Facebook To Ban Misinformation On Voting In Upcoming US Elections (reuters.com) 245
"Facebook will ban false information about voting requirements and fake reports of violence or long lines at polling stations in the run-up to and during next month's U.S. midterm elections," reports Reuters. The latest efforts are to reduce voter manipulation across its platform. From the report: The world's largest online social network, with 1.5 billion daily users, has stopped short of banning all false or misleading posts, something that Facebook has shied away from as it would likely increase its expenses and leave it open to charges of censorship. The ban on false information about voting methods, set to be announced later on Monday, comes six weeks after Senator Ron Wyden asked Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg how Facebook would counter posts aimed at suppressing votes, such as by telling certain users they could vote by text, a hoax that has been used to reduce turnout in the past.
The information on voting methods becomes one of the few areas in which falsehoods are prohibited on Facebook, a policy enforced by what the company calls "community standards" moderators, although application of its standards has been uneven. It will not stop the vast majority of untruthful posts about candidates or other election issues.
The information on voting methods becomes one of the few areas in which falsehoods are prohibited on Facebook, a policy enforced by what the company calls "community standards" moderators, although application of its standards has been uneven. It will not stop the vast majority of untruthful posts about candidates or other election issues.
Here's an idea.... (Score:2)
How about just banning ALL posts about such information, right or wrong. Allow users to point to reliable sources of such information (say the state or county's website), but just don't let anything stay that hints at what the rules are..
So... A "Remember to get registered before it is too late!" (with a pointer to the local county's elections page) is Great, but "It's too late to register after the 9th!" is not.
"You can vote starting TODAY!" is NOT OK, but "Check out when and where you can vote!" (With
Re: (Score:2)
That is an *excellent* suggestion. If I had mod points today, you'd be getting one instead of me just flapping my yap about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, you can vote online if you're (Score:2)
oh, wait, sorry, that was fake.
meanwhile, real states allow you to register to vote in person even up to election day, and to vote in person if you didn't get a ballot yet, and use paper ballots and vote by mail.
Users will leave due to perceived censorship? (Score:2)
It seems to me that if people haven't left Facebook already, they certainly aren't going to leave it because Facebook cleans up some of the trash.
What users are going to leave en masse because Facebook doesn't show them legitimately false information? This entire argument is entirely in the ether.
I can only fathom this really comes down to them not wanting to open the "moderating" can of worms by actually trying to be responsible. Its expensive to care.
--
“People don’t care about what you say
Not exactly leave so much as ignore (Score:2)
The thing that confuses me about the whole debate is that I simply cannot see anything put up on Facebook impacting anyone. There's no way any post from anyone of any political bent will impact the political leanings of anyone else on Facebook.
Similarly fake news about voting is not going to impact anyone actually going to vote. Why would anyone be checking Facebook anyway for polling status? I would be looking at my county website for polling information and probably just pick the closest one. Even if
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly fake news about voting is not going to impact anyone actually going to vote.
Actually, this is a well-known effect, and many people, myself included, wish that the national media would just shut the fuck up about election results from the East coast until the Hawaii polls close. Boo hoo if people can't hear how the Florida vote turned out within five hours of the polls closing. We used to have a country where nobody knew the answer until after the middle of December when the Electoral College finally met, and after the Pony Express carried the newspapers west.
Yes, people in the wes
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly fake news about voting is not going to impact anyone actually going to vote. Why would anyone be checking Facebook anyway for polling status?
I see you've gone smoothly from "it's not fake" above to "it doesn't matter" to "no one reads it anyway". Gotta stop those "liberal fascists" (your words from earlier in the thread) getting in at any cost, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
There are also real-world consequences for making threats. You do realise that logs can be subpoenaed, turning you from "AC" to "AC posting from 83.239.45.231 on 2018-10-16@05:46:15" pretty quickly, don't you?
of course it knows (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad you were amused. Please tip your server generously.
There's only one way (Score:4, Insightful)
Ban politics from Facebook. Totally.
Re: (Score:2)
The Founders originally wanted to ban political parties altogether, but could not work out a way to do it that didn't stomp on freedom of speech and freedom of association.
Already do, almost. (Score:2)
Facebook basically already bans your political posts. I imagine you have probably noticed that you see fewer of them lately. Your political posts are being served to a few select, like minded friends, just to make you think they are not censuring you, but that's it. Basically almost no one is seeing your political posts anymore.
Hope it apples both ways (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What metrics? The ones that put the denominator at 15 million or 30 (the credible range for current wetback count)?
