Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Rejects Trump Bias Claims (bbc.com) 428
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has dismissed comments made by Donald Trump that the site has always been against him. From a report: The US president accused the social network of "collusion" on Twitter, branding it "anti-Trump". He made the same claim against the New York Times and the Washington Post. Facebook will shortly hand over 3,000 political adverts to congressional investigators probing alleged Russian meddling in the US election. The site believes the ads were probably purchased by Russian entities during and after the 2016 presidential contest. Facebook, Twitter and Google have been asked to testify before the US Senate Intelligence Committee on 1 November about the allegations of Russian interference. Mark Zuckerberg has made it clear in the past that he doesn't like Donald Trump -- or at least, his policies. "This statement shows frustration, I think. Not just with the president, but at the atmosphere swirling around Facebook at the moment -- commentary that is painting it as a burden on the electoral process, and maybe even on society as a whole. He's trying to show all the good -- as he sees it -- that Facebook has done.
All the good Facebook has done (Score:3, Funny)
...crickets...
Re:All the good Facebook has done (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
My email inbox is no longer clogged with pictures of cats.
Don't forget racist uncle rants and chain letter forwards from twice removed cousins.
To be fair... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The ads helped him get elected. He wouldn't have become president without those ads.
See, that there is the hand waving part. Evidence needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Came in for the Trump Derangement Syndrome posts. Found it in the first dozen.
Re:To be fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a political centrist... The left are psychopathic children trying to destroy America... The right are honorable people trying to do what's best for their beloved country... I see this all from my unbiased mountaintop...
Centrist? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
When I look at the political right, I see them acting maturely, honorably, and in the best interest of the nation.
Yes. With our mature, level-headed leader in the White House tackling all of the most important issues, what could possibly go wrong? Not meaning to Troll, just wondering WTF you're smoking. I want some.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well I think I'm a centrist (maybe?) ... its hard to say given the extremes both sides of the spectrum can get these days. What is 'in the middle' these days? I really don't care much for either political party and am pretty much done with both. My views are more libertarian, in that I will fight tooth and nail against any infringement of civil liberties and the constitution even if that means having to live with perceived 'injustice' if the corrective action tramples another's rights in the process. The wo
Re: (Score:2)
Well I think I'm a centrist (maybe?)
You do realize we can read your other posts, right?
Like that one, minutes ago, [slashdot.org] where you quote articles claiming they show how "ads were plugging Black Lives Matter, Hillary's widespread support, and similar topics" and "If those messages helped get Donald Trump elected, why are all the Democrats colluding with Russia?".
When the very articles you "source" report COMPLETELY OPPOSITE.
I.e. They were literally posting fake ads in order to defame "Black Lives Matter, Hillary's widespread support, and similar top
Re: (Score:3)
What is 'in the middle' these days?
Liberalism is the belief that personal behavior should be left up to personal preference, and that business interests should be regulated for the public good. Conservatism is the belief that personal behavior should be regulated for the public good, and that business interests should be left alone because this is the fashion in which they allegedly operate in the public good.
Regardless of how you feel about these positions, it's possible to make relatively objective judgements about how other people feel ab
Re: (Score:2)
How so? Or do you think centrist = leftist?
Re: (Score:2)
How so? Or do you think centrist = leftist?
In the USA, that's the situation that resulted from corporate influence on politics. It's madness to pretend that there is no difference between the two parties, but they are depressingly alike in some ways which are extremely relevant. Members of both parties take money from many of the same groups, for example, and for the same reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
"No, you're an anonymous coward."
- No, the name is 'Anonymous Coward'. The political affiliation is theirs to choose and define.
"What, the right side????"
- Unexpectedly insightful from you, until you define the 'right side' as Republicans. It should be obvious by now that the Republican leadership (I call them the GOPe) no longer acts as a right-wing movement.
"You mean like NAFTA, the agreement negotiated by President George H. W. Bush?"
Even GH made mistakes. Though I believe NAFTA hasn't been so bad, since
Re: (Score:2)
Given that the border security is obviously (by their own words and actions) proven to be anathema to the Left, and the obvious effects, our current President, being a non-Leftist, is acting consistently with a non-Leftist philosophy and pursuing improved border security.
