Mark Zuckerberg Says Social Networks Should Not Be Fact-Checking Political Speech (cnbc.com) 217
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said he does not think social networks should be fact-checking what politicians post. From a report: Zuckerberg's comment came after CNBC asked him for thoughts on Twitter's decision to start fact-checking the tweets of President Donald Trump. Twitter's move came on Tuesday after Trump tweeted that mail-in ballots would be "substantially fraudulent." Earlier Tuesday, Twitter declined to censor or warn users after Trump tweeted baseless claims that MSNBC host Joe Scarborough should be investigated for the death of his former staffer. "I don't think that Facebook or internet platforms in general should be arbiters of truth," Zuckerberg said. "Political speech is one of the most sensitive parts in a democracy, and people should be able to see what politicians say."
When did libel become protected speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:When did libel become protected speech? (Score:5, Interesting)
Must be when enforcing it meant dickwads like Zuckerberg would earn a few less million having to hire internet temps to monitor it.
Either that or "fact checking political speech" really boils down to deleting every single post.
Re: (Score:2)
And Zucker needs to spend millions to monitor speech...because government is threatening to hurt him for billions for not doing that? For not silencing tweets from politicians or adding warning bells?
Who in god's name wants politicians coercing that from private citizens and companies?
Re: (Score:2)
And Zucker needs to spend millions to monitor speech...because government is threatening to hurt him for billions for not doing that?
I oppose censorship, but when you say it like that, it sounds kind of good. Is there a way we can skip the "spend millions" and go straight to the "hurt him for billions?" Someone who steals passwords and hacks into user accounts should not be worth billions.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is Opinion is written as Fact. I can say, I don't like the GOP Tax Plan, for the reason that it doesn't deduct state and property taxes first, as it negatively affects the more urban states, which have a tendency to vote Blue.
I can also say, I don't like the GOP Tax Plan, because it negatively targets Blue States
I shouldn't be able to say, Trump targets all Blue States, to pay all the taxes, while Red States go off free.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you should be able to say that. And just as important, a person with an alternate view should be able to dispute your claim.
If we did "ban your statement" at the bottom, then there is an arbitrary 3rd party who can decide what they deem acceptable or not, and there is no way to counter. They have in effect decided to moderate your speech - and thus should be treated as a publisher and accept the consequences of their decisions to moderate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: When did libel become protected speech? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll take a society where people can even tell the most baseless and horrible lies over one where criticizing authority (or even their dog [bbc.com]) is tantamount to blasphemy [wikipedia.org].
Re:When did libel become protected speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
Must be when enforcing it meant dickwads like Zuckerberg would earn a few less million having to hire internet temps to monitor it.
It's nothing to do with the review cost, if anything Zuckerberg likes the cost of having humans review social media posts because it makes it harder for a competitor to emerge.
Zuckerberg's actual worry is keeping Facebook perceived as a politically neutral platform. If FB starts fact checking then the US politicians who lie egregiously enough to trigger fact checking are overwhelmingly Republican. And when the gap becomes apparent Facebook's neutral status will be threatened.
Facebook also has it easier than Twitter on this regard. Twitter basically gives everyone a bullhorn, so if you want to fact check Trump's statements you need to fact check his tweet directly.
But Facebook is more about re-sharing packaged snippets, so you don't have to fact check Trump, you just need to fact check the video or meme that echos his talking points.
Re:When did libel become protected speech? (Score:5, Informative)
Zuckerberg's actual worry is keeping Facebook perceived as a politically neutral platform. If FB starts fact checking then the US politicians who lie egregiously enough to trigger fact checking are overwhelmingly Republican. And when the gap becomes apparent Facebook's neutral status will be threatened.
This cannot be stressed enough, because it is the only reason the platforms are worried about monitoring content. Politifact is the best source I know of for unbiased fact checking of political statements, but they get the same claims of bias thrown at them as the rest of mainstream media. When one side lies far more than the other, factual reporting will always appear partisan.
