Facebook Pages Spreading Fake News Won't Be Able To Buy Ads (techcrunch.com) 474
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Facebook says it's taking another step against Pages that share fabricated news stories. The company has already been working with outside fact-checkers like Snopes and the AP to flag inaccurate news stories. (These aren't supposed to be stories that are disputed for reasons of opinion or partisanship, but rather outright hoaxes and lies.) It also says that when a story is marked as disputed, the link can can no longer be promoted through Facebook ads. The next step, which the company is announcing today, involves stopping Pages that regularly share these stories from buying any Facebook ads at all, regardless of whether or not the ad includes a disputed link. In this case, Leathern said blocking ad-buying is meant to change the economic incentives. Facebook is concerned that "there are Pages posting this information that are using Facebook Ads to build audiences" to spread false news. By changing the ad policy, Facebook makes it harder for companies to attract that audience.
Get News From Facebook? (Score:4, Insightful)
Going to get really interesting in a year or 2. Can Facebook be a real news source and the Epicenter of the Zuck for President Universe.
The great censoring has begun (Score:5, Insightful)
And any valid potlical opinion 'people' might disagree with will be labeled 'extremist', 'alt-right', 'racist', 'inciting hatred', or simply 'nazi', and disappeared, no matter if it is actually true or not. And whoever controls the censors gets to decide what is true and what is not.
Re:The great censoring has begun (Score:4, Insightful)
That does sound concerning... Of course, you have to wonder where all the cries of fake news would lead. The problem with weaponizing news is that it can be turned against you.
Re: The great censoring has begun (Score:2, Insightful)
Bs, news have always been weaponized, or since the invention of printing press at least. All the news are in a sense fake. So labelling and selecting any of them is just plain old Censorship. Pass your own war propaganda, censor the Huns or Peanuts or the Ruski.
Re: (Score:2)
You are, of course, correct... but the simple reality is that the masses are simply too ignorant and/or lazy to care about whether or not something that they are being told is true enough to perform their own filtering to tell fact from fiction, which is, of course, the ideal.
Censoring is, unfortunately, the lesser of two evils when the alternative is disinformation being widely spread as factual when that disinformation starts to cause measurable harm to society. The instances of this happening are to
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the number of people that do not meet your definition of "educated" is of a sufficiently critical mass that they can easily destroy any society that people who might fit your definition of educated would wish to live in.
Since most uneducated people do not get so far as deserving a Darwin award nomination, the notion that this kind of ignorance would somehow peter itself out over ti
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA. This is a discussion about facts, not opinions.
Re:The great censoring has begun (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, the definition of "alt-right" is evidently "anybody who didn't vote for Hillary". That's because in the minds of Democrats, Trump was so awful that even decent Republicans should have come around and voted for her, as much of the Republican establishment and conservative dutifully did.
Of course, that makes about 3/4 of US voters "alt-right".
Good luck trying to win the next election, Democrats or establishment Republicans!
Re: (Score:2)
I can only speak for myself but from my experience and point of view, the alt-right and alt-left appear to be the extremes of both groups. As you move center, you find the next group that'll vote R or D no matter what the platform. Too much nonsense and there's a good chance they'll stay home. Continuing you find people who are one major and maybe a few minor issue voters. Most likely vote R or D but should the respective person be too light on the major and heavy on a minor, they most likely will not vote.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "alt-left"; the left is what it has always been: socialists, progressives, fascists, and communists (and don't bother trying to argue that fascists aren't leftists, they are).
The "alt-right" is simply a term invented by leftists for people who aren't willing to go along with the Washington elites. That includes a huge number of moderates, independents, and poli
Re: (Score:2)
fake numbers: 46% of US voted for Trump. Not 3/4.
In fact, Hillary got more voters. Real voters, not "fantasy illegal votes".
Re:The great censoring has begun (Score:4, Informative)
Well, the definition of "alt-right" is evidently "anybody who didn't vote for Hillary".
Wrong, quoting Wikipedia: [wikipedia.org]
"The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism. White supremacist[1] Richard Spencer initially promoted the term in 2010 in reference to a movement centered on white nationalism, and did so according to the Associated Press to disguise overt racism, white supremacism, and neo-Nazism."
Alt-right was a term invented by racists to hide the fact they're racist. It's little wonder that alt-right has become a byword for racism and other forms of bigotry used by the far-right.
