to show up to vote. (even if it didn't do enough to make them change who they would vote for).
We're all impacted by what we see, read, and hear. Even if one article doesn't change our mind, reading 20 (some of which might be fake) could. I'm sure both presidential candidates lost votes because of untrue stories.
I thought Americans had freedom of speech... (Score:2, Insightful)
...Yes, freedom of speech which includes the freedom to say what may certainly be irrelevant, inaccurate or plain wrong to a particular situation.
has anyone ever followed the State Department's press conferences? I am sure that for those who have, its provision of "nonanswers" to difficult questions exposed the hypocrisy and utter disregard for the ordinary American.
One regime we support is "allowed" to humiliate some human beings, but if the regime isn't what we support, we condemn and sanction!
The trouble
Echo chamber, not "fake news" (Score:2)
It's not so much a direct result of the viral news & posts that get passed around social media, but the echo chamber people find themselves in.
Was it Facebook 'wot won it'? [bbc.com]
Now you could say the same filtering has always applied - liberal people tended to read liberal newspapers, conservatives got their views reflected back in what they read.
The difference was that most editors have tried to do two things - present at least some alternative views and make sure that the facts in any story stand up to scrutiny.
Neither applies on Facebook. The News Feed algorithm serves you up whatever it thinks you and your friends want to believe and it certainly does not do any fact-checking.
Stories that accused the Clintons of murder or maintained that Barack Obama was a Muslim will have cropped up in the feeds of millions of people inclined to support Mr Trump.
This cuts both ways - a made-up quote from Mr Trump saying in 1998 that he might one day run as a Republican because "they're the dumbest group of voters in the country" is still being widely shared on social media by his opponents.
Both the Democrats and Republicans have long made ample use of Facebook - indeed it was the Obama campaign of 2008 that pioneered the use of social media in elections.
But for a Trump campaign that saw much of the mainstream media as hostile and biased, both Facebook and Twitter offered a powerful way of getting its message direct to voters unchallenged by any pesky journalists.
Questions... (Score:2)
Liberal Press Still Lying by Omission (Score:2)
“Why would you think there would be fake news on one side and not on the other?”
http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/z... [nypost.com]
FB is social media (Score:2)
If he denies a problem exists... (Score:2)
Bias is bias (Score:2)
If Facebook manipulates the news feeds, they are creating a bias. Zuckerberg's assessment is is biased as well. This isn't news.
What is he supposed to say? (Score:2)
What is he supposed to say? "Oh yeah, the fake news on our site swayed the election"?
So, Zuck... (Score:5, Insightful)
I was considering purchasing a bunch of ad impressions and various social-media astroturf to promote my product on your 'Facebook'; but I hear that it is 'crazy' to believe that Facebook has any influence on audience beliefs or behaviors.
Please clarify.
Sincerely, Your Customers.
'Crazy Idea' ? (Score:2)
Crazy like a Fox ... News. :-)
As usual (Score:2)
its just crazy stuff people are focused on. Real questions are things like how is Trump going to disassociate himself with his commercial interests? Will executive branch meetings in washington be held at the new trump hotel, Mar-o-go? What happens if an occupy trump movement starts and picketeers block access to trump properties? Does the national guard come in to kick them out? What happens if say Irish people in Ireland picket the golf course and shut it down. Does US retaliate against Ireland because th
Proof (Score:2)
Is fake news anything beyond annoying? (Score:4, Interesting)
For once I agree with him (Score:2)
It's just an information channel.
If people are stupid enough to believe it, it doesn't matter if it arrives by FB, telegram, or pigeon.
Granted I'm a small sample size.. (Score:2)
But in reviewing all of the folks I have in contact with that are in the Trump camp, and researching at least 5 of them in the last 24 hours they are misleading at BEST!
Washington Post, republican leaning but that was the best of the bunch. The rest were outright distortion and lies.
The one I backtracked about a white guy in Charlotte getting beaten at a protest back in September was barely covered by any other media outlet, except the right wing ones across the globe with no depth or context. I finally fou
Re: (Score:2)
Ack! Washington Times...
Sorry!!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times#Political_stance
No, of course not (Score:2)
Just like Russia wasn't involved in any of the email hacks. Until they were,
Just like Trump didn't have backroom dealings with Russia because of his business ventures there. Until he was.
There's always an excuse why something isn't what it seems, until it is. Then even more stringent excuses come to the fore.
Besides, Zuckerberg has to say this. His country will be getting billions more U.S. taxpayer money to continue its apartheid policies so he can't appear to be influencing the U.S. election through deli
My experience (Score:2)
Otherwise normal, functioning people post, like, and share lots of garbage to Facebook that can be refuted with 30 seconds worth of checking as long as it supports their position or candidate. When I linked contrary evidence, people were angry. They don't care that their quote was misattributed or that documents or videos contradict their assertions. "Hey, I just liked it. I don't even know who this person is. Why are you even commenting here?"
I have always taken it as a given that people want to know
Flat out fucking liar (Score:2)
This coming from the asshole that said in the beginning that people using his service were fucking idiots due to how much info they put out. So it can't be anywhere unreasonable to assume to know his fucking effect on this election cycle given how many 'fucking idiots' are using his service.
Excuses, excuses, excuses (Score:2)
I wasn't a huge fan of Trump, but seeing the ongoing deluge of whining, excuses and accusations from the mainstream media regarding the election results is wonderful entertainment. I like Trump a little more every day.
The media has always been slightly biased toward the left, but the degree of anti-Trump bias in this election was absolutely jaw dropping. They shed every pretense of neutrality and objectivity, went all-in for Hillary Clinton and they still ended up on the losing side. This relentless delu
Mark Zuckerberg is a crazy idea (Score:2)
Mark Zuckerberg is a crazy idea. Fake news on Facebook is true as everybody knows, unless they are crazy.
