Meta Ends Fact-Checking on Facebook, Instagram in Free-Speech Pitch (msn.com) 225
An anonymous reader shares a report: Mark Zuckerberg built up Facebook's content-policing efforts in the wake of Donald Trump's first presidential election. Now the Meta Platforms CEO is reversing course as he embraces a second Trump presidency. Meta is ending fact-checking and removing restrictions on speech across Facebook and Instagram, Zuckerberg said in a video Tuesday, a move he described as an attempt to restore free expression on its platforms.
"We're going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies and restoring free expression on our platforms," Zuckerberg said in the video. He said Meta is getting rid of fact-checkers and, starting in the U.S., replacing them with a so-called Community Notes system similar to that on Elon Musk's X platform in which users flag posts they think need more context.
While Meta will continue to target illegal behavior, Zuckerberg wrote in a separate post on Threads, it will stop enforcing content rules about immigration and gender that are "out of touch with mainstream discourse." Zuckerberg's plan is likely to reshape the experience of billions of people who use Meta's platforms. It steers sharply away from efforts started years ago in response to complaints from users, advertisers and politicians that abusive and deceptive content had run amok on Meta's suite of apps. The effort to rein in such speech sparked its own backlash from people -- especially on the political right -- who said it often strayed into censorship. Further reading: Meta Is Ushering In a 'World Without Facts,' Says Nobel Peace Prize Winner
"We're going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies and restoring free expression on our platforms," Zuckerberg said in the video. He said Meta is getting rid of fact-checkers and, starting in the U.S., replacing them with a so-called Community Notes system similar to that on Elon Musk's X platform in which users flag posts they think need more context.
While Meta will continue to target illegal behavior, Zuckerberg wrote in a separate post on Threads, it will stop enforcing content rules about immigration and gender that are "out of touch with mainstream discourse." Zuckerberg's plan is likely to reshape the experience of billions of people who use Meta's platforms. It steers sharply away from efforts started years ago in response to complaints from users, advertisers and politicians that abusive and deceptive content had run amok on Meta's suite of apps. The effort to rein in such speech sparked its own backlash from people -- especially on the political right -- who said it often strayed into censorship. Further reading: Meta Is Ushering In a 'World Without Facts,' Says Nobel Peace Prize Winner
... in the US (Score:2, Insightful)
This should be made very clear. It's not legal in Europe.
In other words, just like CNN, you now have two Facebooks: one that retains some shred of decency and another one dedicated to BS and propaganda.
Please expand (Score:3)
What are news organizations required to do in the EU / UK regarding fact checking?
What are social media companies required to do in the EU / UK regarding fact checking?
Can individual news consumers file a complaint against factual errors in news reporting in the EU / UK?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
News organizations are required to report news, and in many cases they're publicly funded and not allowed to run advertisements that aren't PSA (public service announcements.)
US "news" organizations consist of a lot of speculation and hyperbole followed by ads for scams that target seniors.
Fox news, has never been about reporting news, it's been about manufacturing outrage. It's very simple, any time you see two talking heads on screen, and no video, that is not news, that is opinion or editorializing. Edit
Re: (Score:2)
Editorializing is not news. It's the "letters to the editor" on steroids.
More like "letters from the editor."
Re: (Score:2)
"Editorials"
Re: deport them ALL (Score:5, Informative)
Re: deport them ALL (Score:4, Informative)
You're both right. Both Rupert Murdoch and Elon Musk are Americans now.
Re:Please expand (Score:4, Insightful)
This also, in the US, defines MSNBC, CNN...and well, almost all of them.
I've noticed that you only seem to point out Fox News in the US.
Is this because you dislike that they are the #1 news network...or just because unlike all the others, their views don't coincide with yours?
I agree that MOST news channels and even the main 3 networks morning/evening news programs are ALL largely opinionated and more editorialization rather than straight hard news.
But c'mon..if you're going to point this out, then make sure and be fair and call a spade a spade and list all the other offenders in the US, eh?
