Facebook Exec Admits 'No Real Understanding' for the Scope of Fake News (mercurynews.com) 219
Three executives from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube appeared at Stanford to discuss free speech in the social media age, with one law professor raising concerns about how the online giants are curating their services.
All three tech executives talked about increasing transparency and authenticity. But all acknowledge that nothing is foolproof and political speech in particular is most difficult to regulate, if it should be at all. "That puts a lot of control in the hands of the companies sitting here in term of what kind of speech is allowed to have the global reach," said Juniper Downs, YouTube's global head of public policy and government relations. "That is a responsibility we take very seriously and something we owe to the public and a civil society...."
Facebook is making information available on its platform to researchers to help understand the effect of Facebook usage on elections. Still, Facebook's Vice President of Public Policy Elliot Schrage urged caution. "There is no agreement whatsoever on the prevalence of false news and fake propaganda on our platform," he said. "We have no real understanding of what the scope of misinformation is." He suggested that despite these chaotic times, "I do think we should be pretty modest and circumspect in the approaches we take." Social media companies need to find creative ways to improve the spread of information, Schrage said. But it won't be easy. "No one company," he said, "is going to solve this problem."
Facebook is making information available on its platform to researchers to help understand the effect of Facebook usage on elections. Still, Facebook's Vice President of Public Policy Elliot Schrage urged caution. "There is no agreement whatsoever on the prevalence of false news and fake propaganda on our platform," he said. "We have no real understanding of what the scope of misinformation is." He suggested that despite these chaotic times, "I do think we should be pretty modest and circumspect in the approaches we take." Social media companies need to find creative ways to improve the spread of information, Schrage said. But it won't be easy. "No one company," he said, "is going to solve this problem."
Because ALL news is fake (Score:3, Interesting)
With the near-zero journalistic integrity of all basically all MSM in America, the obvious problem for Facebook is whatever objective criteria you set for labelling "Fake News", you would include basically all MSM, and also including a lot of (if not all) advertising.
The day FB successfully combat Fake News is the day FB lost all its ad revenue. Of course they aren't going to solve this.
Re: Because ALL news is fake (Score:2)
Maybe it's not about journalistic integrity. Maybe ALL news has ALWAYS been "fake news".
There's no such thing as objectivity about social, political, economic issues. Everything is propaganda of one flavor or another.
What we're seeing now is a mass awakening. Whole classes of people suddenly seeing the truth, that formerly was recognized only by a few philosophers and curmudgeons.
Technically, that is how you should begin (Score:2)
Because ALL news is fake
With the near-zero journalistic integrity of all basically all MSM in America, the obvious problem for Facebook is whatever objective criteria you set for labelling "Fake News", you would include basically all MSM, and also including a lot of (if not all) advertising.
Seriously, the first step should always be to start by considering ANY NEWS as fake
Then you should be doing your due diligence :
- What is the source ?
- Is the source even actually stated or is a completely unsourced post ?
- If you follow the source trail, do can you go back to a primary source ? Or are you stuck in an endless loop of clickbait/internet meme/etc. cheap websites citing each other ?
Further, regarding sources :
- is the image actually relevant to the article, or i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On Facebook, it's the recommender, stupid! (Score:4, Insightful)
And foolish people will recommend fake or stupid news. I'm much less concerned about the sincere fanatics as the paid propagandists and professional trolls. As it exists now, Facebook is their perfect tool. Not just for propagating the BS but for dividing and conquering the opposition.
Solution time? I feel like I'm wasting the keystrokes since the same solution applied to a recent story and elicited no detectable interest. (ACs don't count and I don't see their comments.) However I think EPR (Earned Public Reputation) would be a strong solution approach. You can think of it as karma on steroids, but the basic insight is that positive interactions (in various dimensions) should earn reputation that is then (among other uses) reflected in the news sources you choose to recommend. In a contrasting example, if you tell (or propagate) a lie and someone is willing to take a bit of time to prove it, then your reputation should go down and your further comments should be seen in that light.
Actually, mostly not seen. The real reason I want EPR is to focus my time on reading comments from people who are demonstrably nicer or better informed or even funnier than I am. The other people would be invisible for me, if'n I had my druthers.
Re: (Score:2)
Well the Chinese have started up the Social Credit System. You'll love it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well the Chinese have started up the Social Credit System. You'll love it.
My initial impression is that you saw a headline on the idea. I actually read a couple of articles on it and could critique it in detail, but there doesn't seem to be any reason to go there on the basis of your bit of fluff.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact the idea of reputation scores on the web is being implemented. It's called the war on fake news and every player with any clout is elbowing in to have the reputation system tilt their way.
