5 ms·

I don't believe he is in denial at all. In fact the article strikes me as more of the same reason why so many voted for Trump. The people who write these artic

I don't believe he is in denial at all. In fact the article strikes me as more of the same reason why so many voted for Trump. The people who write these articles just can't accept the idea that people didn't vote for Trump unless they were tricked into it, or were fed lies. The idea that because they have a different reality they based their votes on never occurred to them. What fake news do is reinoforce what people already believe to be true which is quite another discussion and anyone who have been debating with some 9/11 truther knows that no amount of data will convince them of anything else and neither are you going to be convinced it's suddenly true even though we all have been bombarded with claims from friends. Also maybe my facebook feed is different, maybe my friends are different but I had and still have plenty of disagreement in my feed plenty of articles pointing both ways. Here is a good example from my feed. https://cl.ly/1b1s2W2w0G0c https://cl.ly/1b1s2W2w0G0c Basically a four year old history surfaces which is wrong and look at the articles underneath. I have seen plenty of examples of that. But maybe my feed is unique.

conistonwater 10y ago
That is not the argument in the opinion piece at all. What are you responding to?
- jansenv 10y ago
  Looks like they just needed to vent a bit.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  Here is an examples which illustrates it perfectly well: "After the election, Mr. Zuckerberg claimed that the fake news was a problem on “both sides” of the race. That’s wrong. There are, of course, viral fake anti-Trump memes, but reporters have found that the spread of false news is far more common on the right than it is on the left."
  - talmand 10y ago
    This >> but reporters have found that the spread of false news is far more common on the right than it is on the left." does not make this >> Mr. Zuckerberg claimed that the fake news was a problem on “both sides” of the race incorrect. One side does not get a pass because it was the lesser problem.
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      But we aren't talking about that. We are talking about whether it effects election which is what the article claims he is in denial about. "Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief, believes that it is “a pretty crazy idea” that “fake news on Facebook, which is a very small amount of content, influenced the election in any way.” In holding fast to the claim that his company has little effect on how people make up their minds, Mr. Zuckerberg is doing real damage to American democracy — and to the world."
      - K0SM0S 10y ago
        The fact is that Facebook is not a media company. In some countries (e.g. most of Europe) where this distinction makes tremendous differences (the media being much more regulated than other for-profit companies), they are pretty adamant about it. Understandably so, business-wise. Regardless of whether their assumption is true or not, I wouldn't expect the CEO of said company to just come out and say "oh yeah, sure, we're influencers like any other media and we forward fake news too". It's just business sense imho. As for what Mark truly believes, on a personal level, you'd have to be a close friend, not a journalist recording, to get privy to it.
        ThomPete 10y ago
        I am not taking his word for it. Thats my opinion regardless of what Zuckerberg says.
- splawn 10y ago
  Take a look at his comment history, that is Thom's MO. Trump being elected due to misinformation triggers the crap out of him for some reason.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    What about making the case that it did happen because of misinformation instead of focusing on my comment history? I have said a lot of things on both sides and is hardly just some troll. We all have our triggers, this is one for me so whats wrong with that?
    - flockonus 10y ago
      There is no such case to be made. If viral fake news influence even some tiny percentage, there is already responsibility on social media for how this elections turned out. Yes, quite possibly >90% of the people would have voted the same way regardless of news, still we all know the "swing" makes all the difference
      - barrkel 10y ago
        If only 45% voted for Trump, they wouldn't have valid opinions? If 5% made the difference, then 90% of the votes for Trump don't form a mandate? There's a problem here - first past the post voting - but there's also another problem: denial of the legitimacy of an opposition. The vast majority of the people who voted for Trump have valid opinions. You can't just dismiss them.
        flockonus 10y ago
        Definitely a valid government regardless of what influenced it. Attributing cause to vote swing does not take legitimacy away, it's just being honest
    - splawn 10y ago
      I know this is bleeding over from our previous conversation, but the only case I have made wrt this topic is my opinion that it would be nice if critical thinking was more of a cultural force than it currently is. I would play your game and try to make the case that you want me to make, but I am not sure what data I would be able to source for that even if I suspect it to be true. Nothing wrong with having triggers, I was just using "alt-right" rhetoric to tease you a little bit.
bluejekyll 10y ago
I didn't get that sense from the article. It was all about influence. False stories influence people's opinions, and that may have encouraged voters to turn out or not for their candidate. There was a lot of false and misleading information distributed online during this election, and literally spoken by the candidates (one more than another). The biggest lie is actually at the heart of Trump's campaign, that he can bring back the jobs. Those jobs he's talking about haven't just been outsourced to other countries, in many cases they have been automated into oblivion. Trump promised to bring these back, but how can you bring something back that doesn't exist? Mind you the Dems and Clinton had no substantial story to weave for the people that are hurting from the lack of these jobs. So people chose the fiction over no substantive story. It's an uncomfortable thing to tell people that everything they know is irrrelevent in the modern economy.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  I dont' believe he can bring them back either but it wasn't based on a lie and I am pretty sure he means it which is why he wants to dig into the resources and rebuild infrastructure. That does not make it a lie anymore than "yes we can" does.