Trying to change the definition of terms is a tactic favoured by extremists in an attempt to disguise what is ultimately a very distasteful philosophy to most people. The only people who think that Alt-Right refers to anyone who "didn't vote for hillary" are people who are extremely deluded. Also adding to your delusion is the idea that 3/4 voters voted for Trump... when it was Hillary that won the popular vote.
Your kind of revisionism is exactly why normal people, whether they be conservative or liberal, detest the alt-right. You're attempting to outright lie to us, then telling us anyone contradicting you is oppressing you. There's not point in getting upset that no-one outside your echo chamber is buying your absurdities.
Re:The great censoring has begun (Score:4, Insightful)
Dearest, I'm telling you about the way that Democrats are using the term today.
That's the way Democrats are using the term.
Oh, you're so right. Just read Alinsky.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I made a cynical remark about the bigotry and ignorance of Democrats. You fit right in with them.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I made a cynical remark about the bigotry and ignorance of Democrats. .
Oh ok. Because they're all the same. All of them, they're not like all of us. We should get them...
Re:The great censoring has begun (Score:5, Insightful)
> And any valid potlical opinion 'people' might disagree with will be labeled 'extremist', 'alt-right', 'racist', 'inciting hatred', or simply 'nazi', and disappeared, no matter if it is actually true or not. And whoever controls the censors gets to decide what is true and what is not.
It'll not work because every year more and more people are getting pissed off at those that label everything they disagree with as racist, alt right, nazi, etc, and there's already a number of them that you cannot ignore, and this number is growing.
It grew to a point where these people elected president who's a bit of an idiot, out of spite. They say they believe in Trump, but in reality... they just really dislike political establishment, the left, CNN, Clinton's and their breed. More they call people nazis, more quasi anti-fascist groups like Antifa, or whiny racists like BLM that call everybody else racist (even black people that don't agree with them), more power they give to those they oppose.
All attempts to quiet down, censor, and beat other people because their different opinions will eventually die.
Re:The great censoring has begun (Score:5, Insightful)
None of the damaging information on Clinton or the DNC was refuted, nor did they even attempt to refute it. It wasn't fake news, it was real news that the media elected not to cover until it was already common knowledge because events outpaced their ability to contain the flow of information. This move by Facebook and others is simply a move to take back control of the information flow so they can keep the proles from getting information their betters deem they shouldn't have.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Do you still think Pizzagate was real?
Some claims were true, some were very loosely based on leaked emails, and some were outright fabricated. For an example of a loosely based on reality claim, I remember one thing that was posted to Slashdot a bunch of times that claimed that Hillary hated all Catholics. It was based on a private email conversation between two staffers who were discussing a Republican who acted more like an Evangelical than a Catholic, who supposed the only reason he hadn't off
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The great censoring has begun (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is, using the defence of free speech to defend neo-nazis is ultimately self defeating.
You lack imagination.
Firstly, Nazi's are people who want to deny a large number of inalienable rights to people because they have the wrong colour skin or believe in the wrong sky faerie. And we're not just talking about free speech, of your So claiming their having their rights taken away (especially when they aren't) is hypocritical in the extreme. Of your bill of rights, white supremacists and nazis wish to see numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of your bill of rights denied to those they view as subhuman (and I'm assuming that 3 and 10 don't apply to the situation).
And they are completely powerless to enforce their wants until they garner enough support to win elections. The response to them is not to violently shut them down. The response is to intelligently point out how wrong they are. They want to keep a statue in a park. You want it removed. They have just as much a right to ask for it to remain as you have to ask that it be removed. NEITHER of you have the right to violently silence the other!!
Secondly, if the best defence you can think of to justify what a group is saying is that it is literally not illegal to say it, you've defeated your own argument. You've admitted that their points have no merit.
The merit of what they have to say is not a factor. Neither you nor I get to decide on the merit of what anyone else has to say. Stop trying to be a dictator.
Finally, their right to free speech is not being taken away, they wont be arrested for being hateful little shits. However that does not mean everyone else has to listen to their bullshit and silently agree. They're being told that no-one wants to hear their bollocks and to go away (#9 on aforementioned bill of rights). Just because they can say something, does not mean everyone else should be forced to listen.
This is the most self delusional statement I've seen on /.
If a group applies for a permit, is refused, but then wins the right to march in a court of law, then on the day of the march, large numbers of people show up to pelt them with rock, urine and feces, they have in fact had their right to free speech taken away. If you don't want to hear what they have to say, stay out of the park that day, but they do have right to say things loudly in the park. They have just as much a right to speak as people wearing vagina hats.