The result is that the reputation system works for power. For a lot of people that is fine, if they have a comfortable place in the whole thing.
The approach that enforcing a reputation system is good provided we take some measures to minimize mistakes is doomed to fail.
Looking at it another way we can't do without
Re: (Score:2)
Short response, basically an ACK. Longer response to the more polite question in the other branch of this thread.
I am primarily enthusiastic for using my time as well as possible, but I also prefer to spend time with nice people. These days "nice people" mostly means old friends, but I also want to be open to new ideas from sincere people I don't know. In contrast I am unenthusiastic about wasting time with trolls, even the time to recognize that they are trolls when their own trollish reputations could pre
Re: (Score:2)
Who could object to a modest guiding system which advises you what music to pick. It is no problem if it dismisses a lot of good music as long as it provides a few good suggestions each day. It doesn't hurt anyone.
There is a need to balance the quality of the scoring system with its power. I reacted because I perceived an aspiration for a more ambitious scoring system.
I do have complaints about the current system and I don't use it as a filter. I would like to make anonymous posts an exception rather than t
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like we have some underlying areas of agreement, but we are having trouble finding them. I do think you are misleading yourself to some degree about how you filter your input and manage your time. The main area of agreement seems to involve the value of "an online persona", but right now I think you are confused about how much you and I values ours in contrast to how little the trolls and sock puppets don't value theirs.
Does it make sense to worry about problems unless solutions, or at least approach
Re: On Facebook, it's the recommender, stupid! (Score:2)
How is EPR different from China's "social credit" automated tyranny system?
Re: (Score:2)
Neutral enough question, though not exactly enthusiastic. Not knowing what aspects you are actually asking about, I'm basically forced to guess, and not knowing about your reputation I'm only going to give brief elevator responses. Perhaps you merit more, but I have no way to know that.
The goals matter. The Chinese are primarily concerned with controlling the flow of information and with stifling the news they don't like.
The goals of EPR would be to encourage positive reactions and to tilt the scales of rep
Objectively what is fake? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can say "well, the stuff that isn't true"... well, how do you know what is and isn't true?
Its going to basically boil down to "because X told me it was true and they wouldn't lie." Or "X, Y, and Z all agree so it can't be a lie."
problem is that X will sometimes be wrong whether they're intentionally wrong or not. And thus "X says its true" does not equal truth.
X, Y, and Z agreeing doesn't help either because often information will only have one or two sources. And if you eliminated all news that didn't have lots of sources the news would basically say almost nothing every day. And that would simply cause any news feed that did that to be ignored in favor of more responsive and topical news. What is more, like the first problem... whilst it might be unlikely that X, Y, and Z could be wrong... they can be still. Sometimes lots of people are wrong. And strictly speaking when someone is wrong... if "untrue = fake news"... then "wrong = untrue = fake news"...
Boiling it all down, the fake news argument is a consequence of increasingly politicized and biased press on ALL sides. Coverage is biased. And it is frequently overtly biased. Given publications will sell themselves to readers in fact on being "the most progressive" or "the most conservative" or whatever.
That doesn't mean that partisan press is real or unreal or true or untrue. But it does speak to an increasing intolerance for media other than what you are consuming. And it is totally understandable that when someone is exposed to media that is 180 degrees off their political echo chamber... whatever that is... they woudl see that as "fake news." They'd see it as biased and not trust it.
Totally understandable... at first glance. However, here is where some basic integrity comes to the rescue. "IF" you hear something that you think is fake news... just check it out. It may or may not be fake. And don't just go to your political echo chamber to find out if THEY think it is right or wrong. Play devil's advocate with the position. Honestly vet it.
Typically when there are disagreements on these issues people are just reacting badly to opposition media that isn't saying anything that isn't verified by a lot of sources. And in the few cases otherwise it is often still true but not widely reported. In a very small number of cases, you're dealing with real crap. But by and large its just hostile presentation or obscure information.
Re: Objectively what is fake? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The liberal hate in the mainstream press over Breitbart is a classic case of "fake news".
Re: (Score:3)
There's a fundamental error in your argument - that people want to verify something they have read in their echo chamber.
People get their "news" from biased or known fake news sources because they want to hear what they already believe: Trump colluded with the Russians, Clinton ordered the hit on Seth Rich, Bush was dumb, Obama wasn't a citizen. They're all absurd stories, can't be verified, and people keep repeating them because that's what they want to hear.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I am aware, the "fake news" meme started as a means to discredit and no platform alternative media.
that was then flipped around and used on CNN etc as they were if anything more vulnerable to claims of making intentional misstatements regarding events.
That lead to a general food fight with everyone calling everyone fake news.