  - bluejekyll 10y ago
    Trump relied on one of the worst aspects of the Human existence, that someone else will fix your problems for you. Giving people optimism about the future, bettering yours and everyone's existence is motivating for everyone. I believe this for anyone I've ever managed, and for any project I've ever worked on. People work better when they are optimistic. "Yes, we can" is a motivational statement encouraging people to try. Trump's "make America great again" is based on some misguided notion of nastalgia. When is this period that that statement harkens back to? Remember, the decades after WWII were great for the US because literally every other industrialized nation had been bombed so badly that they could barely make anything at all. America did well during this period because we had no competition. So how do we go back to that?
    - talmand 10y ago
solipsism 10y ago
Is this the new meme now? Things we don't agree with are "more of the same thing that got Trump elected"? What fake news do is reinoforce what people already believe to be true Sure. And it also reinforces things people don't yet know (because it's fake) but which fits into one's preexisting worldview. It's a multiplicative factor. An amplification. The claim by the article is actually very measured -- that fake news is a part of the whole picture. Do you really disagree with that?
- solipsism 10y ago
  Oops, didn't read the other comments. Apparently it's already established you didn't even read the article.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    ehh yes I did read it and no it's not established.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  I disagree that it's enough to explain the election result even remotely or that it's something the facebook should do something about right now. Fake news are easy to debunk and the same lie which takes advantage of network spread can also be debunked by the same measures. Again if people really want to believe in something no amount of rebuttals are going to change that. What's far more concerning is the kind of exaggerations that the traditional media use to blow everything out of proportion. We all live in filter bubbles some in very tightly controlled bubbles others in more open bubbles but they are all bubbles. I have yet to see any proof that fake news are effecting how people vote on any serious scale. Maybe some people here and there. But to claim that it's a problem for the election is simply another attempt at trying find a reason other than the obvious one, that many people who voted for Trump did so because they live in another bubble than those who votes for Hillary. That they have different perspectives and different problems, different dreams and fears. Thats the reason we votes different and fake news aren't going to change the overall world view we have there.
ceejay 10y ago
I think there are fake stories that reinforce your current predisposition and then there are fake stories that a vulnerable human being reads and it takes their beliefs to the fringe. Also, I have a hard time believing that seeing one or two stray bogus stories is the same as seeing bogus stories everywhere you care to look. In one case a vulnerable human being might have enough reason to doubt what they're reading, and in the other case they suddenly feel like the world is caving in on them.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  Who is talking about everywhere you care to look? Thats a completely made up claim.
  - ceejay 10y ago
    http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/ http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/
    - Pokepokalypse 10y ago
      Sadly, this site will not play with my ad blocker enabled.
BeetleB 10y ago
>The people who write these articles just can't accept the idea that people didn't vote for Trump unless they were tricked into it, or were fed lies. I agree with what you're trying to say, but you are being overly broad. Talk to Trump supporters prior to the election, and with the exception of "anti-establishment", most of them will give reasons that they were tricked into believing. Go to fact checking web sites and look at all the statements Trump continually repeated that were demonstrably false, and see how many of them the supporters believed (hint: many of them). So yes, they were fed lies and believed them. However, you are correct in that it was not the only reason why they voted for him. They believed those lies as post-hoc justification for their picking him. Really no different from people who pick any candidate, including Hilary.
- mr_spothawk 10y ago
  > most of them will give reasons that they were tricked into believing. what makes you think they were "tricked" any more than supporters of some different as-yet-uninstalled president.
eeZah7Ux 10y ago
> The people who write these articles just can't accept the idea that people didn't vote for Trump unless they were tricked into it, or were fed lies. This looks like a middle ground fallacy.
dclowd9901 10y ago
1) Anecdote is not evidence. 2) In one breath you dismiss this article as elitism, and in the very next admit the problem of fake news, which is exactly what this article is talking about. It's not another discussion. It is exactly this discussion. I've never seen such a blatant use of straw man.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  The article claims that Zuckerberg is wrong in his claim that the fake news affected the election in any meaningful way. Thats what I am talking about, not sure what exactly make you say it's a straw man.
  - dclowd9901 10y ago
    I don't even know what kind of point you're trying to make now. In your post you describe a class of individuals so out of touch that they can't believe Trump voters weren't tricked, yet admit that fake news exists and is a problem. Which is it, bub?
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      Ok lets try again. It's not enough of a problem i.e. it din't affect the election in any meaningful way. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.
- davesque 10y ago
  Welcome to post-Trump America.