Next Deletion of Pages Just Like Domain Names (Score:3, Insightful)
It's easy to see where this is heading. Next will be the deletion of Facebook pages that spread so-called fake news. Or anything Facebook finds objectionable.
In the recent past, the simple work-around would be buy a domain name and link to such content hosted somewhere. However, GoDaddy, Dreamhost, Network Solutions, and others have now taken it upon themselves to, in effect, censor content by deleting the domain name associated with any site they find objectionable.
Interesting how many internet neutrality proponents are all for it except when it concerns content and expression they don't like. Seems to me that domain name registrars, DNS providers, co-location facilities, ISPs, communication providers, and network access points should all be considered common carrier utilities and not permitted to arbitrarily block usage nor content unless dictated so by law.
Re: (Score:3)
great! "fake" news without ads (Score:3)
Poor CNN (Score:2)
Now they'll get even less traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
Now they'll get even less traffic.
Well they'll still have their ad revenue, since they're not having their ads blocked because it's fake news.
In this thread (Score:5, Informative)
Conservatives upset that belief can be dismissed on the same basis as was used to submit it.
Libertarians upset that "privatizing truth" is what the free market decided upon.
Liberals upset that moral relativism can be fact checked.
The only winning move is not to use facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
The only winning move is not to use facebook.
Well in that case, check and mate. ;)
Re:In this thread (Score:4, Insightful)
There is another winning move. It's not an easy one to make and occasionally goes wrong, but it's not impossible.
Filter the unquestionably, demonstrably fake news. Forget all the questionable or biased stuff, just focus on the total bullshit that has no basis in reality. Pizzagate, Brietbart articles about churches on fire that photographic evidence incontrovertibly proves to be false, blog posts claiming that the Clintons murdered dozens of people, Euro myths that have been widely debunked since the 1990s.
Set the bar high. Require multiple reputable sources debunking the stories. Fake news is a hot topic, these days you won't have trouble finding them. And then don't ban the speech, just de-monetize it and put a note saying that reputable sources dispute it with links to their debunkings.
Even then, it will occasionally fail, but you can be sure that many reputable news sources will notice and make damn sure that the truth does get out.
If you plan to disagree with this, please include examples where this has been tried and it failed systematically.
Who determines what is fake news? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
funny! (Score:3)
A bit of unintentional humor there, I see.
snopes.com (Score:2)
I've used snopes.com many times but found it behind most of the time. Just today linked from fark.com: "Health professionals report cases where people put sunscreen on their eyeballs to watch eclipse" http://www.foxnews.com/health/... [foxnews.com]
sunscreen +eclipse site:snopes.com - Nada on all variations.
Umm hmm (Score:2)
What about Satire? (Score:2)
What about sites like The Onion [theonion.com] or Ironic Times [ironictimes.com]?
Suck it up buttercup ... (Score:4, Insightful)
... fake news is easy to identify. It's not a matter of bias, it's a matter of fact.
Either something happened or it didn't.
It's not hard.
However, why in tarnation is anybody getting their real goddam news on fucking Facebook?
That's the question.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is basically crazy shit my mom sends me. Back in the 90's when I got nonsense from friends and family, I'd respond with correct information and eventually send them to snopes. In pretty much all cases, these people eventually stopped sending me this stuff. Even if I bail, they continue to recycle nonsense to their friends like a fake new hurricane without levees to stop them.
[John]
Lib-left always feared free uncensored internet (Score:3, Insightful)
Bill Clinton feared the open internet in 1995
http://www.breitbart.com/big-j... [breitbart.com]
> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news
> would be consumed, President Bill Clinton's White House feared
> that the Internet was allowing average citizens, especially conservatives,
> to bypass legacy gatekeepers and access information that had
> previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.
Hillary Clinton whining about an internet "Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function"
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo... [freerepublic.com]
Apparently CNN (Clinton News Network) wasn't winning the battle for hearts and minds, so the Democrats wanted to destroy Breitbart website... Hillary Campaign Vows To Destroy Opposition Website
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08... [dailycaller.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not about fact, but about pushing the PC narrative.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Since the people vetting the ads are almost all leftists, it'd be easy for them to decree something as non-fact."
Just because every utterance from the White House turns out to be a lie, doesn't make fact-checkers "leftist", it just makes the orange Hitler a lying piece of shit.
Re:They're neither "outside" nor "fact-checkers" (Score:4, Informative)
This [washingtonpost.com].