Re:Please expand (Score:5, Informative)
I've noticed that you only seem to point out Fox News in the US.
Because they had to argue under oath in court that what they present is "entertainment" and you shouldn't believe them. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29... [npr.org]
Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "
Re:Please expand (Score:5, Interesting)
The big difference is that Fox is always intermixing news with editorials. They can't just tell the news as it happened, they have to embellish by coming up with motivations behind the people in the story, or assigning political stances to people, etc. Separate the news from the bullshitting.
It's like here on slashdot, some people can't even talk about a plane crash without adding "this is the direct fault of DEI!" They can't separate the story from their embellishments.
Sure, the other networks have editorializing, but it tends to be in their own segments, the talking heads segment, distinct from the news segment. And generally that editorializing is about politics. Ok, CNN sucked for being OCD about who killed that girl or where the missing plane is, but it also had the headline news segment that kept away from moronic talking heads.
And you know absolutely how totally political Fox is when Trump chooses one of the talking heads for a major cabinet position. When have the Democrats or past Republicans ever nominated a talking head celebrity to run a major department?
Sure they all suck, but Fox is sucking to such an extent that it's creating a low pressure zone over midtown Manhattan. You can't excuse the excesses of Fox by blaming the pecadillos of the other networks.
Re:Please expand (Score:4, Interesting)
This also, in the US, defines MSNBC, CNN...and well, almost all of them.
I've noticed that you only seem to point out Fox News in the US.
This is because MSNBC and CNN aren't lying like Fox is.
I've seen all 3 and whilst there's plenty wrong with the way MSNBC and CNN present news (mostly the ADHD level of it, only covering the surface, moving onto a new story every 2 mins then repeating the same 5 stories) however Fox is the only network of the three that is blatantly lying to my face, telling me obvious fabrications and expecting me to swallow it.
Sure you can pin a few poorly checked articles on the others as you can pin them on all networks, however Fox, instead of dropping it or *gasp* issuing a correction, will double down on the lie.
If Fox news were forced to issue corrections for it's reporting, by day 2 the entire channel would be 50% corrections for yesterdays stories.
And even the dreadful state of privately owned news media in the UK makes the US look good, even if we exclude the highly respected BBC.
Re:... in the US (Score:5, Funny)
If you want the Social site that cares about the Truth, I think there's already one. Can't think of the name though ... /s
(Or maybe it's about irony. Don't know...]
Re: (Score:2)
I think Jimmy Wales is trying to create it, but I think that project isn't going anywhere. Lack of a viable financial model?
So far yours is the only Funny, but the story has large potential to laugh ourselves sick at.
Re:... in the US [what could possibly go wrong?] (Score:4)
NOT flamebait and the sock puppet that is trying to censor needs to be censored. Yeah, it's a kind of paradox, linked to the Paradox of Tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] that so few people seem to understand.
New Subject is about the joke I was looking for, but treating it seriously, what this story is REALLY about is doing harm for money without being held to account. Why would Zuckerberg or Musk want to increase their costs and lower their profits just because they are destroying people?
Latest related reading is The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt. Slightly indirect linkage, however. It's more about how people are made more vulnerable to misinformation and lies, but I'm just starting it so I can't say more yet... (I still have a general theory of how human intelligence is being destroyed by cat videos and slasher movies, but that's a different joke and by the time I figured out how to write it this story will be long dead. In other words, tomorrow is always too late for Slashdot as it operates from aeons past.)
Re: ... in the US (Score:2)
How are the UK news networks and papers of record doing with accurate and honest reporting on that whole "nationwide Muslim rape gang scandal" subject?
Because it kind of looks like they failed that litmus test of journalistic integrity in spectacular, disastrous fashion.
Re: ... in the US (Score:3)
This should be made very clear: Facebook is liable for fact checking they pay for in the USA, but they are not liable for community fact checking. And right now the incoming president is suing people for spreading proven and known facts about him.
