3 ms·

But that's not what the article said. They had a conservative on staff who was in charge of these feeds, and he wasn't cutting out conservative articles, he wa

But that's not what the article said. They had a conservative on staff who was in charge of these feeds, and he wasn't cutting out conservative articles, he was cutting out articles that supported candidates he didn't like. As long as you choose to consume their product, you get the results of their work. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. You should appreciate that as a libertarian. I see no harm in excluding articles from Breitbart, Washington Examiner, and Newsmax. Or Alternet for that matter. Those aren't news organizations. They're propaganda tabloids which consume the work of Reuters and the AP and regurgitate it with a ton of spin.

dba7dba 11y ago
So facebook is a news site? Or a connector of people?
- MisterBastahrd 11y ago
  I must have lost track of the law that said that all things must be monolithic in their nature. Facebook is a connector of people that uses news to keep people interested an on the site.
  - dba7dba 11y ago
    EDIT: No sir, there is no such law that said that all things must be monolithic in their nature. So, distort stories to keep eyeballs of main customers (younger hence more liberal) on Facebook, for the sake of earning more ad dollars? I think the younger customers deserve more than that? Should give more credit to the younger generation no?
    - MisterBastahrd 11y ago
      It's plainly clear that you didn't read the article, so there's nothing further to discuss.
michaelbuddy 11y ago
>As long as you choose to consume their product, you get the results of their work. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. Except when you don't know what you aren't seeing. >Those aren't news organizations. Breitbart has teams of reporters and editors, so does Infowars. Breitbart has offices in different locations, such as London and the U.S. Breitbart has it's reporters following the campaign and they get many exclusives. If we all should agree they aren't news orgs, then the HuffPost isn't a news org.
- MisterBastahrd 11y ago
  Who said that HuffPo was a news org? They're an ideological blog. Just like Breitbart is an ideological blog. Having offices doesn't make one a news org. Why are you making arguments against claims I never made? Also, why do libertarians hate it so much when people use their own basic ideology against them?
  - michaelbuddy 11y ago
    > Having offices doesn't make one a news org. No, having reporters and editors who cover current events does. The reason I brought up huffpost was anyone saying breitbart isn't news, immediately I'd have to test them with HuffPo. You know to spot the hypocrite. But anyway, HuffPo and Breitbart are both news orgs like it or not. News has always been slanted whether by selective coverage or the way things are framed. Example: 2 stories about refugees, one covers a family (with photos) where the children speak english (outliers) The other covers a boat load of military age males (again with photos), talks about concern over violence and culture war. Both would be news stories. One you're likely to find in NPR or the Washington Post, the other you'll find on Breitbart. Sorry you're wrong about what's a news source and what's not. feel free to comment on quality or slant though. >Why do libertarians... I don't know, ask them.

dba7dba 11y ago

So facebook is a news site? Or a connector of people?

MisterBastahrd 11y ago
I must have lost track of the law that said that all things must be monolithic in their nature. Facebook is a connector of people that uses news to keep people interested an on the site.
- dba7dba 11y ago
  EDIT: No sir, there is no such law that said that all things must be monolithic in their nature. So, distort stories to keep eyeballs of main customers (younger hence more liberal) on Facebook, for the sake of earning more ad dollars? I think the younger customers deserve more than that? Should give more credit to the younger generation no?
  - MisterBastahrd 11y ago
    It's plainly clear that you didn't read the article, so there's nothing further to discuss.

michaelbuddy 11y ago

>As long as you choose to consume their product, you get the results of their work. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. Except when you don't know what you aren't seeing. >Those aren't news organizations. Breitbart has teams of reporters and editors, so does Infowars. Breitbart has offices in different locations, such as London and the U.S. Breitbart has it's reporters following the campaign and they get many exclusives. If we all should agree they aren't news orgs, then the HuffPost isn't a news org.

MisterBastahrd 11y ago
Who said that HuffPo was a news org? They're an ideological blog. Just like Breitbart is an ideological blog. Having offices doesn't make one a news org. Why are you making arguments against claims I never made? Also, why do libertarians hate it so much when people use their own basic ideology against them?
- michaelbuddy 11y ago
  > Having offices doesn't make one a news org. No, having reporters and editors who cover current events does. The reason I brought up huffpost was anyone saying breitbart isn't news, immediately I'd have to test them with HuffPo. You know to spot the hypocrite. But anyway, HuffPo and Breitbart are both news orgs like it or not. News has always been slanted whether by selective coverage or the way things are framed. Example: 2 stories about refugees, one covers a family (with photos) where the children speak english (outliers) The other covers a boat load of military age males (again with photos), talks about concern over violence and culture war. Both would be news stories. One you're likely to find in NPR or the Washington Post, the other you'll find on Breitbart. Sorry you're wrong about what's a news source and what's not. feel free to comment on quality or slant though. >Why do libertarians... I don't know, ask them.