Facebook doesn't care about fake news. They're just trying to placate fussy users that want control of their space.
And I agree with the users that want control. Not because I think t
Re: (Score:2)
It's right there beside "what is hate speech." Or whatever some whiny little authoritarian is crying over because they don't like what someone is saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Boiling it all down, the fake news argument is a consequence of increasingly politicized and biased press on ALL sides.
That's some relativistic BS. Your argument is like saying, "Nobody is perfect, so we have to trust all people equally." There might be occasional instances of bias within any new outlet, but it doesn't follow that we should treat them all as equally reliable.
Real news organizations at least make an effort to weed out completely false or unsupported assertions. They make some effort to be fair. Maybe you shouldn't believe every single thing you read in the New York Times, Washington Post, or the BBC, bu
Re: (Score:2)
You're proving my point and don't even realize it.
Everything out side of your political safe space just so happens to be fake news.
Hell of a coincidence. And so thick is the cognitive dissonance that you don't see it. You can't.
And before you say "nuh uh"... consider that IF you were suffering form cognitive dissonance here, you would NOT be able to see it. You would conclude just as you are now... that that is so.
Actually back up and process things again. Take a double take. Go through some examples empiri
Re: (Score:2)
Everything out side of your political safe space just so happens to be fake news.
No, blatant propaganda is propaganda. I'm not sure if you're part of the propaganda machine, you're being fooled by it, or both, but you're part of the problem.
Oddly, you're disproving your own point: You're claiming to have some kind of access to objectivity-- at least to the point that you can absolutely judge the relative credibility of all news sources. And before you say, "nuh uh", you can only claim that two news sources are equally credible if you have an accurate judgement of their credibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I'm part of the Illuminati big feet alien jewish conspiracy. I'm not in your tin foil hat safe space. So I must be a Russian bot.
Cite media outside of your safe space that isn't propaganda. Try. I bet its mentally like trying to pull your foot out of tar isn't it?
Seriously, get help.
No really.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say you're a Russian bot. I'm pretty sure you're a person. I don't know if you're a Russian, a skinhead, or a moron, but you're certainly spreading some nonsense propaganda.
And talk about snowflake. You can't even take criticism about your favorite news agency without crying about how unfair it is.
Re: (Score:2)
What is my favorite news agency? I professed no affiliation with any news agency.
Seriously. Get help.
Re: (Score:2)
Aw, did I hurt your feelings? Poor little snowflake.
And yet, for some reason, you don't object to the idea that you might be a Russian or a skinhead. You're upset that I said you had a favorite news agency.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, let us say that a small news source breaks a case and they're the only source. How do you know if they're legit or fabricated it 30 minutes after they posted it?
Sure, you can do investigations that will figure things out eventually... but we're talking about facebook here... they're going to look at it for between 30 seconds and 5 minutes and make a decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Gotcha... more tits less talk. I'll work on it.
Re: Objectively what is fake? (Score:2)
But muh FACTS!!!!1!!1!?!?!!!
Re: Facebook *NEVER* wants to be objective (Score:2)
No, can't be! Big Brother Facebook loves us all.
monoculture and illness as applied... to facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
we're all quite familiar with the concept of a monoculture, from biology. once a population gets dominant it is vulnerable to viruses that take down the *entire* population in one fell swoop. when microsoft was dominant we saw the same concept being analogously applied: computer viruses propagate because of a *monoculture* operating system, the great joke being when Wine was "good enough" to run windows viruses it was actually celebrated - i'm sure there was a story before this one, i remember seeing one on /. involving a word macro-virus https://linux.slashdot.org/sto... [slashdot.org] ... so with that concept established, let's look at facebook (except from a *psychological* perspective rather than a technical one). it's dominant... it's a mono-culture... and it has the ability to... spread memes. it's therefore perfect for spreading "sickness".
question. is facebook going to *stop* spreading "sickness"? no, of course not, because its *entire business model* revolves around spreading information^sickness.
question. can facebook discern which information is "sick" and which is "well"? clearly they can't.
question. *should* facebook be the one that "determines" which information is "sick" and which is "well"? honestly no they should not, because that's *our* responsibility, as *individuals*, not theirs.
question. if facebook cannot serve us, and we are not being served by facebook, what is the next logical step to stop the "illness" from spreading?
answer: don't have a monoculture. that means terminating facebook as it stands, forcefully (by law) or voluntarily (#DeleteFacebook) or by creating an alternative and communications interoperability standards.
bottom line: an internet-connected world culture is great... until you get internet-connected world cultural "disease". one way or another this is going to get "solved". i'd like it to be the case that people take advantage of that funding that's being made available: https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Metafake News (Score:2)
They're lying.