Re:... in the US (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Take away FB and X and your country (and ours) devolves to pen-and-paper of the 1930's.
Please, please take them away.
Seems to me that humanity got along just fine with Usenet (and Geocities?)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't threaten me with a good time.
Any country that tells Musk and Zuck to go fuck themselves while retaining democratic values would be high on the "to-do" list should my current country creep too far towards autocracy. I'm tired of these fuckbags having their outsized influence and ability to warp "truth" to their own goals no matter the cost to society.
this is a good thing (Score:3)
Third party companies can be corrupted rather easily. Mark stated that the results were too biased. If this results in more honest/accurate results that is a good thing. To me it doesn't matter much as I deleted my account years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Truth will always be biased against liars, and that is not a problem that needs to be fixed.
when did they start (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They blocked lots of content based on supposed fact-checking that eventually ended up just being partisan shilling. Such as the Hunter Biden laptop story that was buried (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532), plus a great deal of content during the COVID era (some of that actually came from pressure from the govt itself: https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/27... [cnn.com])
Using people to train AI (Score:2)
No longer needed (Score:4, Interesting)
Obligatory Bee (Score:4, Interesting)
"Truth" just got cheaper... (Score:2)
It will make much easier right-wing trolls sponsored by Musk and his bros to spread lies and propaganda...
probably manipulating elections in the directions they want...
Wrong problem, wrong fix (Score:2)
The problem is that when I post a picture of Kim K's Big Fat Titties on the internet, they get passed around like a teddy bear, until there are copy cat websites, AI generated advertisements for them, and 1 BILLION other people see them. Who doesn't love big fat titties? If you watch Netflix and
Windmills make whales crazy? (Score:2)
"The windmills are driving the whales crazy. Obviously."
Fact check please in aisle one!
AI bots (Score:2)
Glass houses and glass teeth (Score:2)
Don't complain righties when we post tons of videos showing how uneducated and gullible MAGA hillbillies are.
Re: (Score:2)
FB fact-checking (Score:4, Interesting)
Facebook and the Philippines (Score:4, Interesting)
The result: a culture of violence and impunity [rappler.com] which caused the deaths of tens of thousands [economist.com].
Facebook (now Meta) has direct and indirect culpability in all of this as it had ignored widespread reports of misinformation and allowed the proliferation of fake news to a population of over 110 million. Facebook still enjoys enormous reach in the Philippines today, so much so that Meta funded subsea cable investments for the country, with subsidized access to Facebook available for any smartphone owner.
The Philippines is a model and a cautionary tale of how many parts of the world shifted dramatically to the right in the 2010's, no thanks to unimpeded fake news on social media.
Re:I for one... (Score:5, Insightful)
As opposed to the Zuckerbot, which did everything he could to protect the Biden administration from attacks on Facebook, but will now openly allow any lie people want to tell about the Trump administration?
Red Kool-Aid and Blue Kool-Aid both taste of bitter almonds. The only differences are purely cosmetic.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh if only it tasted of bitter almonds. The Kool-aid (actually wylers) drinkers do not die.
Re:I for one... (Score:4)
As opposed to the Zuckerbot, which did everything he could to protect the Biden administration from attacks on Facebook, but will now openly allow any lie people want to tell about the Trump administration?
Setting aside whether that's even true, consider that those telling Lies" about Trump may actually want to help him.
Red Kool-Aid and Blue Kool-Aid both taste of bitter almonds. The only differences are purely cosmetic.
Except that one side has a recent history of fomenting violence against a peaceful transfer of power. And trying to retcon it away as a "day of love."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Except that one side has a recent history of fomenting violence against a peaceful transfer of power. And trying to retcon it away as a "day of love."
I thought it was a false flag attack, perpetrated by the FBI at the behest of the Deep State?
The GOP reboots and retcons are harder to keep track of than the Marvel multiverse.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Except that one side has a recent history of fomenting violence against a peaceful transfer of power.