For instance while they did rate about 27% of Hillary Clinton's controversial remarks during the 2016 election as Mostly False or worse, they rated 71% of Trump's controversial statements the same way. For the Pants on Fire rating it was 2% Clinton vs 17% Trump. That is a good a job as you can expect for a site trying to be un-biased when rating candidates which such a different relationship with the truth, but it will still appear biased to a biased observer.
Re: (Score:2)
But if it's just a "true" or "false" percentage, without any supporting research, then it is worse than useless, it's more noise.
Re: (Score:2)
Meh. Sure, that's possible. But do you have any evidence that it's happening? Politifact, at least, clearly states their criteria for what they fact-check. Do you see a lot of claims by Democrats that meet their criteria but don't get checked?
Re: (Score:2)
Politifact certainly could find ways to be biased while performing their reporting, but their credibility comes from not doing that. Their detractors merely stick with arguments like you have made while falling short of actually accusing Politifact of wrong doing.
If someone gets particularly creative with their fact-checking it can lead to some amusing results [twitter.com].
While at the time someone could be considered biased for believing Trump actually thought Clinton used a corrosive chemical to clean her servers, after comments about injecting disinfectant it would be hard to argue that Trump wasn't being literal
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I love that. Modded "flamebait" for daring to challenge the failings of Politfact. People hate when their "gods" are proven false.
If they really were the unbiased, neutral arbiter they claim to be, then any politician who claims there was Russian collusion, and it was proven, would be declared a liar and their claims as false. The Mueller report (page 181) [justice.gov] said as much, and the now-released sworn testimony of the 53 witnesses called before the House Intelligence Committee has all 53 - including Clapper ( [house.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
Has Politifact now officially declared "false" all the claims that there was Russian collusion? Or that claims that Flynn was not spied on or set up are false? Because those are both proven. But Politifact ignores that - because it doesn't fit THEIR world-view.
There is a wide range of claims related to this which are labeled anywhere from false to true depending on the exact comment. Politifact has also released a number of statements describing why this issue is so hard to provide clear fact checking because the range of comments are so wide. Most comments related to Trump's collusion with Russia would probably be labeled Mostly Untrue / Half True / Mostly True / or simply unknown, since the investigation was obstructed enough that we still don't know the full s
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It may seem obvious, but that doesn't make it realistic.
There are only five ways that vote-by-mail could theoretically be compromised:
Mail-in ballots are checked against the voter database, and are not counted un
Re: (Score:2)
>It may seem obvious, but that doesn't make it realistic.
Realistic enough to invalidate 20% of ballots [nbcnewyork.com] and call into question an election.
Or realistic for corrupt politicians [washingtontimes.com] to stuff ballots for money.
Those two examples check your numbers: 1,3, and 5.
Listing examples how mail-in-voting is just as susceptible to booth voting does not address the core issue that our elections are wholly under secure. We don't have a full picture of how secure or not voting is period. We get some examples but never a full
Re: (Score:3)
You don't want dickwads enforcing libel laws either. That's what courts are for.
However, Facebook et al. also shouldn't be collecting money for running political or libelous ads.
Re:When did libel become protected speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because every damn thing is now political.
The world is round, Vaccines Save lives, GMO Food is not any more harmful towards humans than non-GMO, Climate Change is real, is is from Human Industrial Activity.
I just posted a bunch of Verifiable facts that do not have a political motive, however any one of these things would trigger some stupid political debate, with conspiracy theorist and some organization trying to block the truth, all so the other guy can gain power, or money.
This is worse than ever. Before we would just have people expressing their opinion, I don't like this guy/policy/party because of these actions are a bad idea. To just going this person is a murderer. This person is going to try to kill you. This person got elected by doing illegal things....
The News is going to be Bias, there isn't a way around that. However if it is Bias but truthful, we as a citizen can check different sources of different biases to try to gain a clearer picture of things. However with the News Sources (and Yes Social Media is now a News source) is posting lies, and the other side is posting lies to. We as a citizen do not know what is really happening. Preventing us from making a valid opinion on any topic, or candidate.