conistonwater 10y ago

That is not the argument in the opinion piece at all. What are you responding to?

jansenv 10y ago
Looks like they just needed to vent a bit.
ThomPete 10y ago
Here is an examples which illustrates it perfectly well: "After the election, Mr. Zuckerberg claimed that the fake news was a problem on “both sides” of the race. That’s wrong. There are, of course, viral fake anti-Trump memes, but reporters have found that the spread of false news is far more common on the right than it is on the left."
- talmand 10y ago
  This >> but reporters have found that the spread of false news is far more common on the right than it is on the left." does not make this >> Mr. Zuckerberg claimed that the fake news was a problem on “both sides” of the race incorrect. One side does not get a pass because it was the lesser problem.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    But we aren't talking about that. We are talking about whether it effects election which is what the article claims he is in denial about. "Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief, believes that it is “a pretty crazy idea” that “fake news on Facebook, which is a very small amount of content, influenced the election in any way.” In holding fast to the claim that his company has little effect on how people make up their minds, Mr. Zuckerberg is doing real damage to American democracy — and to the world."
    - K0SM0S 10y ago
      The fact is that Facebook is not a media company. In some countries (e.g. most of Europe) where this distinction makes tremendous differences (the media being much more regulated than other for-profit companies), they are pretty adamant about it. Understandably so, business-wise. Regardless of whether their assumption is true or not, I wouldn't expect the CEO of said company to just come out and say "oh yeah, sure, we're influencers like any other media and we forward fake news too". It's just business sense imho. As for what Mark truly believes, on a personal level, you'd have to be a close friend, not a journalist recording, to get privy to it.
      - ThomPete 10y ago
        I am not taking his word for it. Thats my opinion regardless of what Zuckerberg says.
splawn 10y ago
Take a look at his comment history, that is Thom's MO. Trump being elected due to misinformation triggers the crap out of him for some reason.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  What about making the case that it did happen because of misinformation instead of focusing on my comment history? I have said a lot of things on both sides and is hardly just some troll. We all have our triggers, this is one for me so whats wrong with that?
  - flockonus 10y ago
    There is no such case to be made. If viral fake news influence even some tiny percentage, there is already responsibility on social media for how this elections turned out. Yes, quite possibly >90% of the people would have voted the same way regardless of news, still we all know the "swing" makes all the difference
    - barrkel 10y ago
      If only 45% voted for Trump, they wouldn't have valid opinions? If 5% made the difference, then 90% of the votes for Trump don't form a mandate? There's a problem here - first past the post voting - but there's also another problem: denial of the legitimacy of an opposition. The vast majority of the people who voted for Trump have valid opinions. You can't just dismiss them.
      - flockonus 10y ago
        Definitely a valid government regardless of what influenced it. Attributing cause to vote swing does not take legitimacy away, it's just being honest
  - splawn 10y ago
    I know this is bleeding over from our previous conversation, but the only case I have made wrt this topic is my opinion that it would be nice if critical thinking was more of a cultural force than it currently is. I would play your game and try to make the case that you want me to make, but I am not sure what data I would be able to source for that even if I suspect it to be true. Nothing wrong with having triggers, I was just using "alt-right" rhetoric to tease you a little bit.

bluejekyll 10y ago

I didn't get that sense from the article. It was all about influence. False stories influence people's opinions, and that may have encouraged voters to turn out or not for their candidate. There was a lot of false and misleading information distributed online during this election, and literally spoken by the candidates (one more than another). The biggest lie is actually at the heart of Trump's campaign, that he can bring back the jobs. Those jobs he's talking about haven't just been outsourced to other countries, in many cases they have been automated into oblivion. Trump promised to bring these back, but how can you bring something back that doesn't exist? Mind you the Dems and Clinton had no substantial story to weave for the people that are hurting from the lack of these jobs. So people chose the fiction over no substantive story. It's an uncomfortable thing to tell people that everything they know is irrrelevent in the modern economy.