President Trump’s 492 false or misleading claims in his first 100 days ...
Re:They're neither "outside" nor "fact-checkers" (Score:4, Insightful)
Well looking at these facts I see a bunch of claims by Trump that could or could not be tree. Then I see a bunch of claims by the Washington post that say these claim's by Trump are not true. What I don't see is evidence from the Washington Post that can be used to check their facts. So, what we have here is a bunch of unverified claims by the Great Orange being counter claimed by a bunch of unverifiable claims by a failing media rag.
This put the counter claims by the Washington Post exactly in the same frame as those they are saying are false. In other words not worth the web page they are printed on.
Re: (Score:3)
Well looking at these facts I see a bunch of claims by Trump that could or could not be tree.
Care to name a specific one?
What I don't see is evidence from the Washington Post that can be used to check their facts.
You have to check their back-issues. As handy as it would be if they provided links, Trump lies so much that it's difficult to keep up and keep all the evidence organized. That's why I'm asking you for a specific example, so that there is a manageable number to fact-check.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm willing to bet you are neither.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course you are. And then when confronted with jews and women and minorities in real life where you can't simply pretend they're not the very people you claim to represent you simply dump jars of piss on their heads or violently attack them.
Re:They're neither "outside" nor "fact-checkers" (Score:5, Informative)
You know, you fools that keep comparing Trump to Hitler or the "right" to nazi's have no fucking clue what the hell you are are talking about. You are comparing the US government and its president to a system and man that murdered 12 million jews, homosexuals, and other people he found undesirable in most efficient process he could come up with. A man that started a world war that killed over 50 million people.
When your trump derangement syndrome has you frothing at the mouth and pulling bullshit out of your ass like this, then you are one sorry excuse for a human. Go talk to someone that survived one of the real Nazi death camps and compare Trump to Hitler and see what they tell you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A man that started a world war that killed over 50 million people.
Hitler became Chancellor 6 years before he started a war. Given Trump's foreign diplomacy skills he may well outdo him.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You know, you fools that keep comparing Trump to Hitler or the "right" to nazi's have no fucking clue what the hell you are are talking about.
No. Listen carefully.
We are not comparing Trump to Hitler, we are pointing out that there are literal, actual Nazis involved in his administration and in his electoral campaign. And many others who are not literal Nazis, but have supported Nazis or nationalists, or are nationalists, or are just generally awful people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We are not comparing Trump to Hitler, we are pointing out that there are literal, actual Nazis involved in his administration and in his electoral campaign. And many others who are not literal Nazis, but have supported Nazis or nationalists, or are nationalists, or are just generally awful people.
You mean, the same Trump whose first foreign visit was to Israel, and whose daughter is Jewish, is a Nazi sympathiser? While your side keeps shouting praise of a vile theo-political ideology who literally (in the real sense of this word) tend to have "death to Jews" on their flags?
You're like Putin whose propaganda went all out towards equating Ukraine with Pravyi Sektor when it had 1 parliament member. Of the two sides of American politics, it's the left whose mainstream politicians give support to a vio
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, the same Trump whose first foreign visit was to Israel, and whose daughter is Jewish, is a Nazi sympathiser?
Symapthiser isn't the word I'd use. But he associated with them and fails to condemn them when given the opportunity, because he knows that distancing himself from them would damage his base. A lot of his support comes from the far right.
He's a businessman. He doesn't care who they are, he cares about winning. If their goals align with his, that's all he cares about.
Re: (Score:3)
Symapthiser isn't the word I'd use. But he associated with them and fails to condemn them when given the opportunity, because he knows that distancing himself from them would damage his base.
You mean, like this [go.com]?
Even if he didn't, I'd blame your Dear Leader for this only once I hear Hillary and Bernie condemning BLM. To the contrary, they keep singing praise.
Re: (Score:3)
Not even the people he was condemning believed it was a honest statement. That's one of the problems with President Lies-a-lot Trump, he lies so frequently and about so many things, big and small, that only his most ardent die-hard supporters believe anything he says until he backs it up with actual action. Trump condemns the groups so that people like you will have something to believe in. The real Trump is the "violence on many sides" Trump, who tried to turn a murder by a white supremacist into victim blaming.
This is why you can't debate people with Trump Derangement Syndrome. As soon as Trump is mentioned they loss all contact with reality and start frothing at the mouth, screaming, and ranting. "Trump Bad Trump BADD." All logic flies right out the window. There sense of reality is so warped they simply can't get past it. Some of these fools are even blaming the hurricane on Trump.