George W Bush, during his second term wasn't too popular, and a lot of people criticized things that he did. I was able to normally find the thing that he did on News sites which were biased in different ways. I got the same story told a different way. Eg. Bush give Hummers a Tax Break. vs. Bush give Tax Breaks on Trucks over a particular weight. Yes Hummers fell in this weight class, however the bill was designed for commercial trucks. Eg for Businesses who were doing shipping for work, not just a Big Truck to make some Rich Guy seem like he has a big dick.
Doing the research I found that neither side had lied. However the Bias came in the fact they predicted how the tax break would be used and abused. Which are valid arguments and opinions.
We can have Bias while maintaining truth. However with Social Media's help We are having Bias with outright lies.
Re: (Score:3)
The only fortunate thing is that in most of those cases, it doesn't really matter which side is right. On the more important questions (do vaccines cause autism?) there are more reliable scientific papers I can look at.
Re: When did libel become protected speech? (Score:2)
After this I am going to write a Facebook post calling Trump a drug addicted Satanist Nazi baby eater with a Bolshevik father who was married to an Islamist that had an affair with Obamaâ(TM)s mom in Kenia that wants to expell jews before nuking Israel. And call myself a politician to claim immunity. Then see what Zuckerberg thinks. Seriously, some of the conspiracy theories out there qualifies as mental illness and Facebook should bloody well censor it.
Re: When did libel become protected speech? (Score:3)
This is different from a common carrier (classic example is AT&T who couldn't be sued if you used the telephone to say order a murder, or slander someone. Twitter actively policing and opinion and editing its user generated content ma
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
They are doing no such thing. Go look up the definition of moderator. They are not presiding over a discussion.
If they do this, they open themselves to lawsuits because they become the publisher.
No they do not. They are not publishing anything nor acting in any such capacity.
Same thing if the NYTimes published an article by a columnist. They could be sued along with the columnist.
That is completely different. The NYT is a publish
Re: (Score:2)
They provide a platform for others to speak their mind, no matter how demented as we've seen with the con artist.
Just like a bulletin board at the grocery store, Twitter can police what is said and remove posts which violate their TOS.
You just contradicted yourself. If they can police what is said then you obviously can not always speak your mind.
Re: (Score:2)
They are doing no such thing. Go look up the definition of moderator. They are not presiding over a discussion.
Definition of moderator [dictionary.com]:
1. a person or thing that moderates.
2. a person who presides over a panel discussion on radio or television.
3. a member of an online message board or electronic mailing list with privileges and responsibilities to approve or reject messages and uphold the terms of service.
4. a presiding officer, as at a public forum, a legislative body, or an ecclesiastical body in the Presbyterian Church.
5. Physics. a substance, as graphite or heavy water, used to slow neutrons to speeds at which they are more efficient in causing fission.
Definition 3 fits the whole Twitter thing quite well - online message board.
So - in your world, editing a discussion or banning from participation those with whom you disagree, and reject messages you don't like, is not moderating a conversation? Controlling the flow of the conversation (by proactively excluding some voices from the conversation) is not moderating the conversation?
You have a VERY "unique" definition of moderator, one that does not match the actual dictionary defi
Re: When did libel become protected speech? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So on the subject of what they do to the president's tweets, contrary to how much it angers him, they would be in the clear either whether they were protected as a carrier or accountable like a media company.
However, it is more like a media company than a carrier. If I were on the phone and told someone some bad stuff to try to manipulate them, AT&T doesn't hop on the line and say 'hold up, this guy is BSing you, but we're not blocking him or anything, just letting you know'. I'm sure they are also taki
Re: (Score:2)
They should be just a dumb pass through. That give greatest freedom of speech. They should focus on empowering their users to 'hang up' on people who are BSing them.
Keeping things PROPER both ways (Score:4, Insightful)
If Zuckerberg says Titwwer should not fact checking a President for LYING....
