8 ms·

There's a proper response to "accusations of bias" from alt-right white-nationalist thug media. Never mind whether the accusations "looked likely to lead to a C

by Bud 10y ago

There's a proper response to "accusations of bias" from alt-right white-nationalist thug media. Never mind whether the accusations "looked likely to lead to a Congressional investigation". The response is to tell them to fuck off, and that the professional editors in your private company will continue to do their job however they see fit. Period, paragraph.

mozumder 10y ago
Correct. I don't know why editorial bias was a problem in the first place. Right now they have false-equivalency bias that drives fake stories.
- zeveb 10y ago
  > I don't know why editorial bias was a problem in the first place. Because, like it or not, Facebook has become a trusted news source. Because of that, they have a duty to accurately report the news. Their human editors fell down by vanishing stories they found politically uncomfortable. Their algorithmic editor fell down by promoting stories that were false.
  - ssalazar 10y ago
    > Because, like it or not, Facebook has become a trusted news source. Because of that, they have a duty to accurately report the news. What other trusted news source has this "duty?" What other trusted news source does not have biased editors?
    - zeveb 10y ago
      > What other trusted news source has this "duty?" All of them. > What other trusted news source does not have biased editors? None of them, of course. Man is a fallible creature. But other news sources try, most of the time, to be objective and accurate.
dasil003 10y ago
Telling people who aren't aligned to with the liberal intelligentsia to fuck off is exactly what got us in the current mess. Most people are reasonable, but when the reasonable and rational media ignores their issues, we leave the door open to demagogues and dictators. How else could a silver spoon like Donald Trump ever claim to represent the everyman?
- Bud 10y ago
  I think you're misinterpreting me, and also distorting my words significantly, which I object to. I didn't say we should tell people "who aren't aligned with the liberal intelligentsia" to fuck off. I was speaking narrowly about lawyers from places like Breitbart; i.e., the kinds of folks who have been trying to apply pressure to Facebook and making accusations. NOT the general population.
  - dasil003 10y ago
    Sorry, I apologize as I definitely was using your comment as more of a general soapbox than directly responding. Upvoted.
    - talmand 10y ago
      Don't apologize, it's how I took the comment as well. You can assume someone is guilty of generalizing when they generalize.
- yolesaber 10y ago
  >Telling people who aren't aligned to with the liberal intelligentsia to fuck off is exactly what got us in the current mess. I am so sick of this argument that Trump's victory is somehow the fault of bubble-trapped city-dwelling liberals for not understanding how the rest of the country thinks. Trump supporters are the ones who have either been manipulated to vote against their own interests; implicitly elected a Republican administration no different from the ones that they now claim to have rejected; ignored the obvious signs that Trump is of the same "elite" ilk that seeks to exploit them; been duped to amplify social hatred and reinforce the worst bigotry and sexism of the right-wing; benefited from many of the federal supports they claim to hate; or neglected the existential peril of their belief that the economy is more important than the planet's ability to sustain life; if not all of the above. Should the left have picked a candidate that is more aligned with the issues of the working class? Absolutely. Does that mean it's entirely on them? Hell no.
gph 10y ago
First of all your use of biased language is ridiculous, you are as bad as the 'alt-right white-nationalish thug media' and I wish people like you had no place in rational discussions. Second if you tell them to "Fuck off" you risk losing a significant chunk of your user base who believes their content and information is being manipulated against them. Facebook isn't in the politics business, they are in the social networking business. If Facebook is seen as political at all then a competing business will set up a service to sell to the other side. Look at what happened to mainstream media channels. Claims of liberal bias in the media giants directly led to the success of Fox News.
- Bud 10y ago
  You're right. Telling bullies "no" does risk that other bullies will leave your site. But that risk is already there. And Facebook is already seen as political; that ship has sailed.
  - gph 10y ago
    >And Facebook is already seen as political; that ship has sailed. I don't think that's true. Certainly the extremes on each side will say that. But I think everyone in the middle doesn't. I don't. Certainly not in the same way as I see Fox News/CNN/MSNBC as political.
    - Bud 10y ago
      We're only talking about the extremes. We're talking about spurious pressure from alt-right media.
  - dotnetisnotdead 10y ago
    It's funny that you don't think people marching in the streets, blocking traffic, screaming obscenities and destroying things right now aren't bullies.
    - knowaveragejoe 10y ago
tnones 10y ago
The only reason it looks alt-right white-nationalist to you is because anyone on the left who disagrees with prevailing left wing dogma is branded a heretic and a bigot, and shut down quickly. Take The Guardian. They employ people like Jessica Valenti and Laurie Penny who publish feminist clickbait. Then they aggressively moderate comments which explain why those two are ill-informed at best and dishonest manipulators at worst. Then they do a "study" where they demonstrate how much harassment their female writers receive, by considering every deleted comment to be an instance of harassment. Alternative hypotheses are not welcome, and there is no accountability. Actual studies like Pew's about the magnitude and nature of real harassment are ignored, or spun by cherry picking. The dogma remains: women have it worse, and it's because they are women. This system gets them more traffic and attention, so they are encouraged to continue, even as they insist it's terrible and someone should stop it.
- linkregister 10y ago
  I think The Guardian is a bad example of this. Their articles follow a particularly narrow group of viewpoints. They will never have the mainstream (liberal) appeal as the New York Times or the Washington Post.
  - umeshunni 10y ago
    Don't you mean a good example of this?
- quirkafleeg 10y ago
  I may be missing something here, but what do your two paragraphs of axe-grinding about women have to do with his remark about American "alt-right white-nationalist thug media"?
  - makomk 10y ago
    What does two paragraphs of axe-grinding about woman like Jessica Valenti and Laurie Penny have to do with American "alt-right white-nationalist thug media"? Take a look at the narratives they've been pushing about Truump and the evils of the alt-right lately.