ThomPete 10y ago
I dont' believe he can bring them back either but it wasn't based on a lie and I am pretty sure he means it which is why he wants to dig into the resources and rebuild infrastructure. That does not make it a lie anymore than "yes we can" does.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  Trump relied on one of the worst aspects of the Human existence, that someone else will fix your problems for you. Giving people optimism about the future, bettering yours and everyone's existence is motivating for everyone. I believe this for anyone I've ever managed, and for any project I've ever worked on. People work better when they are optimistic. "Yes, we can" is a motivational statement encouraging people to try. Trump's "make America great again" is based on some misguided notion of nastalgia. When is this period that that statement harkens back to? Remember, the decades after WWII were great for the US because literally every other industrialized nation had been bombed so badly that they could barely make anything at all. America did well during this period because we had no competition. So how do we go back to that?
  - talmand 10y ago

solipsism 10y ago

Is this the new meme now? Things we don't agree with are "more of the same thing that got Trump elected"? What fake news do is reinoforce what people already believe to be true Sure. And it also reinforces things people don't yet know (because it's fake) but which fits into one's preexisting worldview. It's a multiplicative factor. An amplification. The claim by the article is actually very measured -- that fake news is a part of the whole picture. Do you really disagree with that?

solipsism 10y ago
Oops, didn't read the other comments. Apparently it's already established you didn't even read the article.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  ehh yes I did read it and no it's not established.
ThomPete 10y ago
I disagree that it's enough to explain the election result even remotely or that it's something the facebook should do something about right now. Fake news are easy to debunk and the same lie which takes advantage of network spread can also be debunked by the same measures. Again if people really want to believe in something no amount of rebuttals are going to change that. What's far more concerning is the kind of exaggerations that the traditional media use to blow everything out of proportion. We all live in filter bubbles some in very tightly controlled bubbles others in more open bubbles but they are all bubbles. I have yet to see any proof that fake news are effecting how people vote on any serious scale. Maybe some people here and there. But to claim that it's a problem for the election is simply another attempt at trying find a reason other than the obvious one, that many people who voted for Trump did so because they live in another bubble than those who votes for Hillary. That they have different perspectives and different problems, different dreams and fears. Thats the reason we votes different and fake news aren't going to change the overall world view we have there.

ceejay 10y ago

I think there are fake stories that reinforce your current predisposition and then there are fake stories that a vulnerable human being reads and it takes their beliefs to the fringe. Also, I have a hard time believing that seeing one or two stray bogus stories is the same as seeing bogus stories everywhere you care to look. In one case a vulnerable human being might have enough reason to doubt what they're reading, and in the other case they suddenly feel like the world is caving in on them.

ThomPete 10y ago
Who is talking about everywhere you care to look? Thats a completely made up claim.
- ceejay 10y ago
  http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/ http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/
  - Pokepokalypse 10y ago
    Sadly, this site will not play with my ad blocker enabled.

BeetleB 10y ago

>The people who write these articles just can't accept the idea that people didn't vote for Trump unless they were tricked into it, or were fed lies. I agree with what you're trying to say, but you are being overly broad. Talk to Trump supporters prior to the election, and with the exception of "anti-establishment", most of them will give reasons that they were tricked into believing. Go to fact checking web sites and look at all the statements Trump continually repeated that were demonstrably false, and see how many of them the supporters believed (hint: many of them). So yes, they were fed lies and believed them. However, you are correct in that it was not the only reason why they voted for him. They believed those lies as post-hoc justification for their picking him. Really no different from people who pick any candidate, including Hilary.

mr_spothawk 10y ago
> most of them will give reasons that they were tricked into believing. what makes you think they were "tricked" any more than supporters of some different as-yet-uninstalled president.

eeZah7Ux 10y ago

> The people who write these articles just can't accept the idea that people didn't vote for Trump unless they were tricked into it, or were fed lies. This looks like a middle ground fallacy.

dclowd9901 10y ago

1) Anecdote is not evidence. 2) In one breath you dismiss this article as elitism, and in the very next admit the problem of fake news, which is exactly what this article is talking about. It's not another discussion. It is exactly this discussion. I've never seen such a blatant use of straw man.

ThomPete 10y ago
The article claims that Zuckerberg is wrong in his claim that the fake news affected the election in any meaningful way. Thats what I am talking about, not sure what exactly make you say it's a straw man.
- dclowd9901 10y ago
  I don't even know what kind of point you're trying to make now. In your post you describe a class of individuals so out of touch that they can't believe Trump voters weren't tricked, yet admit that fake news exists and is a problem. Which is it, bub?
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    Ok lets try again. It's not enough of a problem i.e. it din't affect the election in any meaningful way. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.
davesque 10y ago
Welcome to post-Trump America.