Maybe Facebook should not SELL PRIVATE DATA lying its customers saying they protect their privacy...
Re: (Score:3)
The can of worms is whether 'section 230 protection' applies to a company.
If you are just broadcasting whatever you are sent without filtering or modifying, then it's not you who is responsible, but the originator of the message. Basically you are providing a content agnostic service and to do that effectively and efficiently, you can't be expected to intervene on the content.
If however you are doing editorial moves, no matter how justified or how good your intentions, well you should be accountable for wha
Re: (Score:2)
If however you are doing editorial moves, no matter how justified or how good your intentions, well you should be accountable for what has become 'your content'.
Looking at the law and cases surrounding 230 protection, this doesn't seem to be true. There is no provision for removing the 230 protections based on editorializing. You can be responsible for the content you add to your site, but you're not responsible for the content someone else adds to your site.
These are the same folks (Score:5, Insightful)
TL;DR;, Facebook makes it's money off engagement and it doesn't care how that happens, who they hurt doing it or what the real world consequences are.
Re: (Score:2)
Does the law protect them from that aspect?
It's one thing to say 'hey, we just host the content, we don't review it' like what ISPs did back when the DMCA passed (I assume they're trying to use the 'safe harbor' provisions in there, which are really only about copyright), but now we have YouTube and Facebook trying to make things 'sticky' and suggesting things to people to keep them on their platform longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Truth is never a matter of perspective rather than hard reality, but that's irrelevant in this context. The lies involved are plainly visible.
It's also not a matter of platforms "fact checking" as no such thing was done. No determination of what is "true" was made by Twitter.
Also, nothing was "flltered by some corporations", this is just the straw man you've constructed. Furthermore, TV ads are required to labeled when they contain political speech so there is certainly (desirable) precedent for labeling
Political speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Noun:
1. The act of saying whatever the fuck you want and never being held to account.
Re: Political speech (Score:4, Interesting)
You do not have the right to not be offended by others' speech
Yes you do. Now that offense may not rise to anything legal. But people are completely in their rights to feel a particular way about what people say. You can't sit here and tell folks "Your emotions are invalid!" Now others may or may not share that emotion, but that's the entire point of persuasion. But human beings having emotions is a completely valid a thing.
It is not the role nor within the capabilities of FB to determine truth or hold anyone accountable for acts of free speech
What diff does it make? I hear everyone always saying "You have free speech, not freedom from repercussions of that speech." It's Twitter's private platform and if they feel some repercussions are needed, well... It's their fucking platform. If someone doesn't like that, take your money and go vote elsewhere with it. That's how free markets work. It seriously feels massive like Trump wants cake and eat it too. He wants free speech but his free speech. Letting Twitter also free speech back at the President, he just doesn't like.
Re: (Score:3)
It is also not the role of FB to provide an unchecked platform for unaccountable government officials to exploit and doing so is detrimental to a democratic society. Political speech, when on television, is regulated for good reason. We face a serious problem with unfettered propaganda that could lead to the destruction of a democratic society, and anyone who thinks that's as it should be is not "Way Smarter Than You".
The issue of free speech here is not that FB cannot censor what its customers say, it's
Content liability (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Short Twitter stock? I still don't understand how or why it's still online after all these years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
I don't know why it even became successful in the first place.
I don't like it.
I think social media is a blight on society and needs to be shut down.
People used to use IRC and forums. People grouped together around topics and hobbies. It was nice and useful, except for the usual few idiots.
Social media is just ads and political wars ads 24/7/365. It's just bad and stressful, the few idiots are now in the spotlight.
Re: (Score:2)
I will agree with you on the bad and stressful idiots in the spotlight. The loudest voices are usually the ones heard, most of the time the loudest person in the room isn't the one that deserves the attention. Social media gives too many idiots and assholes a megaphone.
I agree that it's a blight. I don't agree that it should be shut down. I prefer to know which of my friends are complete idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter didn't fact check, so what you are talking about is irrelevant.