STOP rewarding bullshit peddlers. (Score:2)
Demonetization is likely the only way you're going to get any traction to curb the fake news problem. You sure as hell aren't going to fix stupid. In fact, it would seem the masses are actually becoming more gullible these days, evidenced by how often fake news goes viral.
When we stop financially rewarding bullshit peddlers, the justification to peddle bullshit tends to go away.
Re: (Score:2)
Demonetization is likely the only way you're going to get any traction to curb the fake news problem. You sure as hell aren't going to fix stupid. In fact, it would seem the masses are actually becoming more gullible these days, evidenced by how often fake news goes viral.
When we stop financially rewarding bullshit peddlers, the justification to peddle bullshit tends to go away.
If you want to consider how gullible people are then consider the past two presidents. Who really expected hope and change from a Chicago politician? That takes a certain flavor of stupid. Along the same lines, draining the swamp from someone from New York City is just as unlikely. Economic desperation is allowing these clowns to get into office. Until the economics get better expect ever more extreme politicians.
Re: STOP rewarding bullshit peddlers. (Score:2)
People who disagree with my political opinions don't DESERVE to earn a living!
Provide filters to users (Score:2)
Fake news is their cash cow (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should they give up fake news? It makes a lot of money and brings them a lot of free publicity and political attention. That's just what rich and powerful people love.
Google's and Facebook's policies have effectively turned most online news into clickbait. Media outlets have to do this to compete with each other and gain advertising revenue in the environment created by them.
Facebook runs on the same principle: If you can incite/provoke enough indignant moral outrage, you can get your messages out there and make some money.
In an environment like that, do you really think that anyone who's in it to make money is worried about journalistic integrity or the truth?
Inciting/provoking indignant moral outrage has always been a problem in news, i.e. there's always competition for people's attention, which is in short supply. What companies like Google and Facebook have done is to magnify this problem to the point where it overwhelms everything else.
Re: (Score:2)
The example that comes to mind is the George Zimmerman case. Never was there a more obvious example of a media determined to drive a narrative for the sake of maintaining public interest and thus profits, and at the extreme cost of the individuals involved.
The West is finished. (Score:2)
Political debate in the west has been pushed into a war between the supposedly right and left. The casualty is information because the right led by billionaire funded think tanks discovered that winning a propaganda war was a paychological question as illustrated initially by cancer and tobacco. It is no longer a debate between opposing political philosophies it has become a propaganda war fueled by lies and hatred. There is no place left for rational debate about the consequences of political choice. Effec
Re: The West is finished. (Score:2)
rightist = leftist = centrist = authoritarian financialist
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
The "perfect being the enemy of the good" fallacy writ large. You admit that you can only approximate the effects of a bump stock with a belt, yet you imply that because we could not ban belts that it won't matter that we ban bump stocks.
Bullshit. The purpose-built device performs better and is easier to u
Re: (Score:2)
Look, ban the bump stocks. I really don't care.
But look at them banning knives in London. You're on a slippery slope here, bub. Where does it stop? Because it clearly and demonstrably and provably does not stop at knives.
So where to next? When is it enough?
Set a principle you're following so I can follow it to its logical conclusion. I really doubt you can offer one you'd be comfortable standing behind. And absent a principle you don't have a principle which means this is an unprincipled position. It is a s
Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk (Score:2)
Ban civilian possession of actual and de facto automatic firearms, all devices intentionally designed to covert firearms to actual or de facto automatic weapons, and magazines of >10 round capacity.
There's your principle. And I'm fine with it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a principle but is rather a specific regulation.
What is the underlying reason you're doing that.
I'm going to post a link here to help you... this is not intended with any condescension but rather to clarify what I meant by "principle":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
""As a juridic law
Main article: Principle of legality
It represents a set of values that inspire the written norms that organize the life of a society submitting to the powers of an authority, generally the State. The law establishes
Re: (Score:2)
Says you. I know what you were asking for, and that's not the way that we govern society. We govern society based upon balancing competing interests, benefits and harms, utility and philosophy.
"...for while the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact." Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963).
You want a general principle that you can spin out into "regulations" so that you can assert that the
Re: (Score:2)
As I suspected, you don't actually have a principle.
It should bother you that you don't have one and it should bother you more that I knew it immediately the instant you said anything.
Here you'll be tempted to show bravado... save it... its childish. Your position is shallow and based on nothing.
I won't ask for a principle again from you... I don't think you're able.
Re: (Score:2)
"balancing competing interests, benefits and harms, utility and philosophy" is not a principle? Or merely not a principle subject to your plan of attack?