We, more or less, don't even know how many, much less what they're all up to.
Vote via Interpretive Dance (Score:3)
such as by telling certain users they could vote by text, a hoax that has been used to reduce turnout in the past.
Someone who would fall for that is someone I probably wouldn't want voting in the first place. Voting via text is so insecure on so many levels it boggles the mind.
Re: (Score:2)
For someone who doesn't understand the technology, text messaging is no different than any other online channel.
I'm glad Facebook censors, Hope they do more! (Score:4, Insightful)
Facebook to ban misinformation (Score:3)
But not all misinformation, only that which steers people away from their own political views.
That's a banning (Score:2)
Lookin' to share political content? That's a banning.
Staring at funny political meams? That's a banning.
Linking to past political facts? Oh, you better believe that's a banning.
No freedom of speech on social media.
No account after speech on social media.
Re: (Score:2)
How many times do you need to be told that a private entity is not obligated in any way to provide you with a platform?
You can drop that nonsense now.
Ministry of Truth (Score:3)
So, FB are trying to be the Ministry of (Current) Truth. I would fully support the ban on lying — if only a way to reliably distinguish truth from lies (outside Mathematics) could be devised even in theory.
A better solution (Score:2)
Would be to ban ALL negative advertising on candidates period.
It is bad enough the ads for âoe How amazing I am and I approve this message âoe , but the negative attack ads probably outnumber them three to one.
Hell, one is playing as I type this and hitting the mute button the moment one starts has become second nature now.
It is amazing our system of voting includes this level of bullshit. After a few decades of this and nothing ever changing ( in the grand scheme of things ) is it any wonder why
But seriously.... (Score:2)
If someone is going to believe they can vote by sending a text message to some random phone number because they saw a post on Facebook saying so... ... Do we really want that person voting?
Facebook should shut down for a month (Score:2)
Facebook is an abomination ... (Score:2)
Facebook is an abomination ... yet it's difficult to avoid it.
E.g. a local institution had a disaster happen to their building, days ago. Their Facebook page had immediate photos, videos, information. Their web page, as of last night, no change.
It's unbelievable how many businesses and orgs consider their Facebook their "real" presence, and their website (if they even bother with one) as their redheaded stepchild.
So I would suggest "avoid it completely" but sometimes you can't ...
Have a care for your image (Score:2)
I once read a review of a book about a visit to Florida. The part that caught my attention, and that I remember, was:
"Reading this book will do more to deter the reader from visiting Florida than anything except an actual visit to Florida".
Facebook is getting just like that.
So *that's* the solution! (Score:2)
We'll just ban misinformation and misunderstandings! Peace and harmony will follow!
Why didn't I think of that??
Re: (Score:3)
Open can of worms.
Insert hands.
That's already Facebook. This will be uproarious. The AI anti-voter engines will be in full prime by Nov 8th. The analytics will be poised to do their best to achieve their algorithmic goals of domination, or just simply slipping past the desire finish.
While I wish them luck, I don't think this ends well.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya have to wonder what they would do with another situation like of videos of Harry Reid claiming on the Senate floor that Romney didn't pay taxes.
Harry kept it up all during the campaign and then admitted he was lying, then just said, "meh, it worked".
Re: (Score:2)
My thoughts exactly regarding line length. It's (relatively) easy to verify reports of violence, but a long line may appear and then disappear again in a matter of minutes, depending on the circumstances. How is Facebook supposed to know which reports are illegitimate and which are simply reports that they can't verify? Even if there was an impartial source they could tap for that information, how granular is that information being reported?
What about other pieces of information that may affect voting patte
Re: (Score:2)
Simple: location data.
How are people who read a tech site like Slashdot not able to figure this out? If an account based in Minsk reports a long line in a community 25 miles outside of Topeka, there would be a high probability that the information is bogus.
That is a luddite view of the matter (Score:3)
If an account based in Minsk reports a long line in a community 25 miles outside of Topeka,
Why is that impossible? I can get traffic conditions in Minsk from my home in the U.S., why is it impossible to fathom that accounts even in other countries could be providing real time monitoring of polling traffic?
Would you say the same thing about an account in NYC giving polling line times anywhere in the country? That is just as plausible to work and no-one would bat an eye if the New York times were providing t
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, how IS it that someone on Slashdot cannot understand how information can be accessed globally now?