He sees the writing on the wall (Score:2)
Any platform censoring content or editing content may have its section 230 privileges revoked.
I'm sure the NY Times and Wall Street Journal would also like not to be held accountable for what's published on their pages.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Also, Twitter did not remove or change Trump's lying posts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and Twiiter is also not required to offer Trump an account nor are they required to publish anything submitted for publication.
Twitter is choosing to provide the president a platform to lie to the public, something they feel is within their right to do, and they have now chosen also to provide commentary along side those lies, something that is a clear free speech right.
"should be" (Score:2, Insightful)
baseless claims that MSNBC host Joe Scarborough should be investigated for the death of his former staffer.
That's a judgement, unless he also made a claim of fact. It can't be fact-checked outside of a specific frame of reference. You should pay me $100 today, because I want you to, but you probably won't.
Re:"should be" (Score:5, Interesting)
Human language is highly context-based, rather than mathematical statements that have clear boundaries of meaning.
Thus when the thug walks into a store and expects an immediate cash payment to his "private security company", that sounds like a shakedown. When disappointment at a lack of cash elicits "hmm... do I smell smoke?", a reasonable jury may conclude that such is definitely a shakedown backed by a specific threat to cause a fire in the future.
When Trump uses innuendo, he is very purposefully suggesting that a crime occurred, and trying to hide behind a very thin degree of ambiguity. It is really no different than the thug who "smelled smoke".
That's a judgement, unless he also made a claim of fact.
That judgement is innuendo. A reasonable jury may decide that it intentionally implies a claim of fact.
Re: (Score:2)
baseless claims that MSNBC host Joe Scarborough should be investigated for the death of his former staffer.
That's a judgement, unless he also made a claim of fact. It can't be fact-checked outside of a specific frame of reference. You should pay me $100 today, because I want you to, but you probably won't.
The major difference from your quaint example here is that the former can cause reputation damage even if the claim (sorry... "judgement") is false. Also that it's coming form someone that has basically a huge megaphone from the number of followers alone.
Ideally, Trump's tweets should be treated the same way as a person falsely accusing someone else of sexual abuse (which ironically Trump seems familiar with).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So all those people who accuse(d) Trump of sexual abuse (or imply that in their posts) should be treated the same way...Got a lawyer yet?
Are the accusations false or not?
Re: (Score:2)
Ideally, Trump should NOT have access to Twitter as has been the protocol for all Presidents that have come before him. Ideally, going forward we will have things like this established in law. Trump's use of Twitter is inherently corrupt, even if he wasn't completely corrupt as he clearly is.
We need firewalls between corporate interests and political interests of those with power...ideally. Going forward, Trump even having an account should be illegal, if only the corruption was not so pervasive that suc
Re: (Score:2)
Trump should NOT have access to Twitter as has been the protocol for all Presidents that have come before him....Trump's use of Twitter is inherently corrupt, even if he wasn't completely corrupt as he clearly is.
So, for two presidents? How is Trump having access to Twitter corrupt? Usually I think of things like "stealing money from the government" or "accepting bribes" as corrupt, not tweeting.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is not "baseless" to want an investigation into the mysterious death that occurred in Joe's office.
Therefore the problem isn't "social media" as the author wants you to think...
Re: (Score:3)
Notice how the text in the summary, presumably quoted verbatim from the media article, makes the determination that the claim again Joe is "baseless."
It is not "baseless" to want an investigation into the mysterious death that occurred in Joe's office.
Because there wasn't an investigation when she died almost 20 years ago? Maybe we should call for an investigation into Ted Kennedy's car crash back in 1969 while we're at it? How about Watergate? I bet they never investigated that either!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a judgment that necessarily implies a set of facts, namely that there's convincing evidence that Joe Scarborough killed her.
It doesn't imply that. It might imply you think he killed her, or it might imply that he hired someone to kill her. It might imply you think there is a 10% chance he killed her. It might imply that you 100% think he didn't kill her, but the investigation should happen anyway to annoy a political opponent.