That would be, of course, the BLM rioters when Queen Hillary lost to Trump in 2016, whose "peaceful protests" burned a lot of buildings to the ground and murdered quite a few along the way. Right? Right?
Re: (Score:2)
Except that one side has a recent history of fomenting violence against a peaceful transfer of power.
That would be, of course, the BLM rioters when Queen Hillary lost to Trump in 2016, whose "peaceful protests" burned a lot of buildings to the ground and murdered quite a few along the way. Right? Right?
Kindly share links to stories that document these supposed "protests" and "murders" in the wake of Clinton's 2016 loss, and their connection to BLM.
And how does that even make sense? Clinton lost support from BLM well before the election. [washingtontimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It was front page news at the time.
If you don't remember it, it's because you've chose to forget, and are so thoroughly indoctrinated by your leftist masters you are literally incapable of seeing any evidence of how evil they are. And you can find it yourself in a matter of seconds at any search engine.
So there's no point.
You have, in fact, admitted I'm right, and that you know it.
Re: (Score:2)
I have admitted nothing. And there is in fact a point: you can prove what you say, and make me look foolish, by showing evidence. Go ahead.
Your hubris doesn't prove anything. You're the one making the claim. It's up to you (not me) to prove it.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be, of course, the BLM rioters when Queen Hillary lost to Trump in 2016, whose "peaceful protests" burned a lot of buildings to the ground and murdered quite a few along the way. Right? Right?
Any links you can share?
Re: (Score:2)
What transfer of power was happening in the summer of 2020?
Oh, did you not read that rather important half of the sentence?
Re: (Score:2)
Except that one side has a recent history of fomenting violence against a peaceful transfer of power.
You mean the side that tried to assassinate the other candidate not once but twice?
One of those would-be assassins (who actually fired a weapon) was a Republican. The other is an independent. So, they weren't both on the same side, and neither one was on the side you're implying.
Re: (Score:2)
In September 2021, when he turned 18, Thomas Matthew Crooks registered to vote as a Republican. [wikipedia.org]
You tell me who is brainwashed here.
Re: (Score:2)
So? Maybe he fancied himself a mole for this true masters.
It's as plausible as any bullshit you might spew.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not spewing bullshit. He registered as a Republican. So the evidence at hand indicates he was one. If you have proof he wasn't, then present it. Otherwise, you are the one spewing bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not spewing bullshit. He registered as a Republican. So the evidence at hand indicates he was one. If you have proof he wasn't, then present it. Otherwise, you are the one spewing bullshit.
For one, money speaks louder than words. And he donated to Democrat causes.
But you knew that.
- On January 20, 2021, he donated $15 to a liberal voter-turnout group, via ActBlue, a Democratic-Party donation platform
- In September 2021 he registered to vote as a Republican
- in 2022, he unsubscribed from the liberal voter-turnout group
So ... the evidence indicates he changed his mind about progressive causes, and decided to become a Republican.
It doesn't appear his conviction for progressive causes was that strong anyway. Per the Wikipedia article, the FBI uncovered online posts from 2019 to 2020 beli
Re: (Score:2)
False flag!
FBI plant!
Deep state!
You people will make up any kind of shit rather than just admitting that no political party has a lock on idiots that get themselves killed by doing incredibly stupid things, like taking a shot at a former President from an open rooftop when United States Secret Service agents are around with their own sniper rifles.
Re: I for one... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)
It costs too much to fact check so we're outsourcing that to our users.
I don't think it's that...Trump is one of the biggest purveyors of bullshit and Zuckerberg likely wants to play nice with the next administration.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
On Twitter, the community notes works pretty good when the target is something that is a scam (90% of community notes target drop shipping scam ads), however when the community note is about a post that is not in english, I question the participation, since it's pretty easy to get into the community notes program. All it would take to elevate bad community notes is to create thousands of bot accounts.