Here is some news from you suffering from TDS. We are going to be just fine. Here is what Trump will probably be. A medio
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't that I can't. It is that I'm not going too. Your illness, TDS, will not let you see anything positive at all about Trump. Trump could end world hunger, bring world peace, and solve the budget by shitting gold bricks and you would still find something to rant "Trump bad ... Trump bad" about.
Nixon got us out of Vietnam and Trump saved us from Hillary.
Re: (Score:3)
And you can keep your whataboutism - we're discussing Trump here, not whatever phantoms you wish to deflect criticism of "your guy".
How exactly is Trump "my guy"? For starters, the last time I checked, I'm not in America. Nor am I a right-winger in any way. I'm just responding to AmiMoJo, pointing out which side of the American fence is more similar to the Nazis. At this point, what you guys are doing is not just pot calling the kettle black, it's pot calling a slightly dirty refrigerator black.
My family had some unpleasantries with actual Nazis. My paternal grandma was raised in a family with 8 kids, 6 of which (adult at the time)
Re: (Score:3)
We are not comparing Trump to Hitler,
Yes, Yes you are.
it just makes the orange Hitler a lying piece of shit.
Re: (Score:3)
The original quote comes from the original post that I responded too.
Re: (Score:2)
Do we have to wait for the chimney's to smoke?
Not calling out a fascist racist leader, when you need to, is like a reverse Godwin.
Re: (Score:2)
The irony is that the people calling trump and everyone to the right of the khmer rouge a nazi are the ones who actually commit real world violence against jews and marched by the millions behind a convicted jew-killing terrorist.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing with comparisons is they are comparisons, not direct equations. When someone points out the language and approach of someone is similar to those used by someone else, they are not saying these people are exactly the same in every way. By your logic it's impossible to draw attention to fascistic bent because until they are actually self-proclaimed fascists with their own flag and identity, you will dismiss any and all criticisms.
Re:They're neither "outside" nor "fact-checkers" (Score:5, Funny)
You know, you fools that keep comparing Trump to Hitler or the "right" to nazi's have no fucking clue what the hell you are are talking about.
Yep, the Trump-Hitler analogy is right off.
There's no way Trump is capable of writing a book.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Hitler gassed 6 million people. Counting the Taco Bell incident, Trump's only gassed a couple dozen at most.
Actually, Hitler gassed or otherwise murdered 6 million Jews. Conservative estimate that Hitler also murdered at least as many homosexuals, gypsies, and those he considered "defective" in some manner. This is why I quote the 12 million number, instead of the 6 million.
This is what sets me off when people compare anyone to Hitler. They really don't know what kind of monster he was. That is why everyone needs to sit down and talk to a survivor of the camps while they are still around.
Godwin's law c
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They're neither "outside" nor "fact-checkers" (Score:5, Insightful)
Facts don't have a political slant, but collections of facts do. By choosing which facts to present, you can shape the narrative to support a particular position or weaken support for that position. For example, you might:
And so on. The problem is, all the sources of news are so skewed in one way or another that people don't know who to trust anymore. Clearly, some sources are particularly bad, and filtering out that noise is a laudable effort, but without a quality source of news to replace it, I fear that the void will just be filled by more noise.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is, all the sources of news are so skewed in one way or another that people don't know who to trust anymore.
That's not true. For example, the BBC goes to great lengths to present both sides of an argument. In fact the BBC has been criticised for it, because some people feel that they give fringe views only held by a small number of people too much weight in comparison to more mainstream ones.
No news outlet is going to track down every random conspiracy theory just to get "all sides", but there are some who so present a mostly unbiased description of events and the opinions of those involved.
I don't want to go too
See? (Score:2)
As soon as you say that "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." someone tries to hide the truth by modding it down.
Basically proving the point.
Re:They're neither "outside" nor "fact-checkers" (Score:4, Insightful)
Since the people vetting the ads are almost all leftists, it'd be easy for them to decree something as non-fact.
They're vetting themselves.
Citation?
You see that is generally how fact checking works, it isn't purely an opinion, it is an opinion based on cited sources.
Re:They're neither "outside" nor "fact-checkers" (Score:4, Informative)
Since the people vetting the ads are almost all leftists, it'd be easy for them to decree something as non-fact.
It seems that many people on Slashdot have been afflicted with outrage blindness when they read something upsetting because they never seem to read the part that would otherwise defuse their outrage.