Nah, that wouldn't happen. In America, no one calls for investigations merely for the purpose of annoying their political opponents.
For maximum effect (Score:2)
I hope he delivered the comment from on top of a mass grave in Myanmar for maximum effect.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope he delivered the comment from on top of a mass grave in Myanmar for maximum effect.
Even better: as virtual 3-D avatar [newsweek.com] from a NY hospital.
How Does Trump Not Have Free Speech? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm confounded by this argument, that, by providing a counter-argument or fact-checking, that you have somehow prevented somebody from having their say.
The bad argument for Free Speech: "It doesn't matter what people say, -- above all, it's just your divine right to say what you have to say, and not be censored."
The good argument for Free Speech: "It matters what people say and think. And what is suppressed, just comes out sideways anyways. What works is for bad information to be met with good information."
OK. So, if Twitter wants to say, "Here's our counter-argument, our counter-thinking to what Trump says," how can you possibly argue that Trump is being "Censored." What Trump has to say, he is saying, and Twitter is publishing. So it is clear to me that Trump isn't being censored.
Is all fact-checking now censorship? If the news media report what Trump has to say, is he censored if they state, "Here is how he is lying to you, here is the information that contradicts his lie?" If that's censorship, why is it built into the good argument for Free Speech -- that bad speech is best met by good speech, rather than the forced removal of the bad speech?
Re: (Score:3)
This is what's blowing my mind about this whole thing. In effect, Twitter didn't remove anything he said, which would actually be censorship. Instead, they gave another perspective. And while I get that Trump's "alternative" facts are seen as absolute truth by him and his followers, those other perspectives that take into account actual facts will likely be ignored by them anyway, so what's the actual harm that's caused by it?
I do think Twitter's done some truly stupid crap over the past few years, some
Re: (Score:2)
They don't just think that Twitter must publish whatever they write (despite being a private company). They believe free speech means they have the right to say what they want without alternative views being presented when they make their argument. They believe that by presenting a counter view, you've infringed on their ability to present their view (because counter-viewpoints weaken their argument).
Re: (Score:3)
I'm confounded by this argument, that, by providing a counter-argument or fact-checking, that you have somehow prevented somebody from having their say.
Exactly. It feels a lot like the conversation...
Everyone should have all the information to be well informed
But also...
But (insert any Internet company) shouldn't be the one informing people
And it's just like. MAKE UP YOUR FUCKING MIND!!! Either you want everyone informed or you don't. What Twitter did is classic, "Everyone should be able to form their own opinion after reading all the facts" and everyone is flipping out because Twitter did it. I mean if we got Wikipedia involved then everyone would be screaming that Wikipedia is biased. With how massively cultist Trump's crew has become, any other source of facts could have been
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because Facebook and Twitter pose as places where anybody can just show up and speak their minds.
You're absolutely right. If Twitter were really a place where anybody can just show up and speak their mind, they would have let Trump's post stay up.
Wait ... they did let Trump's post stay up. Now I'm confused, or maybe you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said, sir, well said! Trump wasn't censored: we could read every silly word he wrote.
Twitter just reminded us that it might be total BS, and we could go and check for ourselves.
Done and done.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm confounded by this argument...
It's just a mental manipulator praising a narcissist when they think there's an opportunity to gain something from it. Ad revenue, in this case. Cuz, ya know, when Trump flails his fingers and makes the facial anger expressions of a pissed child, he'll switch to Facebook just to show Twitter he has complete control and they have squat. And watch, somehow he will even be able to create some web of bullshit, that comes randomly shooting from his big mouth, that everyone should switch to this Facebook servi
Its not social medias fault... (Score:2)
As humans, people have a tendency to want to find the bad guy. Telling people the world is going to shit, or that there are bogeymen out there is a time honored tradition by people that want power.