If your long-term national security plan is border security then you have already failed, especially along our southern border — as Mexicans (&c;) have already demonstrated the ability to go over, under, through and around a broad assortment of barricades. And as long as we keep bombing other countries, whether literally or just figuratively with hostile policy, we're going to keep seeing people trying to come here for a variety of inconvenient reasons. And now that the western lifestyle has led t
Re: (Score:2)
Let's face it, the real goal of those advertisements was to create division. Now, I'm not saying that without all those Russian advertisements, the election wouldn't still have been divisive. Both Trump and Clinton are polarizing people. But the advertisements stoked the flames, as it were.
Because Russia wants a weak West. Honestly, Putin probably would have preferred Clinton in office. (No, hold on, let me finish.) Because if that had been the only election day difference, the GOP would still have control
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, Putin probably would have preferred Clinton in office. (No, hold on, let me finish.)
No. But you can pay out just enough rope to hang your ridiculous idea.
Because if that had been the only election day difference, the GOP would still have control of both the House and the Senate. Clinton would be unable to get anything done, and come on, the calls for her impeachment would have started the day after the election.
Putin doesn't want nothing to get done. He wants nothing good for America to get done. Trump has failed at lots of things, but he also has got lots of other things done — all of them bad for us, and most of them consequently good for Russia.
Clinton was the status quo candidate, and even the status quo was better for us than this shit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trump has failed at lots of things, but he also has got lots of other things done â" all of them bad for us,
Actually you are very much wrong on just about everything you said here. Trump hasn't really failed at anything but his timing on a lot of things. He has gotten a lot of good things done, and nothing really bad for us in any way. What I mean by US, I mean the USA. I honestly don't know where you are posting from. Might be Iran or NK for all I know. So, things Trump is doing might just be bad for you.
Once you pull the TDS blinders off and examine what Trump is doing for the USA, you will actually se
Re: To be fair... (Score:5, Interesting)
An you are also quite wrong on everything you said.
The pissing match between NK and the US has been going on for 60+ years. Trump is handling it just fine. It is not Trump that is lobbing missiles over Japan and treating to set off nuclear weapons in the Pacific just because he can.
Yes, health care reform is moving along fine. Your very own post proves my point. The ones that have been tried are pretty bad so they have not passed. Which is why they are moving along just fine. Nice and slow, just as it should be for something as important.
Trump has condemned white supremacists and nazi's over and over. Just a few days ago he signed a bill from Congress condemning it. Turmp's position on the issue, along with the Supreme Court, Congress, and every other rational person in America is disgusting as they are, white supremacists and nazi's have just the same rights as everyone else. The right to assemble and the right to free speech.
That silly law has been waved already, but you probably didn't know about that just like you didn't know about the above mentioned bill did you? So yes, Trump is doing just fine here, too.
As for the economy snowflakes where panicking that the economy would tank soon after Trump took office, which it hasn't. In fact when he did take office the number went up instead of down. New jobs are being added and the economy is growing. So again even with Trump at the helm we are doing just fine.
As for his appointments, again he is appointing but Democrats in congress are blocking. He could do better but it is what is is. Even then we are still doing just fine.
So you see, even your doom and gloom is basically all hogwash. We are doing just fine.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you really that stupid that you think Seoul matters anymore? Of course you are. Your Trump Derangement Syndrome won't let you see it any other way. Let me explain this to you and I'll try not to use any big words so you will understand it.
For the past 20 year American presidents have been playing with kid gloves with North Korea, all because of Seoul. Sanctions, treaties, and bribes to get the North Korean leadership to give up a quest to get nuclear weapons. North Korea broke every agreement
Re: (Score:2)
You must have missed the memo reporting that a lot of these ads were plugging Black Lives Matter, Hillary's widespread support, and similar topics.
If you put a bumper sticker on a car, everyone sees it. But if you place a targeted ad on Facebook, it's (theoretically) only shown to people with a given interest. If you put a "Trump That Bitch" bumper sticker on a car, it both emboldens Trump supporters and galvanizes resistance, however trivial. People go out and get their own bumper stickers, for example. But if you put a "Black Lives Matter" advertisement on Facebook and aim it at people who have shown interest in "Blue Lives Matter" then you're going
To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] (Score:5, Informative)
except that it is.. http://nypost.com/2017/09/27/r... [nypost.com] Even admitted to by CNN itself, which you can watch live here http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/2... [cnn.com]
According to the link you posted, it said that the Russians trolls purchased ads purportedly plugging Black Lives Matter "to stir up fear and cause political chaos in Baltimore and Ferguson, Missouri, during the 2016 presidential election." That was the very first sentence in the link you posted. These ads were not "Democrats colluding with Russia," they were Russians attempting to foment discontent and disruption.
