4 ms·

That's a really cheap false equivalency. You've basically side nothing while ignorning the practical reality of what we're discussing. Take for example, the fac

That's a really cheap false equivalency. You've basically side nothing while ignorning the practical reality of what we're discussing. Take for example, the fact that Fox News will continually post stories about how Global Warming is a hoax, which is something the Huffington Post definitely won't do. The Huffington Post tends to write click-baity headlines, but they've never out right used lies in their articles. That's not bias, it's an observable trend. Tell me, which is "propaganda."

angry-hacker 10y ago
And Huff constantly publishes stories telling gender doesn't exist. All the scientists beg to differ. Look mate I'm not interested in arguing who is more wrong. The fact is both sides have bias and talk about things that for whatever reason they find most important. And usually it bothers other side of the political spectrum so it's like a never ending loop from both sides.
- popmystack 10y ago
  >And Huff constantly publishes stories telling gender doesn't exist. They definitely don't do this. It seems like you have a significant misunderstanding of the literature being discussed. >Look mate I'm not interested in arguing who is more wrong. No, it's about who is wrong _more often_ and who reports fake stories _more often_. When the standard for one set of sources is consistently absurdly low then you can't just pretend all sources are equal. Again, it's a false equivalency.
  - talmand 10y ago
    So your standard for trustworthy news is an outlet that is wrong "less often" than their competition you likely already dislike?
    - popmystack 10y ago
      I definitely didn't say anything remotely like that, so I'm really not sure how to respond to this. I'm really tired of the one-off pedantic and disingenuous posts people seem to be okay with posting on these topics. In the context of facebook "censoring" conservative media outlets, there's an observable trend that major conservative news sources are more apt to post false or misleading content that tickle's their audiences expectations, than it is for major liberal sources. This is an observable trend. Take something as scientifically sound as global warming or evolution. Fox News or Breitbart will consistently misreport on these issues, just to be in harmony with the overall conservative narrative in the U.S. It is highly unlikely you will find equivalent liberal sources that do anything remotely like that. Liberal sources are not perfect nor are they immune from criticism. It's just _more_ likely that an editor will find reason to deny a story from a conservative source than a liberal one. Again, this doesn't seem like a problem for facebook to solve by removing editors, it seems like a problem conservatives should strive to fix. No news source is going to be perfect. They're never going to report everything accurately, and sometimes they might jump the gun to just get a story out. But there is a line when you can consistently observe a set of news sources being dishonest, or even worse, malevolent. With all this mind, keep in mind the stories that were falsely trending. It's coming from the same set of sources, with the same political idealogies that Facebook got lambasted for "censoring." You have to be blatantly ignoring what's going on at this point to admit that maybe, just maybe, the problem wasn't with the editors. And as a side note, I really have never labeled myself one way or another, but I've found over the years I'm consistently labeled as a "liberal" so I've picked it up. The only thing I've ever done is looked at the evidence, been skeptical about claims, and tried my best to form opinions around an ever revolving set of information. If that means my opinions happen to be more consistently liberal than conservative then so be it, but screaming "bias" just because one side of the U.S. political spectrum consistently has absurdly low standards is the worst kind of false equivalency.
- DanBC 10y ago
  >The fact is both sides have bias No one is denying this. People are saying there's a significant difference between bias that influences the ways facts are portrayed, and bias that causes facts to be invented.
- int_19h 10y ago
  > And Huff constantly publishes stories telling gender doesn't exist. All the scientists beg to differ. I'm decidedly not a fan of HuffPo, but this is a massive distortion. No-one is disputing that biological sex exists, and that's what science supports. The matter of gender, and various associated concepts such as gender roles and norms, is completely different - and there is plenty of research to support the idea that a lot of entrenched gender stereotypes are largely or purely a social construct.

angry-hacker 10y ago

And Huff constantly publishes stories telling gender doesn't exist. All the scientists beg to differ. Look mate I'm not interested in arguing who is more wrong. The fact is both sides have bias and talk about things that for whatever reason they find most important. And usually it bothers other side of the political spectrum so it's like a never ending loop from both sides.

popmystack 10y ago
>And Huff constantly publishes stories telling gender doesn't exist. They definitely don't do this. It seems like you have a significant misunderstanding of the literature being discussed. >Look mate I'm not interested in arguing who is more wrong. No, it's about who is wrong _more often_ and who reports fake stories _more often_. When the standard for one set of sources is consistently absurdly low then you can't just pretend all sources are equal. Again, it's a false equivalency.
- talmand 10y ago
  So your standard for trustworthy news is an outlet that is wrong "less often" than their competition you likely already dislike?
  - popmystack 10y ago
    I definitely didn't say anything remotely like that, so I'm really not sure how to respond to this. I'm really tired of the one-off pedantic and disingenuous posts people seem to be okay with posting on these topics. In the context of facebook "censoring" conservative media outlets, there's an observable trend that major conservative news sources are more apt to post false or misleading content that tickle's their audiences expectations, than it is for major liberal sources. This is an observable trend. Take something as scientifically sound as global warming or evolution. Fox News or Breitbart will consistently misreport on these issues, just to be in harmony with the overall conservative narrative in the U.S. It is highly unlikely you will find equivalent liberal sources that do anything remotely like that. Liberal sources are not perfect nor are they immune from criticism. It's just _more_ likely that an editor will find reason to deny a story from a conservative source than a liberal one. Again, this doesn't seem like a problem for facebook to solve by removing editors, it seems like a problem conservatives should strive to fix. No news source is going to be perfect. They're never going to report everything accurately, and sometimes they might jump the gun to just get a story out. But there is a line when you can consistently observe a set of news sources being dishonest, or even worse, malevolent. With all this mind, keep in mind the stories that were falsely trending. It's coming from the same set of sources, with the same political idealogies that Facebook got lambasted for "censoring." You have to be blatantly ignoring what's going on at this point to admit that maybe, just maybe, the problem wasn't with the editors. And as a side note, I really have never labeled myself one way or another, but I've found over the years I'm consistently labeled as a "liberal" so I've picked it up. The only thing I've ever done is looked at the evidence, been skeptical about claims, and tried my best to form opinions around an ever revolving set of information. If that means my opinions happen to be more consistently liberal than conservative then so be it, but screaming "bias" just because one side of the U.S. political spectrum consistently has absurdly low standards is the worst kind of false equivalency.
DanBC 10y ago
>The fact is both sides have bias No one is denying this. People are saying there's a significant difference between bias that influences the ways facts are portrayed, and bias that causes facts to be invented.
int_19h 10y ago
> And Huff constantly publishes stories telling gender doesn't exist. All the scientists beg to differ. I'm decidedly not a fan of HuffPo, but this is a massive distortion. No-one is disputing that biological sex exists, and that's what science supports. The matter of gender, and various associated concepts such as gender roles and norms, is completely different - and there is plenty of research to support the idea that a lot of entrenched gender stereotypes are largely or purely a social construct.