Take a look at the news cycle. First there is fear. Then they have a couple of facts they put out. Then you get panels of people discussing why its sane to be afraid. Then you have more panels that describe why anyone who doesn't think like that is an idiot. All of this is followed up by editorial's des
Then why do broadcasters have to? (Score:3)
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said he does not think social networks should be fact-checking what politicians post
So he's basically saying he's happy to get paid for politicians to by highly-targeted ads that are false/misleading, and "it's all good"?
Funny how TV broadcasters have to adhere to a code of conduct to prevent such things, but Zuck says he doesn't have to.
Re: (Score:2)
IF Facebook, Twiter, etc, is posting their own "news" then yes they need to "fact check". This makes them a news service. Then it's like TV broadcasters and such.
IF Facebook Twiter, etc, is "fact checking" private peoples post, this is NOT news and does NOT have to follow the same rules. Everyone has their own opinion.
Are you ready to sign up for this:
Do we really want Facebook, Twiter, etc, to tell us what truth is?
Do we really change our opinions from false/misleading political ads? Every political ad
Re: (Score:2)
IF Facebook, Twiter, etc, is posting their own "news" then yes they need to "fact check". This makes them a news service. Then it's like TV broadcasters and such.
They get paid to run ads (just like a broadcaster does), bought by politicians/parties, and some ads have false/misleading information. If a TV/radio broadcaster runs those false/misleading ads, they get in trouble, but "the Zuck" says he shouldn't.
Please explain, in detail, how "the Zuck" should be excluded from having the adhere to the same rules, or from suffering the same consequences if they don't.
Man who profits from spreading misinformation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Man who profits from spreading misinformation frustrated that people want to fact-check that information.
Mark profits from friction of online content because those interactions cause more interactions which cause increase his advertising revenue. Now people are wanting to settle some of these arguments with factual information and he will have none of that.
His position reduces his workload while increases his profits and also serves to potentially lure a certain politician to post on his social media network more frequently.
Mr. Zuckerberg is more concerned about us as a product than us as people.
Shut the fuck up, Zuckerberg (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You're the absolute LAST person on this planet who should be commenting publicly on this subject, you son of a bitch.
He's jumping on an opportunity to get shit-loads of ad revenue from the praising of a narcissist. Oh, what fun these chimps have. Er, chumps... ehhh... Chums.
Try it :) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Try to post anything critical of Israel policy with respect to their policy towards Palestinian. And watch how the censorship police of Facebook picks it up...
You're right except Zuck will have that changed to avoid the Master of the Universe's account from being part of it. There's so much ad revenue to be had!
Politicians asked for moderation, so they get it (Score:2)
The orange clown's gibberish was still left there for all to see.
You can have it deleted, or you can have it fact-checked. You can't have neither.
Re: (Score:2)
The orange clown's gibberish was still left there for all to see.
You can have it deleted, or you can have it fact-checked. You can't have neither.
But according to *THE* narcissist, Trump, you can have whatever you want, whenever you want it, however you want it. Fact-checking sort of messes that "however" part up, and you don't fuck with a narcissist, ever, unless you want to be belittled and (if the influence exists) have others attack you on their behalf.
Zuck just wants the ad revenue fallout when the part where Orangie's "I'm switching to Facebook like all true Americans should" bullshit part comes out. And it will. Watch. :)
Says the platform owner that got us into this mess (Score:2)
If FB hadn't been so good at tracking us in return for social peanuts, if they hadn't sold all of that data to the highest, most immoral bidder, allowed illegal use of it, and continued to fail to protect people from mass-social manipulation. IF all of that, maybe we'd give a crap what his opinion was.
As it is, I assume he's trying to figure out how to make another billion to put on the pile.
What a fucking hypocrite. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"I don't think that Facebook or internet platforms in general should be arbiters of truth," Zuckerberg said. What a fucking hypocrite.
He wants a narcissist to love him for the praising of said narcissist, so much that they would switch from that Twitter thing to Facebook... and generate a shit-ton of ad revenue when everyone starts following him there.