Further down in the link you posted: "The ad, which was first posted in late 2015 or early 2016, appeared to support the social justice movement — but sources said it could also be seen as depicting it in a negative light. “This is consistent with the overall goal of creating discord inside the body politic here in the United States, and really across the West,” explained Steve Hall, former CIA officer and CNN National Security Analyst.... In addition to the BLM posts, sources told CNN that the Russians were pushing ads that promoted gun rights and the Second Amendment — as well as warnings about undocumented immigrants."
In other words, they looked for the issues causing division in America, and hammered on them.
Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, they looked for the issues causing division in America, and hammered on them.
Which is NOT the same as "supporting Trump." And it's something that the Russians have been doing for decades, long before Trump came along. And they're still doing it, right now, here and in many countries around the world. But all liberals can say in order to explain away their terrible choice of a losing candidate is that somehow it was Trump working with the Russians on this. It's laughable.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a slashdot thread until someone says "WELL, actually..."
Congrats comrade, you're technically correct, the best kind of correct!
And it's something that the Russians have been doing for decades
Well, expect for that large gap from the late 80s to the mid-aughts, but sure!
And they're still doing it, right now, here and in many countries around the world.
But all liberals can say in order to explain away their terrible choice of a losing can
Re: (Score:2)
not the late 80s. I enlisted in 1989 and there still was a USSR. It wasnt until the 90s when the soviet union collapsed. I was actually surprised when it happened. After that it seemed like the new Russia was going to be our friend. We foot most of the bill for the International Space Station, because we were concerned that former Soviet scientists would, in need of work and food, help countries like Iran with missile development. So we foot the bill and had them build the ISS instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is NOT the same as "supporting Trump."
Sure it's not bro.
Pushing agendas which favor one candidate, while slandering and defaming the other either directly or indirectly is a clear case of "fine people on both sides".
Or was that "violence on both sides"?
It's getting hard to keep up with nonsense that orange cunt spouts out of that shithole of his.
Or the level of delusion pathetic excuses for a brain holder would sink to in order to support such a colossal racist cunt lording over them.
What a bunch of cucks. Laughable indeed.
Also, FBI is clearly
Re: (Score:2)
Trumpism is purely about identity politics on steroids.
Right. His sort of identity politics is based on what people do and say, how they act and what they proclaim. Whereas the left's long standing embrace of identity politics is entirely about putting people in boxes based on their DNA. So you've got his identity politics, which says "If you identify as being regularly shit on by crushing regulatory burdens, irrational trade agreements, people willing to cheat and lie and sneak across the border in order to cut ahead of honest immigrants and get generous enti
Re: (Score:2)
No, Trump's identity politics is based on white skin. It's the politics of white grievance. To Trump, white supremacists are "some very fine people" and black NFL players engaged in a quiet and respectful protest are "sons of bitches". It's not a dog whistle any more, it's a klaxon horn.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To Trump, white supremacists are "some very fine people"
This crap is getting old too. Do you even know what a white supremacists is? Do you even have a clue what their agenda is, other than what huffypost has told you? I bet you really don't.
Why don't you educate yourself a little. White supremacists don't just hate people of color, they hate Jewish people more than they hate people of color. To their narrow minded view all evil springs from Jewish origins. Even black people.
Trump has a number of Jewish people in his family. His grandson is Jewish.
Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] (Score:4)
And again you are wrong. Everything I said is perfectly relevant. You really should to keep things in context. I am well aware of what Trump said, just as I'm aware of what he meant when he said it. The "fine people on both sides" comment had nothing to do with nazi's or white supremacists. What it had to do with was the arguments about civil war monuments and the riots that happened at the time in Charleottesville. He was stating there are fine people on both sides of that argument. It had nothing to do with nazi's.
As for his views on white supremacy Trump just signed a resolution condemning it. Pretty much should be enough even for you.
Re: (Score:2)
That is maybe the most accurate and succinct description of the Trump agenda ever written.