by Bud 10y ago

mozumder 10y ago

Correct. I don't know why editorial bias was a problem in the first place. Right now they have false-equivalency bias that drives fake stories.

zeveb 10y ago
> I don't know why editorial bias was a problem in the first place. Because, like it or not, Facebook has become a trusted news source. Because of that, they have a duty to accurately report the news. Their human editors fell down by vanishing stories they found politically uncomfortable. Their algorithmic editor fell down by promoting stories that were false.
- ssalazar 10y ago
  > Because, like it or not, Facebook has become a trusted news source. Because of that, they have a duty to accurately report the news. What other trusted news source has this "duty?" What other trusted news source does not have biased editors?
  - zeveb 10y ago
    > What other trusted news source has this "duty?" All of them. > What other trusted news source does not have biased editors? None of them, of course. Man is a fallible creature. But other news sources try, most of the time, to be objective and accurate.

dasil003 10y ago

Telling people who aren't aligned to with the liberal intelligentsia to fuck off is exactly what got us in the current mess. Most people are reasonable, but when the reasonable and rational media ignores their issues, we leave the door open to demagogues and dictators. How else could a silver spoon like Donald Trump ever claim to represent the everyman?

Bud 10y ago
I think you're misinterpreting me, and also distorting my words significantly, which I object to. I didn't say we should tell people "who aren't aligned with the liberal intelligentsia" to fuck off. I was speaking narrowly about lawyers from places like Breitbart; i.e., the kinds of folks who have been trying to apply pressure to Facebook and making accusations. NOT the general population.
- dasil003 10y ago
  Sorry, I apologize as I definitely was using your comment as more of a general soapbox than directly responding. Upvoted.
  - talmand 10y ago
    Don't apologize, it's how I took the comment as well. You can assume someone is guilty of generalizing when they generalize.
yolesaber 10y ago
>Telling people who aren't aligned to with the liberal intelligentsia to fuck off is exactly what got us in the current mess. I am so sick of this argument that Trump's victory is somehow the fault of bubble-trapped city-dwelling liberals for not understanding how the rest of the country thinks. Trump supporters are the ones who have either been manipulated to vote against their own interests; implicitly elected a Republican administration no different from the ones that they now claim to have rejected; ignored the obvious signs that Trump is of the same "elite" ilk that seeks to exploit them; been duped to amplify social hatred and reinforce the worst bigotry and sexism of the right-wing; benefited from many of the federal supports they claim to hate; or neglected the existential peril of their belief that the economy is more important than the planet's ability to sustain life; if not all of the above. Should the left have picked a candidate that is more aligned with the issues of the working class? Absolutely. Does that mean it's entirely on them? Hell no.

gph 10y ago

First of all your use of biased language is ridiculous, you are as bad as the 'alt-right white-nationalish thug media' and I wish people like you had no place in rational discussions. Second if you tell them to "Fuck off" you risk losing a significant chunk of your user base who believes their content and information is being manipulated against them. Facebook isn't in the politics business, they are in the social networking business. If Facebook is seen as political at all then a competing business will set up a service to sell to the other side. Look at what happened to mainstream media channels. Claims of liberal bias in the media giants directly led to the success of Fox News.

Bud 10y ago
You're right. Telling bullies "no" does risk that other bullies will leave your site. But that risk is already there. And Facebook is already seen as political; that ship has sailed.
- gph 10y ago
  >And Facebook is already seen as political; that ship has sailed. I don't think that's true. Certainly the extremes on each side will say that. But I think everyone in the middle doesn't. I don't. Certainly not in the same way as I see Fox News/CNN/MSNBC as political.
  - Bud 10y ago
    We're only talking about the extremes. We're talking about spurious pressure from alt-right media.
- dotnetisnotdead 10y ago
  It's funny that you don't think people marching in the streets, blocking traffic, screaming obscenities and destroying things right now aren't bullies.
  - knowaveragejoe 10y ago

tnones 10y ago

The only reason it looks alt-right white-nationalist to you is because anyone on the left who disagrees with prevailing left wing dogma is branded a heretic and a bigot, and shut down quickly. Take The Guardian. They employ people like Jessica Valenti and Laurie Penny who publish feminist clickbait. Then they aggressively moderate comments which explain why those two are ill-informed at best and dishonest manipulators at worst. Then they do a "study" where they demonstrate how much harassment their female writers receive, by considering every deleted comment to be an instance of harassment. Alternative hypotheses are not welcome, and there is no accountability. Actual studies like Pew's about the magnitude and nature of real harassment are ignored, or spun by cherry picking. The dogma remains: women have it worse, and it's because they are women. This system gets them more traffic and attention, so they are encouraged to continue, even as they insist it's terrible and someone should stop it.

linkregister 10y ago
I think The Guardian is a bad example of this. Their articles follow a particularly narrow group of viewpoints. They will never have the mainstream (liberal) appeal as the New York Times or the Washington Post.
- umeshunni 10y ago
  Don't you mean a good example of this?
quirkafleeg 10y ago
I may be missing something here, but what do your two paragraphs of axe-grinding about women have to do with his remark about American "alt-right white-nationalist thug media"?
- makomk 10y ago
  What does two paragraphs of axe-grinding about woman like Jessica Valenti and Laurie Penny have to do with American "alt-right white-nationalist thug media"? Take a look at the narratives they've been pushing about Truump and the evils of the alt-right lately.