Though I will say that community notes is probably more effective than fact checkers, since there is no way
Re: (Score:2)
like anti-vaxx morons who would rather kill us all than admit to being wrong
Fact check please? Some scientific survey or study showing that is their intent, or is it just you just using hyperbole projecting ill intent people you disagree with.
Re: (Score:3)
like anti-vaxx morons who would rather kill us all than admit to being wrong
Fact check please? Some scientific survey or study showing that is their intent, or is it just you just using hyperbole projecting ill intent people you disagree with.
You don't need intent in order to kill someone. Someone (most likely) doesn't intend to kill someone when they drive 100mph in a 55 zone, but the end result is still the same. No study needed. Reckless or negligent behavior which will has a high likelihood of injury to someone else should be frowned upon.
Re:Translation: (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
It costs too much to fact check so we're outsourcing that to our users.
To be fair though it seems there are enough users typically to debunk most bullshit that is going around. I especially like watching Elon Musk get fact checked on his own bullshit on his own platform. Hopefully Facebook can have a similar level of comedy.
What happens is bullshit is available by the metric tonne and it's laying about everywhere and people just dip in their shovel and spread it, and of course there are the deliberate disinformation and misinformation sources that craft and disseminate carefully curated bullshit to meet the fascist reich-wing agenda, and all of that is an easy to spew torrent, and fact checking takes time and effort, AND it comes too late, the bullshit has already spread.
Re:Translation: (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no such thing as an unbiased fact-checker. Especially when said fact has any political impact.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is no such thing as an unbiased fact-checker. Especially when said fact has any political impact.
That's why we need more than one fact-checker. Here are a few you might find useful:
https://adfontesmedia.com/ [adfontesmedia.com]
https://ground.news/ [ground.news]
https://www.snopes.com/ [snopes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's why we need more than one fact-checker.
We see how well this has worked on Wikipedia. Instead of two editors in an edit war (IE "fact checking") with one another, you have 10 editors against 9. Or 1000 against 2000. You get the point. In either case you have significant numbers of people not agreeing with the fact. The fundamental issue is there are vast numbers of things you can't distill down into a "factoid".
Re:Translation: (Score:4, Insightful)
I've found Wikipedia pretty useful. What makes it useful is the rigorous insistence on reliable sources, which means you can go read the sources yourself and judge.
Social media, on the other hand, almost never has sources, reliable or otherwise. The speed at which "Facts" are spread depends primarily on how much outrage they stimulate, with no concern about whether they are true or even plausible.
Re:Translation: (Score:4, Insightful)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?"
And who decides what is a reliable source? Another reliable source?
Re: (Score:2)
That's often where it breaks down. Ie, an article about a celebrity with an incorrect birth date will not accept changes from that same celebrity correcting it by giving the actual date. Same with the winner of the Nobel prize being unable to correct factual errors. Now, if these people wrote a letter to the editor with the information, then they could cite that letter to make the changes. Possibly they only need to tweet the correction and cite the tweet. It's a goofy system.
Re:Translation: (Score:4, Insightful)
I've found Wikipedia pretty useful. What makes it useful is the rigorous insistence on reliable sources, which means you can go read the sources yourself and judge.
For non-controversial or non-political topics, Wikipedia is fine. It's my go-to for looking up ship and aircraft info, for instance. But beyond that, it's a politicized shitshow, with a narrative that is fiercely defended.
Re: (Score:2)
Any number of "fact-checkers" would be fine. As long as they have no power (or influence) to censor. The trouble with "fact-checking" is that it is very difficult indeed to know with certainty what is true and what isn't. The way to find out isn't to forbid some opinions and impose others.
The whole point of any public discussion forum is to allow everyone to say their piece. If many of them disagree, that's fine too. Each person is free to draw her own conclusions. As Carl Sagan wisely said, "There are many
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you can quote official sources. Such as "here is the actual economic data in the governments last report, which disagrees with the Vice President's numbers." Or, "Last week you quoted a different number mister president, and here's a link to the interview..." ("no I didn't", "yes you did!", "I did not!")