Let's try this, you propound a principle, since you cannot even come with with a coherent argument against the proposed policy, and we'll test that.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because it isn't YOUR principle. You're really just saying that there are forces out there that RESTRAIN your interests and the ultimate law is the product of your will countered by others.
Look, you have a legit slippery slope here, chum. A slippery slope is when you propose something that doesn't have a limit. It can just go on and on and on and on. A principle would possibly limit it and give everyone some peace of mind that after you get X you won't immediately go asking for X+1, then X+2, and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get to disqualify a principle or say that it isn't mine when you cannot even propound your own principle. The rhetorical trap that you're attempting to lay is obvious, all the more so due to the fact that you keep running away from espousing any sort of countervailing principle or proposing any different "regulation" (or even a lack thereof).
There is no such thing as a 'legit' slippery slope [logicallyfallacious.com]. There are only those who f
Re: (Score:2)
Slippery slope is always fallacious, eh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Not true. As you can see there, it can be a valid argument.
I qualified what makes something slipper slope versus not... that there is some kind of limit. You haven't set a principle that would limit your position.
In fact, you're very clearly aware that you either can't or that actually admitting what it is would be rhetorical suicide. I can't think of any other reason why you would refuse to cite your principle.
You either don't have on
Re: (Score:2)
"slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real -- that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur." Yes, if we ban bump stocks, before you know it humanity will highly likely be reduced to eating finger foods because knife bans...
You committed the fallacy in your first post. You no longer get to hide behind "can be a valid argument."
Re: (Score:2)
But you haven't shown that it is. You simply bleated "But look at them banning knives in London." As if (1) they banned all knives in London (nobody eats with those things, anyway) and (2) that was a highly likely result of a bump stock ban.
Funny how a London ban on carrying >3 inch blades down a public street is crazy but an American ban on carrying 2.4 inch blades in commercial airplanes [forbes.com] is totally rational. Almost as if balancing competing interests
Re: (Score:2)
So if the mag capacity were set you'd oppose any further gun control.
Good to know.
Re: (Score:2)
you know, we've had some polite conversations on here, APK.
Maybe you remember my screen name? Maybe not.
Anyway, the video I posted speaks for itself on this issue.
peace.
Re: (Score:2)
We are all APK.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
> Let me ask you a question: why do you need semi-automatic weapons that fire high-powered rounds? This isn't a rhetorical question.
You are deeply confused and highly ignorant about guns.
The AR-15 doesn't fire a particularly high powered round. It's a varmint rifle. It's not even powerful enough to be considered legal for hunting in some places because of this.
Lay off the media narrative.
The AR-15 has the advantage of being less random and destructive than a shotgun and much easier to handle than some pe
Re: (Score:2)
As to public perception, that is obviously more a factor of the media.
If the public peace is your objective, then you would probably do better to attack the First Amendment rather than the Second.
Naturally, the "first" is not as rhetorically vulnerable so I suspect you won't do that.
Regardless, if you look at the statistics, you'll see that the gun deaths in the US from these mass shootings is LOWER than the same statistic in Canada and about the same as Germany.
I can go through the numbers with you but it
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wow, you should probably get a tank or an F-15 before trying to take on that pig. Not sure why it's trying to attack you or how you got into that situation just blow it up with explosives.
p.s. America isn't the only place with gangs, and the rest of the world is doing just fine without guns to deal with them. Mainly because the gangs can't access them so easily.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, you need to COMPENSATE FOR YOUR HEAD-UP-YOUR-AS
Re: (Score:2)
You very obviously know JACK SHIT about re-feralized pigs.
So keep on with your idiocy. Meanwhile, those of us that lived on farms and have dealt with this problem for decades can just look at you, laugh, and pretty much take you for a complete fucking moron.
And I was raised by a USMC grandfather. I played with more guns and explosives than you've ever laid eyes upon, child.
Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk (Score:2)
Oh no, some random called me child. Well, that trumps years of hunting experience but myself and other hunters throughout the US.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
since 1959, the US has had 242 deaths due to mass killings at schools.
US population is about about 325 million
School fatalities per million is about .745... per million per year you have about .0126 people.
I can examine canada or germany... by the same metric taking population into account... Canada is about 0.0267 dead children per million per year. You can see that is a much higher number than the US number.
Germany clocks in at .0149 for west germany and .0122 for post uni
Re: (Score:2)
US crime stats are actually very low EXCLUDING "urban drug and gang violence"... which is a problem.
However, bump stocks are not really an issue in drive bys etc. What is more, criminal gangs frequently use illegal guns in any case... so I wonder if your concern is urban drug and gang violence, why don't you suggest a law that will impact that issue?
Hammering law abiding citizens with more regulations that criminals will just ignore is not helpful.