Not just accessed globally, but it can lack any identification of where the poster actually is. I've moved at least twice since I got my Facebook account, and I've not told them about either move. I could be reporting a long line in Portland Oregon while I'm standing in it, even though I created my account ten years ago when I was living in Ocalala Florida. And through the magic of technology my IP address while reporting it could be in Mexico (satellite internet).
Re: (Score:2)
You're still not seeing the obvious. If you want to minimize fake reports of line length at polls, just don't allow any post that reports line length from any account that does not allow Facebook location tracking. I'm not talking about the "check-in" feature, which can easily be spoofed, I'm talking about actual location data that is a lot more difficu
Re: (Score:2)
You're still not seeing the obvious. If you want to minimize fake reports of line length at polls, just don't allow any post that reports line length from any account that does not allow Facebook location tracking.
I replied to a comment that said:
If an account based in Minsk reports a long line in a community 25 miles outside of Topeka,
Where my account is "based" depends on what I've told Facebook about where I live.
I'm talking about actual location data that is a lot more difficult to spoof.
In my hypothetical -- I have a fake GPS app on my phone that says I'm in Portland IF I allow location services to tell Facebook where I am at all, I am using satellite networking that says I'm in Mexico, and my account is based in Florida. Am I really standing in Portland or not? Facebook has no clue.
It's really not a difficult technical challenge to eliminate false "on-the-scene" reports.
It is a very difficult technical challenge to eliminate false "on-the-scene" reports without
Re: (Score:2)
The best we can do is eliminate most of the fake polling place reports. Of course, a committed criminal could still probably get through, but the point is, most criminals are not nearly as committed as you.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, a committed criminal could still probably get through, but the point is, most criminals are not nearly as committed as you.
No, I think we should assume that these alleged Russian hackers trying to wreak havoc on our elections will be MORE committed than I am, simply because they are being paid to do this.
That means that the actual best "we" can do is eliminate anything that we don't like and call it eliminating fake news, without regard to where the person actually is or where his account is "based". If that's the best, then doing nothing it better.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Just because we can't guarantee 100% that our houses won't be broken into doesn't mean we should not have home security systems.
Considering we have a president and Congress who were elected after getting fewer votes than their opponents, we have to first do what we can to prevent outside interference that contributed to this situation. Then, we can also address voter suppression and gerrymandering.
Just throwing up our hands and saying, "oh well, nothing we can do" is not a
Re: (Score:2)
No. Just because we can't guarantee 100% that our houses won't be broken into doesn't mean we should not have home security systems.
You have it backwards. If we cannot guarantee that the people who have legal right to access their homes can do so, then the prevention methods are bad. Add that to the fact that the prevention methods will not work AT ALL for anyone who is seriously trying to subvert them (and the assumption is that we are trying to stop people who ARE seriously trying to subvert them) that means doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing.
Just throwing up our hands and saying, "oh well, nothing we can do" is not an option.
You are the only one doing that. Please stop if you think it is not correct.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is not "if", the question is "why". As in, why would someone in Minsk have this interest in reporting the length of time people are waiting to vote in Baton Rouge?
They already watch abroad (Score:2)
The question is not "if", the question is "why". As in, why would someone in Minsk have this interest in reporting the length of time people are waiting to vote in Baton Rouge?
Well for one thing someone who wanted to pay for such a thing could easily be wanting to have staff writing and manning that in a much cheaper place than the U.S.. It could easily be a U.S. company but all of the technical work would come out of Russia or India or China.
For another, we already have a similar situation today where a l
Re: (Score:2)
Do you hear yourself? You're saying that an American company, seeking to report on lines at polling places in Southern Indiana, for an audience in Southern Indiana, would engage the services of someone in "Russia, India or China" to do so.
A
Re: (Score:3)
Do you hear yourself? You're saying that an American company, seeking to report on lines at polling places in Southern Indiana, for an audience in Southern Indiana, would engage the services of someone in "Russia, India or China" to do so.
Yes, that is because I am a professional programmer where such things are common as dirt. What on earth are you doing on Slashdot if you do not know that?
Any feed, coming from anywhere outside the United States for any reason, should not be allowed to report on live elect
Re: (Score:2)
Because we have solid evidence of foreign tampering in elections. Do you not believe in borders? Do you believe countries should not be allowed to have sovereignty?
I didn't take you for a globalist, SuperKendall.
Re: (Score:2)
I can get traffic conditions in Minsk from my home in the U.S., why is it impossible to fathom that accounts even in other countries could be providing real time monitoring of polling traffic?
How do you know traffic conditions in Minsk from your home in the US? Can you see Minsk, do you have employees on the ground there, or are you simply repeating information from a source that you trust?