That is very specious. All candidates attempt to divide the electorate with the intent that the division puts the majority on their side of the divide. That for example was a desired consequence of Hillary calling Trump supporters "deplorables" - to split the electorate into two sides and, as the strategy tried, to either support her, or be a member of a deplorable group. Division and politics go hand in hand.
Re: (Score:2)
isn't that exacty what I said? It wasn't about rigging an election as much as it was creating a shit storm within society.
Re: (Score:2)
This same shit happened in my country, but the real reason was to divert public attention from politicians looting the treasury. It's not always the dasterdly Russians at the door. What I love the most is that there is actually no proof.
Go into any court in the world and say "probably" and you are going to be shown the door, but in the court of
Who bought it? (Score:2)
This same shit happened in my country, but the real reason was to divert public attention from politicians looting the treasury.
What country is that?
It's not always the dasterdly Russians at the door. What I love the most is that there is actually no proof.
Go into any court in the world and say "probably" and you are going to be shown the door, but in the court of public opinion it's proof enough.
Since we haven't seen the ads nor the evidence that they were Russian in origin, I can't offer a definitive opinion, and neither can you-- but it would be my expectation that yes, Facebook is able to track down the origin country of people purchasing ads.
Re: (Score:2)
South Africa - here [timeslive.co.za] is an article about it, but to summarize, politicians and a politically well connected family were facing increasing media attention about controversial contracts and hired a British PR firm to attempt to distract everyone from it. They were fueling the already high tensions regarding race and wealth distribution.
I wasn't, because
Re: (Score:3)
LOL! Are you really ankle deep in your own ass?
Ad supporting Trump = RUSSIANS SUPPORTING TRUMP!
Ad supporting Hillary, Black Lives Matter, etc. = RUSSIANS SUPPORTING TRUMP BY SUPPORTING THE OTHER SIDE!
Re: (Score:2)
He's right. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
When they announced they were going to invent a real-time system to catch 'fake news' and delete it I became awoken to yet another fear. What makes them the purveyors of what is 'Real' and what is 'Fake'. Suddenly they now delete anything remotely anti-facebook in agenda. If Facebook decides for themselves that they want a total ban and confiscation of guns, and they delete every pro-gun post and inflate the anti-gun posts, they will claim that 90% of america is for the removal of guns. Its worse than State
Re: (Score:2)
Never look in the mirror at midnight and say 'APK' three times.
Re:He's right. (Score:5, Interesting)
Hive mind.... good analogy.. and by such its reasonable to suggest that if that 'hive mind' started to 'think' a certain way, the Hive would accept this 'new way of thinking' and make it 'their' way of thinking as individuals. Maybe these 'Russian entities' are onto something in respect to 'thought control' by using Facebook ads to brew a civil war.
Re:He's right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Faceobook is kind of like the collective hive mind of America
Facebook is a complex tool designed for psychological manipulation. Its entire purpose is to build profiles of individuals that can identify the levers that can be used to influence their opinions and then sell access to those levers. Considering it as a passive entity is woefully naive.
Re: (Score:2)
Even worse, it takes advantage of the 'go with the crowd' types (aka most of FB users) and then tell them the crowd thinks X. Suddenly they change their view to X, believing that everyone else does too. In reality its possible that hardly anyone thought X was right, but now that _everyone else_ supposedly does (ie nobody) it now becomes their opinion too.
He IS right, and it was admited in 2016 (Score:2)
Although for the same of full disclosure we don't have a meme or anything like that directly spells this out in plan terms that this was happening. But what we do have is dozens of news stories from about May last year there it was discovered that unnamed Facebook employers were artificially manipulating the 'Trending' feed for their own political bias. While Facebook did try to denying this happened they still completely and publicly announced that they would change the way trending is down to get tide o
Re: (Score:2)
You know how I know more people hate the head Cheeto than like him?
I saw it on Facebook!
Re: (Score:2)
If he stayed the hell off of Twitter his damn approval rating would not be so low. Twitter is a medium for dimwits and halfwits, those who cannot write persuasive argument papers and lack the fluency to support statements with evidence, reason, and facts. Facebook is no different. How much can you really say in 150 characters without pissing off half or more of everyone who reads it? If I were to post that I decided to have pancakes instead of waffles without any explanation as to why, via twitter, I'd have
Re: (Score:2)
If I were to post that I decided to have pancakes instead of waffles without any explanation as to why, via twitter, I'd have half the world convinced I was anti-waffles and promoted their extermination; simply because I said I was picking one and not the other.