Oh, Hell, a narcissist would absolutely get a kick out of watching a company hurt because they didn't completely praise him and his awesomeness, and fail due to lost revenue while another company gets to rise to power. All because that's "exactly what [the narcissist] wanted to happen... an
It only works on a level playing field (Score:3, Interesting)
If everyone tried to be as truthful as possible, fact-checking would not be needed.
If everyone could maintain a civil discourse, any errors could be pointed out and a constructive debate could continue.
But when an malicious actor uses lies and misinformation to poison the debate, should those trying to have a constructive debate just stand idly by? Any attempt to correct that malicious actors information is just met by a barrage of more lies and misinformation, resulting in a Denial-of-Service attack on those that try to be truthful and have a civil discourse. They cannot keep up because it is much easier to spread lies and misinformation than correct what has been made wrong.
The notion of "alternate facts" tells me a lot. There are only one type of facts, those that can be independently verified. You may dispute facts and show them wrong, but there are no alternate facts, that is opposing facts equally true. Saying so means you are lying, and you don't even bother to cover it up.
So fact-checking is a necessity today. Any platform that amplifies potential lies and misinformation should be subject to fact checking.
Fact checking does NOT mean that you hide what someone say, only that you label it as potentially untrue or misleading.
I have no objection to people having other opinions even if I don't agree with them, but facts are facts and if someone is lying they should be called out.
Don't confuse lies and misinformation with broken campaign promises. In politics you campaign on a platform –what you want to achieve (and it should ideally be something that can be achieved), but then the harsh reality of politics you set in. You need to bargain and adapt to a number of other ideas. If a campaign promise is insincere, it is a lie, but if that politician really tries to work towards that promise but doesn't succeed it is a disappointment.
We need more honest people in power, not fewer. And fact-checking is one way to make it harder to be dishonest. What is needed then is consequences.
Liars should be exposed as liars (Score:2)
Nobody said hide it (Score:3)
... people should be able to see what politicians say.
Twitter didn't hide what he said. They added more information.
Re: (Score:2)
... people should be able to see what politicians say.
Twitter didn't hide what he said. They added more information.
..and you should never do anything... EVER... E-HHH-V-U-H-RRRRR... but praise a narcissist. Never correct or fact-check them. If anything, they should have backed his opinion to get him to have funny feelings inside and make them immune to anything that could legally ever come their way. For at least a few more months. :) /snark
A better solution (Score:2)
A far easier method to fact-check political speech is to simply deny all politicians a microphone / platform to speak with.
Considering 99% of every word coming out of their mouth is a lie, this would solve the problem at the source.
Re: (Score:2)
Along that line of thought . . . .
Perhaps we should prohibit Elected Officials from using privately owned platforms ( Twitter, FB, etc ) if what they plan on discussing is job related in any way.
Much the same way they're prohibited from conducting official business via non-government systems.
It would also go a long way if the FCC prohibited negative / attack ads. ( regardless of medium )
You're free to toot your own horn about how amazing a candidate you are, but cannot attack or degrade other candidates.
Facts versus Opinions (Score:2)
Zuckerberg is confusing fact with opinion, and responsible media outlets and social networking sights should fact check. I think one of the problems is that media sights have is that they let politicians and others get away with false statements and false equivalences, such as what happens with issues about climate change.
For example, it is often claimed that the U.S. had the best health care system in the world. When you look at overall health outcomes, this is clearly false, and such a statement should be
Twitter Has Been Trump's Propoganda Outlet (Score:2)
Well look at that... (Score:2)
This wouldn't be an attempt to drive ad revenue WAY up, would it? I mean, come on... *chuckles through* who would do a thing like that? Yeah. C'mon. /snark
When will Twitter fact check the other side? (Score:2)
Or is this a one way street?
How about. (Score:2)
Get out of the way?!! Let the users decide what they want to believe and listen too and stop trying to control the information. It isn't really yours, you make your money by transmitting it , not governing it. Provide users the ability to categorize and filter it and let them customize it any way they like.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no standard like a double standard!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)