If it's the latter then it's easy to check if you are lying or not. Just look at your source. Posts that link back to the source get promoted more than ones that don't. A bit of simple AI can even check if you tried to link to the source but added your own lies as a comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Too easy, they will simply delete 'ALL' mention of long lines at voting booths. So people turn up, wait in queue and never vote, well at select anti-capitalism must dominate, keep in mind they are not a social media engine but a marketing engine where PR=B$ and they get their money from advertising the biggest most corrupt corporations, they control the purse strings and they demand that Facebook control 'YOU' or they will cut the purse strings and all Facebooks money will flow out.
Facebook sell 'YOU' to t
Re: (Score:2)
Most voters don't have a choice of polling stations, you get one and only one unless you have an absentee ballot or can get a provisional ballot (which won't be counted until after the results have been announced).
Re: (Score:2)
Are things that backward where you live? Here in central Indiana I can vote in any of the polling places in my voting district.
Re: (Score:2)
He just hasn't ever actually voted which is why he doesn't understand how polling places work.
Or.... maybe he's a Russian/Chinese agent trying to spread disinformation that you can only go to one polling place! Jump him, boys! Ban his Russian ass!!
Re: (Score:2)
California. You get told your polling place. When you arrive they look up your name and address in a list of voters assigned to that location. If you're on the list, you sign it. If you're not on the list, you get a provisional ballot. It's been this way forever, Republican or Democrat governors. In your smaller states maybe they are better able to detect when someone decides to vote in more than one polling location?
Re: (Score:2)
I used Indiana's website ( https://indianavoters.in.gov/ [in.gov] ) to look up polling locations for Governor Holcomb (whose birthday and county were easy to find) and he's only given one option for a polling place (St. Thomas Aquinas Church). It's not like he's in some podunk small town in Indiana. How many options are you given?
Re: (Score:2)
You are assigned one polling place. You can go to many others. If you go to one you are not assigned to, you cast a provisional ballot. It is verified and counted later. (In actuality, the odds are the provisional ballots are so few as to not possibly affect the outcome and your vote will not be counted before the election is confirmed, if at all.)
Depends on voter ID (Score:2)
If the state prohibits identity verification by ID, you have to go to your one designated polling station. You tell the poll workers your name and address. They have a big printed list of everyone who's supposed to vote at that polling station, and look you up to confirm that you're on it, cross off y
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's safe to assume that someone located in Chechnya reporting on the length of lines outside a polling station in suburban Roanoke, Virginia is probably a fake.
Re: Going to ban weather reports also? (Score:2)
You are equivocating here. There's a big difference between distributing an authentic weather report and a spreading false information about voting requirements in order to deprive people of their political rights. That's just depicable and nobody should make light of it.
As for intentionally inaccurate reports of long lines, that's just as reprehensible, and it were up to me I'd horse whip anyone caught doing that. I'm not sure what Facebook can do about that in real time, but it doesn't mean they should i
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what Facebook can do about that in real time, but it doesn't mean they should ignore that. They certainly have the resources to try.
Something must be done, and Facebook is doing something. Whether that something will do anything positive or not is still a question; one that many of us can answer very easily.
Re: (Score:2)
There are still some reliable publications out there who provide information on polling day.
Facebook doesn't have to be perfect to make a difference, they just have to block viral bullshit from the fake news factories they already know about but mostly tolerate.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook may as well ban all weather reports indicating cold, snow or rain since all of those might make people less inclined to vote also.
Cold weather is clearly racist. Ever notice that snow is white, hmm? Hmmm????
Who has only one polling center (Score:2)
I have several voting service/polling centers in my county, I can use any one to vote (though in reality I send in a ballot early, but even there I have several locations I can drop it off In a secure box).
Kind of seems like we have the opposite question here - what kind of ghost town do you live in that you have only a single polling center you can use? I'll bet even in Cheyenne the people there have several options.
Re:Who has only one polling center (Score:4, Informative)
States like Texas, Georgia, etc have been closing polling places in minority neighborhoods. This is why, every single election, the longest lines you see are in minority communities.
I mean, come on, SuperKendall. You must know better than this. It's not like Republicans have been hiding their voter suppression efforts. How do you not know this stuff?
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/r... [pewtrusts.org]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
States like Texas, Georgia, etc have been closing polling places in minority neighborhoods.
So all the more important to get line length info so you can go when it's at a lull...