If you can't ban heroin because clearly heroin addicts still
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
242 school shootings in the US since 1959 with a population of 325 million... our numbers are lower than canada and germany.
I can crunch the numbers different ways.
If you go to FBI and DoJ statistics then you see that US crime stats are actually very low EXCLUDING what the DoJ calls "Urban drug and gang violence"...
Outside of the big cities US crime stats are very low... in US suburbs the crime rate is very low... in urban areas where there are no gangs the crime rate is ver
Re: (Score:2)
As to drugs, I agree. You can't ban a product that people want. This also pertains to guns as well as most of the criminals as I pointed out get their guns the same way they get the drugs. If you can't stop the drugs then you can't stop the guns.
What is more the rise of 3d printed metal parts is going to render the concept of controlling goods by controlling licensing and manufacture irrelevant. Anti gun laws are going to not only start collapsing in the US but they're going to also collapse in China, Europ
Re: (Score:2)
Knives about a certain size are banned all over the place.
On the other hand a guy with a knife can only kill so many ... with a gun he can kill plenty more.
And no: there is no noticeable "gang violence" in Europe, and that includes UK.
And then again: how would one get a gun in Germany or UK or France? It is literally impossible, the only way is having connections into countries where you can acquire them and smuggle them into central EU.
If you would come here and would try to buy a gun: good luck! I even ha
Re: (Score:2)
Brah, if you want to pretend that the knife ban in London isn't a reflection of a concept that won't admit failure, then fine. You won't admit failure. Contradiction of the obvious is not however a strong rebuttal.
As to guys killing people with guns, heroin exists in London... it was brought into the country illegally. There exists a black market where in people can buy and sell heroin. Naturally guns are in that mix as well.
So you didn't stop black market guns.
In the US, most of the inner city street murde
Re: (Score:2)
Brah, if you want to pretend that the knife ban in London isn't a reflection of a concept that won't admit failure, then fine. You won't admit failure. Contradiction of the obvious is not however a strong rebuttal.
I have no idea about the knife ban in London, as I don't live in London. Actually: never heard about it.
Well, regarding gun violence you are obviously misinformed. Except for a few countries like Jamaika or some war zones, US has the highest death toll off all 2nd world countries, and note: I refu
Re: (Score:2)
Thought you were English. If you are, and I know about it... in Los Angeles... and you don't know about it in England... perhaps consider not lecturing people about how things work... on planet Earth... tell me more about Mars. Maybe you know something about that. Because if I know about the knife thing in London and you don't... and you're English... and I'm not... and you're telling me how things work elsewhere... You just might not have any credibility there.
https://twitter.com/MayorofLon... [twitter.com]
What do you w
Re: (Score:2)
I'm German.
No idea what you want with the twitter link. Yes, there is no excuse to carry a knife into a city. Why would you?
And why would I need to know random laws about random weapons when I live in a country that has banned guns since centuries and other weapons since millennia?
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
no english link, but perhaps you speak french, there is a link on the left side to the french version.
If not, tell me where you're from and I'll find relevant links for there. Its not like its har
Re: (Score:2)
Your screen name implied to me you were english " angel'o'sphere"... a play I presumed on the Anglosphere.
Regardless:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Your link is available in the English Wikipedia.
As to your citation-less arguments about US gun violence. I've already shown your position to be baseless in previous posts. Refusing to read or respond to arguments is literally your argumentative strategy at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
So you want Putin to run the USA, right?
How is Putin going to run the USA? He's having problems running his own country. Then again, I'd be much happier with a further thawed US/Russia relations then Clinton who wanted to attack Russian troops in Syria. You know, for a supposed puppet he seems to be doing a much better job then those globalist democrats and neocons, especially after their epic adventure in destabilizing the middle east.
Re: (Score:2)
The short answer: Both Putin and Trump do an absolutely crappy job running their respective countries, so if Putin was telling Trump what to do it would make no difference. Crap in, crap out.
Make no mistake. Except for getting caught, Putin was telling Trump what policy he wanted from the US and Trump wanted to give it to him. I assume it has something to do with the blackmail material that Russia has on Trump. It might o
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
The short answer: Both Putin and Trump do an absolutely crappy job running their respective countries, so if Putin was telling Trump what to do it would make no difference. Crap in, crap out.