Well of course they'd believe it, being a self-confessed member of the Waffle-SS!
Breakfast-Nazi!
Strat :)
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary's #s?
You choose to ignore that the Ds nominated the worst candidate for president in recent history. Why did they do that?
No Bias? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, we're not the ones who chanted "lock her up".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No Bias? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt that 80% of users dislike Trump, considering 40-50% percent of users voted for him.
Re: (Score:2)
Why just the Russian ads? (Score:5, Insightful)
By turning over only the Russian ads, they've basically already confirmed Trump's accusation of bias. If you only look for roaches in the kitchen [wikipedia.org], you'll only find roaches in the kitchen. Doesn't mean there aren't roaches in the rest of your house. And for all you know the kitchen may actually have the fewest roaches.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
By turning over only the Russian ads, they've basically already confirmed Trump's accusation of bias. If you only look for roaches in the kitchen, you'll only find roaches in the kitchen.
What other nations do you suspect of attempting to bias the election via facebook ads? I'm sure if you make a credible claim, someone will be glad to look for that.
Re:Why just the Russian ads? (Score:5, Informative)
Israel, you blind idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Well there is evidence Alexandra Chalupa, a DNC contractor, worked with Ukraine to influence the election.
Sounds good. Let's look for that, then.
Whats that? Actual EVIDENCE of foreign interference with our election? But it was the party of bigotry, which you support
Let me just stop you there, son. You seem to think that I like the Democrats. I only dislike them less than the Republicans. I am registered as an independent. When you get done making assumptions, you can try again. Hint: check out my posting history here on Slashdot, where I slam Clinton and the DNC again and again — though never with the notion that I would prefer Trump, or the RNC. They're all shit, and some are slightly less shit than others.
Re: (Score:2)
If you only look for roaches, you will still find some evidence of rats, ants, and any other infestations.
On the other hand, if you only look in the kitchen, you are unlikely to find the dragons living in the basement.
Re: (Score:2)
If the concern is foreign actors meddling with the U.S. election, shouldn't Facebook be turning over to Congress all political ads purchased on Facebook by foreigners for viewing in the U.S.?
They are turning over the ads that were requested by the congressional investigation.
Re: (Score:2)
There is evidence that Russia was involved. Is there evidence any other foreign actors were involved?
Re: (Score:2)
They can't. These people aren't identifying themselves as foreign agents; they're using false fronts. Facebook has learned who the Russian false fronts were, but nobody knows who the others might be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I said. They helped Trump win, because they thought he would be better for THEM, i.e. worse for the US.
Also, hopefully you did realize that those fake groups "supporting" the left like AntiFa Boston were actually trolling to whip up division and tension, which again was seen to be beneficial for Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I said. They helped Trump win, because they thought he would be better for THEM, i.e. worse for the US.
They (the Russians), just like everybody else running every other country - including this one - along with all of academia, pretty much all of the press, and certainly the lefty establishment including Clinton herself ... were convinced SHE would win. Right up through election night. The Russians were simply doing what they ALWAYS do. Everything they can to make sure that whoever gets elected or holds power in a country that is an adversary of theirs is weakened by internal strife, busy dealing with domes
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I don't think the Russians were really trying to help trump, I think it was a byproduct not the intent. I see 2 possible motives/goals. 1) brew up hate and discontent to weaken a society. 2) revenge against Hillary Clinton . I think that both were achieved. The ads, which seem to target multiple groups even those never likely to vote trump, succeeded better than one could EVER have imagined in goal #1. Even the discussion about the tampering is even dividing the country, its like a positive feedba
Re: (Score:2)
Says the anonymous coward with a sack so small he's considering gender reassignment. I bet you have to sit down to pee don't you?
New Hampshire [Re:Why just the Russian ads?] (Score:2)
Ask people living in New Hampshire about how fake those claims are. Every election, you'll see hundreds of cars with MA plates driving around polling areas.
I take it you've never been to New Hampshire. In New Hampshire, when it's not an election you'll also see hundreds of cars with MA plates driving around. And hundreds of New Hampshirites incessantly complaining about them.
They literally bus in voters.
If they bus in voters they wouldn't need cars with MA plates, would they.
So which is it? (Score:2)
Zuck also said that it was "crazy" idea that fake news on Facebook influenced the election.