However fewer places alone does not mean they do not have multiple choices still. For instance, from an article on one of the worse reductions [thenation.com] (in Arizona):
Phoenixâ(TM)s Maricopa County, the largest in the state, reduced the number of polling places by 70 percent from 2012 to 2016, from 200 to just 60.
I don't know if you know n
Re:Who has only one polling center (Score:4, Informative)
So, more important to get authentic line length info. Someone posting from Bulgaria about line length in Council Bluffs is probably trying to suppress the vote.
In Maricopa County, as in all of Arizona, you are assigned a polling place. You can't just show up at whichever one you want on election day.
You would know this if you were a voter in the US.
It's called a provisional ballot, and works in AZ (Score:2)
In Maricopa County, as in all of Arizona, you are assigned a polling place. You can't just show up at whichever one you want on election day.
Yes you can, you just end up casting a provisional ballot [azcentral.com] if you do not go to your assigned polling place. You can still vote at any polling place in your county...
You would know this if you were a voter in the US.
Unlike you I won't stoop to claiming you do not live in the U.S., instead I will give you a pass for not understanding arcade details of a process we all on
Re:It's called a provisional ballot, and works in (Score:5, Informative)
Provisional ballots are generally not counted.
And the ballot you cast provisionally must be the ballot for the precinct you are from. They don't keep ballots for all precincts at all polling places. So unless you are in the rare state that will send you the ballot by mail ahead of election day, the only way you're going to get the correct ballot is by going to your assigned precinct's polling place. If they could get their assigned ballot from their assigned polling place, then they wouldn't need a provisional ballot, would they?
Yes, you could cast a provisional ballot, but it would not be counted unless it was the ballot from the precinct you were assigned. That's law. Also, there are several states that do not allow provisional ballots at all.
Wrong they are counted, just last (Score:2)
Provisional ballots are generally not counted.
They are if they matter so what is the difference?
The whole point of voting is that off chance the election is on the margin and your vote may make a difference. I am a registered independent and voted in a primary this year, never again after looking at the results. My vote made zero difference as BOTH parties have the primaries quite wrapped up by chosen candidates. I still continue to vote in the main elections though few votes seem to matter there either.
A
Re: (Score:3)
So votes should only be counted if they "matter"?
You wonder why I question whether you live in the US. Well, there it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are 4.3 million people in Maricopa County, over an area of 24,000km2. 60 polling stations isn't much for such a large county.
Most of the county leans heavily towards the Republicans, except for Phoenix which is mostly Democrat voting. And guess where most of the polling station closures have been.
Now Democrat voters have to travel further and queue for longer just to vote.
Re: (Score:2)
I've lived in small towns (e.g. Preston, ID) and large communities (Orange, CA and Colorado Springs) and while the larger areas had multiple close polling stations I was still assigned one I was supposed to go to. I never considered the option of hunting for a different one. If you can go to multiple polling locations, do they have anything in place to make sure you didn't already vote once at a different site?
Fact-checkers are just as biased... (Score:5, Funny)
This joke is over 2 years old, but remains funny:
Re:Fact-checkers are just as biased... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you got the names mixed up there. Clinton was under far more scrutiny and was held to a far higher standard than Trump was. Trump's whole gimmick was that everything he says is such an obvious falsehood or exaggeration you can't possibly take any of it seriously, it's all just "political hype" or a joke.
Re: (Score:3)
That claim doesn't seem to be on Snopes and I can't find an archived copy. Fake news?
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, okay, fake news.
Here is the Trump quote:
Trump, Sept. 5: You see whatâ(TM)s going on with her emails. Itâ(TM)s a disgrace. Itâ(TM)s a disgusting situation where she pretends like she doesnâ(TM)t know. I mean, she had her emails â" 33,000 emails â" acid washed. The most sophisticated person never heard about acid washing. Acid washing is a very expensive process and thatâ(TM)s to really get rid of them.
This has been widely reported although I couldn't immediately find a video of him saying it.
He appears to be confused by the name of the "BleachBit" software that was run on the server. In any case it's not an expensive process, the software is free and requires no special skills to use. Clearly many sophisticated people have heard of this software, it's a quite popular as an alternative to CCleaner.
It's also false to claim that Clinton had the emails destroyed in
Re:Going to ban weather reports also? (Score:4, Insightful)
https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... [snopes.com]
Re:Going to ban weather reports also? (Score:4, Insightful)
It proves that Trump is an inveterate liar.
That's important.