Let's be fully realistic here, if Trump was doing such a 'crappy job' of running the country, his popularity wouldn't be over 50%. Unless of course you're saying that it's all lies, in which case he both controls the media, but doesn't control the media(since 93% of the articles about him are negative). Let's compare Trump to Trudeau, you know the international love child of the media, and world leaders. Trump says if you're illegal or want to enter the country illegally, GTFO. Trudeau opens his mouth and illegals start flooding in to the point where it's broken the entire welfare and social service systems of Quebec and Ontario. Now Trudeau is asking the US to start kicking out people because Canada can't handle the numbers illegally entering. Now let's talk popularity, Trump is nearly universally hated by the media. Trudeau is loved by the media. We're looking at 50% approval for Trump vs 23% and dropping like a rock for Trudeau. Wages in the US are increasing for the first time in over a decade. Wages in Canada are stagnant, while inflation is going through the roof. Let's talk economic policy. Trumps actions are to reduce regulations and taxes, business took off. Trudeau's actions were to push more taxes, then decide he wants to implement a carbon tax on a heavily taxed business and residential sector. To the point where business have stopped expanding and are contracting.
Now you're probably wondering wtf is this Canadian talking about? You probably haven't figured out just how closely both countries are linked, more then any other two country in the world.
Make no mistake. Except for getting caught, Putin was telling Trump what policy he wanted from the US and Trump wanted to give it to him. I assume it has something to do with the blackmail material that Russia has on Trump. It might or might not be a sex tape, but Putin has Trump under his thumb somehow. I think it has to do bribes and international money laundering at a minium. This was going on years before Trump even got into politics.
Really? Have you given this intel to anyone, how about posting your proof? Oh...right...no proof. It's just your feeling that it's true.
So let's see if I've got all this progressive anti-trumper garbage right. Trump is both a genius and idiot, who's bankrupt but rolling in cash. He's both under and not under Putin's thumb. He's blackmailed Putin, and Putin has blackmailed him. Putin both controls him and at the same time, Trump does things that hurt Putin. He's both colluding with Russia, but at the same time acting in a manner that's going to cause WWIII with Russia. He's both a retard and an idiot, but also a Machiavellian super-genius. It's almost like the entire anti-Trump movement is full of the kids on the short bus.
Putin has Trump by his (tiny) balls and you don't care. He's a traitor and you are on his side. What does that make you?
If Trump is a traitor, then Obama was a seditious pile of shit that nearly destroyed the US through unlawful wiretapping and FISA abuses, using EO's as a tool of fiat control, jeopardized multiple long-standing alliances with friendly countries by spying directly on them and wiretapping the leaders of those countries and has probably killed the EU while he was at it. So what does that make me? By the looks of it, smarter then you.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be fully realistic here, if Trump was doing such a 'crappy job' of running the country, his popularity wouldn't be over 50%.
In Mashiki land "more than half" is less than 50%.
Now you're probably wondering wtf is this Canadian talking about?
With you, that's almost always the case, no matter the topic.
Re: (Score:2)
In Mashiki land "more than half" is less than 50%.
Lastest polls put him at 51.5% popularity. Don't let the stupid hurt you.
With you, that's almost always the case, no matter the topic.
Well when you're that ignorant, I can only help you so far. Maybe in a few more years you'll put on the big boy pants too.
Re: (Score:2)
Those same polls are the ones that also said Hillary had a 97% chance to win. The only poll that was even close to reality also has Trump's approval rating over 50%.
Considering there's a strong correlation between progressive(and democrat) aligner stupidity in "the resistance" I'm simply taking it at face value. So let's see if this is right: Trump is insecure, narcissistic, and lacks maturity. But somehow was able to build a multi-billion dollar empire. Obama on the other hand was intelligent, thoughtf
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the best you've got princess, I don't have to worry.
Re: (Score:2)
Try rasmussen. 538 also said Hillary had a 90% chance of winning.
Re: Translation (Score:2)
You tell 'em, Comrade Wang!
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
> Were you demanding actual EVIDENCE of any wrong doing from Hillary Clinton before declaring her corrupt and criminal ?
Didn't need too. She promised a direct military confrontation with Russia during the debates. I understood this was what she was promising because I read the military press. I don't limit my sources to CNN.
The MSM gets basic verifiable facts wrong. That's not even getting into their political agenda or editorial narrative.
The thing that really intrigues me is how liberals can still scre
Re: (Score:3)
You forgot the interesting bit. That it wasn't just the Hillary campaign, it was also actors and agents within the UK government who also helped out. Actors outside the UK government working as "security and intelligence experts" and that there were numerous big name democrat donors who continued to fund the dossier after the election. And you can't forget that this was the basis of multiple FISA warrants, but let's follow the entire chain. Steele shopped the dossier to several new outlets who published
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's funny. Those 3 people who were working for Trump's campaign and they were indicted on things that happened over a decade before they had anything to do with Trump. In one case, while the person was working for the Podesta Group on behalf of the DNC(you know John Podesta don't you?) You know that there's ~29,000 sealed criminal indictments outstanding, those were all filed by the DoJ in the last year. Just to give you a scope the normal per-year is around 1,100.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the Trump's campaign should have done its due diligence on the shady characters it was hiring, or perhaps it did and hired them because of that reason
You must have missed the part where the Obama administration were the ones to recommend the people *and* took it in good faith that they had done due diligence. Have you figured out why Trump absolutely hates Obama era hold-overs now?