(http://fortune.com/2016/11/11/facebook-election-fake-news-mark-zuckerberg)
Now he's being asked to hand over 1,000 ads that may have influenced the election.
So which is it? Were you in denial earlier, or just plain incompetent?
Facebook is a mirror (Score:2)
I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find groups of Trump supporters within the service if someone were so inclined to look.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't agree. There is plenty of evidence that FB will delete any far right nutjob in a millisecond but take weeks or months to get around to taking down Islamic State recruiting videos, or Antifa crap. If you're going to have a no-hate-speech rule, it needs to be enforced 100% the same regardless of who posts the content. Even Nancy Pelosy, someone who I don't have a lot of respect for, has admitted that Antifa is a hate group and themselves behaving in a fascist manner. Its no different than defending an
Re: (Score:3)
Do you think that, broadly speaking, "left wing" groups are quicker to complain and seek sanctions on their opponents than "right wing" groups?
I'm kind of inclined to believe this, and it might account for some of apparent bias the "average" user not closely linked with "left wing" or "right wing" groups might see on Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
probably purchased by Russians? (Score:4, Insightful)
what the hell does "The site believes the ads were [probably] purchased by Russian entities .." mean? Either there is clear evidence that <madeupname> Nikoli Polityetski </madeupname> purchased an add that linked back to an account with the Bank of Moscow, or there isn't. To say that any anti-clinton add _probably_ was purchased by Russian entities, and no body else, is nothing but hearsay and speculation. I hope its not a 'probably' but instead a clearer link than that. Otherwise this is nothing but Jury tampering before a trial (figurative or literal, whatever the case may be)
3000 ads doesn't really seem like a large number to me. I'm pretty sure the 3 or 4 days right before any election, I see nearly that many ads of all the local political races like judges, magistrates, city council, etc. And why is it that most of these articles make it look like all the Russian tampering was pro-trump, when just a day ago there was another article that suggested that these 'Russian entities' were buying a lot of pro Black Lives Matter, as well as anti-immigration ads, in equal amounts. That article suggested these 'Russian entities' where deliberately trying to divide the populace and create racial tensions.
Here is a link to one of the papers re-capping the information. http://nypost.com/2017/09/27/r... [nypost.com] Ironically the NYPost cites sources at CNN, which I went back and watched the video with Wolf Blitzer, and yet CNN keeps beating the "Russians cheated to get Trump elected" drum.
Re: (Score:2)
>Either there is clear evidence that Nikoli Polityetski purchased an add that linked back to an account with the Bank of Moscow, or there isn't.
How difficult do you think it is to have a Russian purchase ads through a proxy so the cash appears to come from an American source and the customer name on the invoice is an American individual or company?
The method for tagging the ads as 'Russian-purchased' needs to be examined. Personally, I believe it's far more likely than not. I also believe that doesn'
Re: (Score:2)
dont even get me started on legal loopholes. Since when is intent required for prosecution? IE the supposed intent to distribute classified information to unsecure recipients. She sent classified email in plain unencrypted text to here insecure, public, email server, then lied, lied, lied again, deleted, and lied some more that there never was classified information in the first place. After all that coverup and lying, suddenly we get the 'we wont proscute because even though she's a complete bumbling idiot
Re: (Score:2)
> She sent classified email in plain unencrypted text
Why the wall of text about somebody who isn't POTUS? Hillary's irrelevant to whether or not there are sufficient grounds to investigate wrongdoing by Trump.
Yes, FB is anti-Trump (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Confirmation Bias there Mark? (Score:2)
One problem with "self analysis" is that you are prone to the logical problem of "confirmation bias". You are going to see what you want to see.
If you start out biased, then try to investigate if you are biased or not, chances are you will discover that you are NOT biased. The only way Facebook would find themselves biased is if they had set out to be biased up front and agreed to admit to it.
I don't think they set out to be biased and didn't intend to favor one side over the other, but I do believe that
Re: News at 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
"We have investigated ourselves and found that we did nothing wrong." - Facebook/Police
"Except for that politically biased 'trending news' selection that made the news during last year's election, but we stopped that, honest." - Zuckerberg
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes that Trending sticky header on the top right of Facebook pages appears to be dedicated to publicizing each and every news item that was or is expected:
Anyhow, can anyone tell us exactly which fake news caused them to not vote for Hillary and instead vote for Trump? Was her private email SERVER fake news? Was her involvement in the ousting
Re: (Score:2)
It really more determines on what particular topic was their big hope from Trump. Personally I find him to on track track of the worst president in history. However even a broken clock is correct twice a day, There were some things during his run, I was hoping he would actually accomplish.