Re: (Score:2)
You certainly are a fine advertisement for American educatiion, sir.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely she has a clear and simple defamation case that'll garner her a healthy chunk of that Youtuber's income?
Re: (Score:3)
A private business can prohibit anything it wants.
No, it can't. There are laws requiring them to not discriminate, laws requiring them to not punish workers work going on strike, not retaliate against workers who report crimes, etc. Further, private businesses that are generally open to the public can't refuse to serve people of a certain race, sex, etc. In some locations, political views are protected as well. A private business that is generally open to the public, or a public entity like a city, also can't hire some other private entity to do someth
Re: (Score:2)
There are laws requiring them to not discriminate
Is truth a protected class?
Re: (Score:2)
For any useful definition of censorship, it is not.
Wrong. Useful to your narrative, maybe. Useful to the language, factually correct, etc., no.
Re: (Score:2)
. Facebook not allowing you to post your comment on their servers is not censorship
If Facebook don't allow you to post "man, the queues are insane today, I've had to go back to work and I'll try again later" then they're censoring you.
Whether you like that use of the term or not is entirely fucking irrelevant. Would you prefer that we censor your idiocy by forcing Slashdot to delete your lies? Me, I'd rather allow others to read and counter them.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it can't. There are laws requiring them to not discriminate
You can discriminate against opinions (particularly false or bad ones) all you want dipshit, so long as you're not discriminating against a protected class.
Unless those opinions are political in nature and you're in a state like CA. Or if those opinions are more widely held by a certain protected class, then discrimination against the opinion elevates to discrimination against the protected class, and you fucking lose again. This is why we still have decrepit ghettos in major cities. Can't enforce building codes or safety standards if they disproportionately affect protected classes.
Try again, please.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Republicans vote on November 7th. Everyone else on November 6th.
Dead democrats must get their absentee in ballots post marked by the 8th.
Re: (Score:2)
"Given Mueller's team is abandoning ship in droves of late, I'm guessing we are closer to the end than the beginning here,"
Wait, that sounds a lot like Trump's team.
Re:Everybody knows (Score:4, Interesting)
All of the other panelists agreed that this was acceptable, and a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
While I can't condone that, this is where we are at now. Both sides trying to sabotage the vote and a political system that apparently can't do anything about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Everybody knows (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.npr.org/podcasts/3... [npr.org]
Oct 12, Another View.
AV Round Table: VOTE! - skip ahead to 14:30.
Re: (Score:2)
You guys need to stop with the "persecuted victim" act... it's wearing pretty thin.
Happy holidays,
SK
Re: (Score:2)
Listen here: https://www.npr.org/podcasts/3... [npr.org] Oct 12, Another View. AV Round Table: VOTE! - skip ahead to 14:30.
But ... but ... that's OK, because they only want to "suppress" meanie "fascist" wascally wepubwicans.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there are web sites already claiming that "Snopes" is staffed by leftists and that no one should believe anything it says. The war over what the truth is has already begun.
The story being told is "don't trust anyone on the internet unless they agree with your gut feelings!"
Re: (Score:3)
Well, there are web sites already claiming that "Snopes" is staffed by leftists and that no one should believe anything it says. The war over what the truth is has already begun.
The story being told is "don't trust anyone on the internet unless they agree with your gut feelings!"
Snopes is staffed by leftists ... which doesn't make it completely useless, but it does mean that when it comes to gray areas, benefit of the doubt, and so forth, they are slanted a certain way.
As with anything run by human beings (or by automated processes created/trained by human beings).
Re: (Score:2)
Leftist, rightist, or not, it is utterly irrelevant. It is amazingly partisan to claim someone has a bias against the truth merely because of political beliefs. And yet, that's one of the biggest claims against many media organizations, that they can't be trusted bcause their reporting staff has a different political stance than is required. If Snopes can cite the facts and backs them up, then I would not doubt it just because I haven't done my own research. Especially in things that would be absurd to f
Re: (Score:2)
... where fewer = 0
But it won't be banned, because they'll still be able to see their own post.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet she runs in the primaries. But the Ds should give her zero votes.
She's too narcissistic not to try.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if she's the Democratic nominee! Surely it's her turn this time.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually RT is not all bad. Naturally it's slanted in favour of Putin/Kremlin line, but it is still interesting at times, and you can always cross-check stories that seem dubious against other sources. Which is what the discerning reader should be doing in any event, regardless of the outlet.
Nor should we be afraid of a little criticism [rt.com]. For example: Is Ryan correct in her assertion that Trump does in fact represent the "real" America? Why or why not?