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
However, regarding Hillary's collusion with Russia, are you aware that she paid Perkins Coie to pay Fusion GPS to pay Christopher Steele to obtain information from agents of the Russian government which could be used to smear Trump? That is not conspiracy theory, that is a matter of public record.
Re: (Score:2)
As, Mashiki pointed out, those 3 people from trump's campaign who were indicted were not indicted for anything to do with Russia.
The people from Trump's campaign were convicted of lying to the FBI about their connections to Russia. It doesn't make sense to say, "it has nothing to do with Russia, it was just lying to the FBI" when they were lying about Russia. Manifort is basically being investigated for money laundering to hide the payoffs he was receiving from Putin's cronies. Again, it's about Russia. Plus, there were a dozen Russians indicted for meddling with the campaign.
If that weren't bad enough, the convictions so far ha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see, one of the people "convicted" of lying to the FBI was Michael Flynn, about whom James Comey testified to Congress under oath that the agents who interviewed him believed he was being honest...
So what...? The FBI interviewed someone and believed at the time that the person was being honest. Later, they learned otherwise.
the judge who oversaw that plea bargained conviction was involved in granting the FISA warrant under suspect circumstances...
What suspect circumstances, exactly? Or are you just asserting that the circumstances were suspect?
(the wording suggests that the judge believes that the Mueller team was hiding exculpatory evidence from the defense)
Citation needed.
And if Flynn is so innocent and there's all this exculpatory evidence, why the plea bargain at all? If Mueller had been caught hiding exculpatory evidence, why hasn't the conviction been overturned?
At this level, plea bargains happen because the criminal has evi
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed.
And if Flynn is so innocent and there's all this exculpatory evidence, why the plea bargain at all? If Mueller had been caught hiding exculpatory evidence, why hasn't the conviction been overturned?
Citation given. [courthousenews.com] The reason that the plea bargain has been rejected is because directly of that. Don't forget that the guy mortgaged his house and drained his kids university funds to pay for his defense. The fact that muller has refused to disclose exculpatory evidence means that the plea was rendered in bad faith, the government MUST disclose all evidence, failing to do so is a one-way-ticket to having the entire case tossed out with an automatic double-jeopardy being applied.
Regarding the whole "secret mandate" thing, that's some clever propaganda from Trump's goons
That's what Muellers team
Re: (Score:2)
Sullivan’s order did not come due to any known request from the defense team and he did not explain his rationale for releasing it. Instead, he said only that the order was issued “sua sponte,” in other words, at his own volition.
That's not an assertion that Mueller was withholding exculpatory evidence. There's no assertion of impropriety at all. Just an order that if he has exculpatory evidence, that Mueller provide it. Your own source indicates that nobody knows exactly why the order was issued.
The reason that the plea bargain has been rejected is because directly of that.
Citation needed. I'm having trouble finding news that the plea bargain was rejected. I don't know if you're aware of some breaking news that's not on the Internet yet, but all I can find are some paranoid articles from far-right source
Re: (Score:2)
Why not try looking yourself if you want to find those sources then? It appears that even when someone gives you a source, you ignore whatever is stated. Why not go read the court transcript, it should be easy for you to find. That's the exact reasoning that Muller's team gave the judge, that they don't have to disclose because the mandate itself is "secret" and they don't have to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.redstate.com/strei... [redstate.com]
You mean besides all the other sources out there? This isn't rocket surgery.
Re: (Score:2)
> Because not reacting due to shock or fear is clearly the same as consent in your mind? You are part of the problem.
Groupies are a pretty mundane thing in show business. You want to assume facts not in evidence because it suits your political agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the part I never understood. Trump was talking about the celebrity worship culture where women (and men too probably) would throw themselves at celebrities. That celebrities didn't have to "get away" with things. These things were on offer.
Sometimes, those things were on offer. Other times, they weren't. The problem is assuming that they are. One might well believe that they let him grab them by the pussy because they wanted him to do it, but that would be ignoring the weight of his position. They can equally well not object when he grabs their pussy because they fear the repercussions.
Re: Translation (Score:2)
Hunt that witch!
Re: I'm pissed (Score:2)
Self-described "leftists" sure do love corporate oligarchy.