If the speakers are allowed to lie, then fact checkers should be allowed to check facts. Fact checkers aren't doing censoring, instead there are people who actively want to shut up the fact checkers
Re: (Score:2)
"I was explicitly told there would be no fact checking. How dare you! How dare you question the veracity of my off-the-cuff remarks! Ok, I'll take one more question from the back..."
Re: (Score:3)
But there are obvious lies and completely untrue claims not backed by any form of evidence (or that run contrary to all known facts), so while not *all* things can be objectively marked as "false", some can. In the U.S., Facebook is not going to call those out. Interesting, no?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, why shouldn't it be allowed?
I mean..FB is not news...it is social media, people talking about what they want to, expressing themselves, etc.
The 1st amendment to the US constitution is there to protect freedom of speech....thi
Re: (Score:3)
But there are obvious lies and completely untrue claims not backed by any form of evidence (or that run contrary to all known facts)
That was back in the "good old days."
We're in a very different age now, I'm sorry to say, and it's far too easy to breed mistrust and division.
It's a complete mess and I see no easy way to clean it.
Re:Translation: (Score:5, Interesting)
Some of us are actually more aligned with truth and facts than we are with one political side winning. I'm actually more of a stickler for facts when correcting people who I generally agree with, because I don't want them spewing falsehoods and making me look bad by association.
It's not a fucking sporting event. You don't have to always cheer for "your" side. You should absolutely call out your own side when they screw up. And even consider that your side has stopped representing your values and change teams when necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
... consider that your side has stopped representing your values and change teams when necessary.
So what happens when neither side represents the average citizen?
Re: (Score:3)
Another person that believes in "alternative" facts...
Re:Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no such thing as an unbiased fact-checker. Especially when said fact has any political impact.
This statement is obviously true, but not very meaningful or useful.
Certainly everyone has biases, but not all biases are the same, either in focus or in strength. A fact-checker whose primary bias is to favor statements consistent with evidence, a bias for truth that is stronger than any political bias they might also hold, is likely to do a good job even on articles where their political bias kicks in. They'll still make mistakes due to their own bias fooling them, but they won't be common, or large. A pair of collaborating fact checkers who both have a strong bias for truth and weaker and opposite political biases will counter one another's political biases. Even better if the fact checkers are open to criticism of errors they might have made and happy to correct their fact checks when better evidence is provided.
All of this is perfectly possible, and not even that hard to achieve, so blandly dismissing all fact checking merely because fact checkers are people is just foolish. It's tantamount to just declaring that facts don't exist and all truth is subjective. A few years ago I'd have found that a ludicrous position for any conservative (or anyone, really). Now, it seem like a lot of the GOP has gone full on post-modernist.
Re: (Score:2)
But you can fact check teh fact checkers. If they're good fact checkers they will have references, pointers to the actual data, etc. Fact checkers aren't just people who say "you're wrong!"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Who gets to decide what the facts are? Who fact checks the fact checkers?
All of the reputable fact checking sites list their sources. You can fact check them yourself, because they show you where they got their information, and you can vet that.
If the fact checkers you look at don't cite sources... go find ones that do.
Re: (Score:3)
It's really probably all about money.
It is always about the money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, he never should've bent to the Control Left in the first place. In recent years there's been a lot of government pressure on social media companies to control the narrative. Zuck did what he had to to keep his company; he can open things up under an administration that believes in free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
he can open things up under an administration that believes in free speech.
Whenever we get around to installing one of those "free speech administrations" we'll have to test your theory. You'll be waiting til 2029, at a minimum. Unless you are ready to admit that you meant "speech that agrees with my viewpoints" instead of "free speech".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this incoming administration that "believes in free speech" led by a guy who probably holds a world record for filing SLAPP lawsuits, and is threatening to jail members of Congress for investigating him, and threatening news networks with FCC license revocation because they aren't nice to him.