Mark Zuckerberg is ether a fool or an idiot (Score:2)
One thing that I did find out: when you discover the “hate/false” posters (usually through other friends posts) and try post a correction about the inaccuracy: They will block you; and you will not be able to see the
I've certainly seen anecdotal evidence (Score:2)
Suggested Links (Score:2)
I found links to debunking sites in the Suggested links of a post. Those were very helpful.
I'm surprised this is being asked,... (Score:2)
If anything, the vast vast majority of information I've encountered online is extremely pro left, facebook, twitter, news articles. It is exceedingly difficult to not stumble across article upon article how ghastly Donald Trump is, be it lies, truth or 'opinion posted as news' which is all too common.
I can't stand either of them, but the amount of misrepresentation I saw of Trump online was so intense and so vehement, frankly I'd have to agree with Zuckerberg, for different reasons. It's clear that whateve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I can name names (Score:2)
I think that kind of thing is precisely the opposite of what we need. People who say that it's your civic duty or that it is patriotic to vote are wrong. I think that if you don't take the time to educate yourself about the candidates and the issues, then the responsible thing to do is to not vote at all.
Personally, if I see a name that I don't recognize on a ballot, then I won't vote at all on that office, I'll just leave it blank. I'm just not going to give an endorsement to somebody that I don't even kno
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well aside from that whole 35 year old requirement for President...
Re: (Score:2)
Eat a bag of dicks, Zuckerberg, you elected Trump.
And when I posted real news stories during the primaries I got to have my record corrected. The DNC, against all polling, decided they wanted their queen to make it to the general. And they got what they wanted.
Re: Click Bait (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll make you a deal: You can be pissy about misleading news coverage on Facebook after you call out the rest of the media for not pointing out that "if you like your insurance/doctor, you can keep your insurance/doctor" were obvious lies.
Re: (Score:2)
No deal...
Because it's not just the news, it's what you do with it.
If you happen to be a group of folks trying to get Universal HealthCare (WHICH EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIAL COUNTRY HAS!).. (hold on... Got wipe off my screen...)
Then perhaps some errors or lies are understandable in context but frankly that sucked too. Unfortunately the core issue is a lack of compromise on (ANYTHING!)
Damn... I need a squeegee...
Re: (Score:2)
I'll make you a deal: You can be pissy about misleading news coverage on Facebook after you call out the rest of the media for not pointing out that "if you like your insurance/doctor, you can keep your insurance/doctor" were obvious lies.
I'll make you a counter-deal -- if I can find an example of the media pointing out problems with "if you like your insurance/doctor, you can keep your insurance/doctor", you'll admit that there might be a problem with misleading news on Facebook, yes? Here we go:
Even back in 2009, ABC News [abcnews.com], and FactCheck.org [factcheck.org] were asking tough questions about the Obama administrations' statements on health care reform. In 2013, Politifact awarded the claim, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it" as its 'Lie o [politifact.com]
Re: Click Bait (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Fun fact: US healthcare costs have been rising faster than inflation since the 60s.
Fun fact: pooring out of the health insurance market left some of us with only the ACA as an option. Now that's rising in cost because:
Fun fact: a republican congress decided to starve what they couldn't kill outright, leading to higher costs to insurers
Fun fact: US health care is among the most expensive in the world, and we aren't the healthiest by far-- for example, we don't live any longer than poor people in Cuba.
Fu
Re: Click Bait (Score:3)
Availability or the number of people who have insurance has no validity as a metric on quality or affordability of healthcare.
Insurance is the problem with healthcare in America. Forcing people to buy the problem isn't going to fix healthcare. Subsidies on the problem isn't going to fix healthcare. Just because you are paying for the problem doesn't mean you are entitled to or receive any better healthcare than anyone else.
Paying for the problem doesn't make healthcare cheaper, it makes it more expensive
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hold up a second there, professor. In what way were Trump and his supporters NOT called out by CNN and the rest of the media? Jesus christ, the ENTIRE 6 month run-up to the election was nothing but Trump-bashing, and unabashed Hillary worship. Every time I went to CNN, MSNBC, BBC, or any of the literally hundreds of other political/news/current event sites around, I would see headlines heralding Trump as the second c
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, here are the actual numbers:
2016 - Trump: 60,071,650 (47.5%) Still counting with approximately 9.5 million untabulated votes remaining
2012 - Romney: 60,933,504 (47.2%)
2008 - McCain: 59,948,323 (45.7%)
2004 - Bush: 62,040,610 (50.7%)
2000 - Bush: 50,456,002 (47.9%)
Most of your point remains. The media couldn't possibly have been more in the tank for Sec Clinton.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya know what, I think I'll just blame Trump for what he is, and the stupid assholes who voted for him for what they are. I'll just blame the media for too much horse race, not enough issues.
Re: Click Bait (Score:2)
Exactly. I really don't think Facebook played that big of a role. It's already been established that people on Facebook tend to form a social bubble where they're only exposed to their own ideas. So if those voters were seeing pro Trump messages, then it's very likely that this is already what they wanted to see to begin with.
How did Viagra effect the election, and does FB (Score:4, Funny)
> "I was for this candidate until I heard he say this......" then sent you to a random page for Viagra
How exactly does Viagra spam effect the outcome of the election?
I know many people say they voted for Hillary based on her genitalia, is it related to that?
Re: (Score:2)
I find it amusing that they "check your privilege". They really oughta check their own. The majority of them are a lot more privileged than a lot of middle America.