1. Infrastructure: He never did much except for one of his weekly science fairs on it. But in the United States we have an infrastructure that needs a large upgrade. Roadways that are not well designed for today traffic
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not everyone who voted Trump is deplorable, but to be fair, everyone who was happy to be voting for Trump is.
Interesting how those who espouse to be all caring and not judgemental are the most judgemental of all.
Re: (Score:2)
If you've been 'happy' to vote for any presidential candidate for the last 100 years, you qualify...
Re: (Score:2)
However Facebook was the biggest provider of Fake news. There was a lot of coverage on why people disliked Clinton and supported Trump. Many cited a Facebook story where Clinton did some untrue nasty thing. (Remember Pizza Gate, where a guy raided a Pizza Store, because he believed the fake news that it was used by Clinton for Child Trafficking)
The thing is Facebook may not had did anything wrong, as much of this was just algorithmic. However after the investigation they found a problem with bias news.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everything the main stream media said about him has proven true.
That explains why they keep having to quietly publish retractions when they get caught, over and over again, straight out lying on the subject.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"What bias? Everything the main stream media said about him has proven true. Trump is a man child with no emotional control, prone to outbursts, ignorance and stupidity. He can't even get his own party under control long enough to pass laws. He has to go to democrats to get enough support to push his agenda"
"no emotional control" - Um, facts not in evidence. Please offer your specific examples.
"prone to outbursts" - Sounds like LBJ. Or Truman. Or Stonewall Jackson. Or Nixon.
"ignorance and stupidity" - Which
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
you do realize the media was trying to rig the election from the beginning right? There was no objective journalism. The hacked DNC email proved they colluded with the DNC to put Hillary into the front seat. They did the same for the Republicans after their first attempt at cherry-picking Jeb Bush fell flat on its face. The RNC voters were already sick of dynasties. When Jeb fizzled out they started helping Trump. It wasnt until AFTER he got the RNC nomination that they went on the attack. It was about mani
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, or maybe there is nothing to it but it makes for a hell of a distraction. Kind of like throwing the IRS under the bus to get everyone focusing on IRS targeting conservative groups while trying sideline the investigation into Fast and Furious, and distract the public so as to ram PIPA and the NDAA through congress. There was never a real desire to reform the IRS process, and in fact the director was thrown a life raft if you recall. With all they hype over the NFL and now the facebook Ads, has anyone
That's how politics works now (Score:2)
Trump will shamelessly sling mud without any regard to truth at anyone or thing he sees as a threat.
Actually, I have to say that this is true of almost every politician.
There may have once been a time when politics may have not meant flinging mud without regard to truth, but it was a long time ago.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Back in the day it was a free-for-all of lying, but in more recent history in democratic nations it's been the culture to avoid getting caught in a lie - so you get politicians who very carefully phrase what they say so they always have plausible deniability - they can say, "No, I didn't say that". And it's been newsworthy when they're presented with proof they did, and sometimes serious affected their careers.
Trump - starting with the inauguration crowd size (though you could also argue back to the birthe
Re: (Score:2)
No person without a mental illness doesn't have one either.
We're all Scotsman (Score:2)
Good luck finding people who don't have a mental illness.
Re: (Score:3)
It's well known that Trump won the election in no small part due to inexpensive, highly targeted Facebook ads.
No, it's commonly ASSERTED by bitter lefty losers who didn't get their queen as promised. She, of course, and her supporters, spent orders of magnitude more money on Facebook ads screeching to the hilltops about the evil and incompetence of her xenophobic, racist opponent. If spending on FB ads impacted the election, all it did was make her lose by less than she otherwise would have.
Re: (Score:2)
When you privatize the public square you also effectively privatize constitutional rights.
It doesn't matter where you are on political spectrum, freedom or expression and exchange of ideas moving to a private digital space should be concerning to you. Not that they would, but Facebook could lawfully require everyone to swear allegiance to the Third Reich and ban everyone refusing, and there is nothing you could do in existing legal environment to stop them. It is way past due to codify digital public spaces in law and extend protections for free speech to cover these.