Who in the fuck do you think you're kidding with that bullshit?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a classic example of "obeying in advance of the request" - Zuckerberg knows that he's in the crosshairs so he's trying to play nice with the incoming administration and give them the room to lie their asses off without him having to pay the price and possibly lose CDA section 230 over it.
This is creeping autocracy. Right here.
Re:Buch of two-faced traitors. (Score:5, Informative)
Read up on the "paradox of tolerance".
In the end, we learn that we do not have to tolerate the intolerant, potentially losing a liberal, western democracy and civilized society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Like all philosophy its just the musing of people, there is no proof just what people think, no matter how many degrees a person gets in making up shit, or books they write about making up shit, it is still just an opinion.
To me if you don't allow tolerance of intolerance, then it is just far to easy to label anything you disagree with as intolerant giving you free reign to ban it. Like most things I think its about balance. But to me the limit happens those intolerance become physical actions and go beyond
Re: (Score:2)
Read up on the "paradox of tolerance".
The paradox of tolerance is a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. It's not a logical inevitability. As to whether it's an even halfway decent description of how the real world works? -- I've looked for analyses at length, but haven't found any.
(My personal amateur reading of history is that it's a poor description of how the world has worked in the past and my amateur reading of current politics is that belief in it leads people to make practically bad choices. But I'm an amateur in these two respects and my perception has
Re: (Score:2)
The point that all intolerance can/should be removed misses the mark.
Tolerance should be allowed space to prevent genuinely, harmful intolerance from from creating any version of society that functionally oppresses descent or opposing points of view to implement or maintain their harmful agenda.
Re: (Score:3)
Err...wasn't it the Biden administration that was trying to itself create a US Federal "Ministry of Truth" [wikipedia.org] type office not long back?
Thankfully...people got pissed when they found out about it, and Nina Jankowicz who was coming in to run it was bounced.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And we are on /., where it's all there (at -1), and it's not hurting anybody.
And there's Alex Jones who got fined $999 billion (or something) for his stupid drivel. But is there any precedent for a financial death sentence for any of the other AM radio kooks that preceded him for the last 100 years?
Re: Buch of two-faced traitors. (Score:4, Informative)
Alex Jones wasn't fined by any government entity, or for $999 billion. He was sued in civil court by private parties who won damages against him.
Re: (Score:2)
When Soros was spreading millions around to elect the most distasteful pro-criminal DAs around, you people were fine with it because they were coddling the criminals, which you people claim are just "people trying to make ends meet" or whatever.
People who mention Soros crack me. The boogey man you speak of is literally Elon Musk. Let's see, we have the richest person on the planet who can't be president so he bought an administration. I mean he's moved in with Trump and is even starting to annoy him according to reports. https://www.yahoo.com/news/tru... [yahoo.com]
You also don't think there's quite a conflict between the person who holds numerous government and defense contracts and is also going to head the office of "government efficiency"?
Re: (Score:2)
Watching them emboldened by a political victory like it makes them right is frustrating, but it remains important to keep reminding them they're not... Or things will get even worse than they are already on track to become.
Every inch given to the right has been used to take the next inch, and they have absolutely no qualms about lying or breaking civility to get what they want. And a lot of what they want is bad for everyone.
Not enough people have learned the lesson yet that you can't just keep quiet and a
Re: (Score:3)
I share your distrust of billionaires with unwholesome agendas. But please, no violence, or even an allusion to it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What kind of false dichotomy bullshit is this?
"Look, your guy told a lie once, therefore my guy that provably lies tens of thousands of times about literally everything while also being an adjudicated rapist and convicted felon is just fine!"
Remember when character mattered to conservatives? Boy, were those the days.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is how you know the court case was rigged. She libeled Trump by saying in a book that he raped her. George Stephanopoulos was successfully sued for repeating that claim. Yet, when Trump called Carroll a liar, he was the one who had to pay up. Does that sound like justice? Does that sound sane?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, orange man is "bad". Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that.