These aren't supposed to be stories that are disputed for reasons of opinion or partisanship, but rather outright hoaxes and lies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They're neither "outside" nor "fact-checkers" (Score:2)
ASsociated press and Snopes leftists?
Boy what a bubble you must live in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not just biased, but down right dishonest.
Whaaah! We don't have access to our servers, we are being held hostage by the people my wife sold her shares in the company to... but we'll just leave out that fact when we beg for money.
Re: (Score:2)
Totalitarianism.. (Score:3)
And therefore you know why they have selected it?
This is just another 'cut off the funding to anyone who we dont agree with/like/feel share our morality/spoke against us/etc..'
Kind of like the Obama driven banking attack on the 'immorals' isnt it.
Totalitarianist regimes likes to paint their power grabs as 'morality' and 'fairness', oldest play in the book.
The Stalinists did it, the Maoists did it, the Nazis did it.. I have little doubt that the Romans, Greeks, etc etc did it also.
I would be surprised in go
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
'Do you find that most people are "leftists"?'
Compared to him, most people are.
Re: They're neither "outside" nor "fact-checkers" (Score:2, Insightful)
It's correct, the stuff Americans call "left wing" seems like the right wing politics in Europe. Worse, anything centrist gets called Marxism, which is hilarious.
Re: (Score:3)
The right wing also included militarist Japan and Nazi Germany, which apparently doesn't fit into your right==good attitude.
Theocrats have always been in favor of subjugating and/or killing people because of their religion. Monarchists have always been in favor of subjugating and/or killing people because of their country. Libertarians aren't really right-wing as a class. Those in favor of free markets have tended to support subjugation and killing of people in other countries that threatened their pr
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, that kind of left-right division is centuries old, and based on where legislators sat. It may not have been heavily used for a while.
I'd hope that almost everyone was closer to Mussolini in many respects than Stalin, as Stalin was far worse. Mussolini is an interesting case, since he was basically a revolutionary who hated the current government of Italy (a popular opinion then), and switched from left-wing to right-wing as the right wing's chances of overthrowing the government got better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They're neither "outside" nor "fact-checkers (Score:2, Insightful)
The US government is run by right wing extremists. Only now even nuttier farther right extremists want their share.
Re: They're neither "outside" nor "fact-checker (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They're neither "outside" nor "fact-checkers" (Score:4, Informative)
The difference between CNN and fake news is that CNN publishes retractions and corrections.
Fake news isn't about bias, it's about fabricating stories entirely with the intent to mislead and continuing those lies even after they have been exposed. Just being less than perfect doesn't count, and if you think it does then literally all news is fake.
Re:They're neither "outside" nor "fact-checkers" (Score:5, Insightful)
A silently released "woopsy so sad too bad" blurb well after the damage has been done isn't a meaningful retraction or correction, it's a joke at best. Just look at how many people STILL vehemently insist on prosecuting the UVA rape that never was. Or even better look at the AP's institutionalized bias against Israel in all its reporting, as revealed by its own former reporters such as Matti Friedman.
Re: (Score:3)
And at very least, CNN does not continue to repeat their mistaken stories as though they'd never been found to be false.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I'm not a snowflake but my president is.
Re:They're neither "outside" nor "fact-checkers" (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The biggest mistake the president and all his men did was take off the hoods.
Everybody over the age of two has a goddam camera and a connection to a billion people.
Re: (Score:2)
So in your head antifa are fascist? Wut?
Re: They're neither "outside" nor "fact-checkers" (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't be silly, you know what he meant. The hilarity is he is correct....I grew up in communist state and they used to scream 'fascist, nazi' against all 'enemies of the people'. It is absolutely the worst offence imaginable. /. than old time Russia. And if I look at a more mundane site e.g. YouTube the situation is nothing short of disastrous.
What is even more unimaginable is that western societies are having that kind of discussions ATM. You have no idea how crazy this is for people with my background...
All of this only reaffirms my conclusion that:
1. Western governments are the same self serving greedy totalitarian asses as the so-called communists
2. Western people do not have developed sence of freedom in stark contrast of their professed beliefs. You guys love 'might makes right' and you love oppresing others in your society. I see more totalitarian minded people on
Shame, shame, shame....
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You make a good point. God forgetting to put "Thou shalt not fuck children" explains the Catholic Church pretty well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And wow, now I'm getting downmodded for wanting someone to demonstrate the veracity of their assertion.
Re: (Score:2)
If it happened then citations should be forthcoming.
Re: (Score:2)