5 ms·

I'm sure this will be used for censoring political groups, and alternative media. As mainstream news sources become less popular / reputable they have really st

by setra 10y ago

I'm sure this will be used for censoring political groups, and alternative media. As mainstream news sources become less popular / reputable they have really started pushing for methods to censor their opposition.

Qworg 10y ago
How do you draw the line between "alternative media" and "lies"?
- Vaskivo 10y ago
  You shouldn't censor lies. You should prove that they are lies. [EDIT] (just to add something to my post) If you delete/ommit/censor lies youd end up with: a) If every lie is removed, maybe everything that was removed is a lie. Which is not true. b) You end up with a "cry wolf situation", which may blow up hardly on facebook. You don't "cry wolf". You show that the wolf is there. Otherwise, the first time you screw up, you will lose all credibility.
  - komali2 10y ago
    But people don't believe proof that a lie is a lie - see the entire Trump phenomena. All he has to do is Tweet "fake news," and people won't believe any attempts to rationalize.
    - Vaskivo 10y ago
      Just because it doesn't work perfectly it doesn't mean we shouldn't do the right thing. To me, the ends don't justify the means.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    There's this old saying: "You can't prove a negative". It's wrong in that you often can indeed prove a negative, but the idea is still useful. Example: What would it take to conclusively proof that I never killed anybody vs. that I did? For the former, you'd basically need a continuous video feed from my birth. (b) "hardly" means something other than what you're thinking. No worries, many Russians make that mistake when speaking english.
- wfo 10y ago
  I could ask how you draw the line between "mainstream media" and "lies" just as easily and just as poignantly. The answer is easy in both cases. When they lie, it's a lie. When they don't, it's not.
  - oculusthrift 10y ago
    because "mainstream media" like nyt and wapo have well respected, educated journalists working around the clock to research stories and find evidence whereas "alternative media" is a guy in his moms basement making up stories. just as with science, people only dispute it when it goes against their own interests.
    - NoGravitas 10y ago
      That's quite an oversimplification. Your characterization of the alternative media is sometimes right (except that they're usually not making up stories -- they're usually summarizing stories produced by regular journalists, often with an editorial overlay). But there are also alternative media sources doing real research and investigative journalism, like Democracy Now! and the Intercept. On the other hand, the biggest, most respected of the mainstream publications, the NYT and the WaPo, have permanently tainted themselves by acting as stenographers for US government disinformation campaigns -- most notably in the run-up to the Iraq war, when they consistently promoted the fake WMD story.
      - threeseed 10y ago
        The Iraq War happened well over a decade ago. And the New York Times et al all did internal reviews of their behaviour and made substantive changes. From Morning Joe, this morning, you can already see that the New York Times has learnt lessons from that era: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaI0u0ZdpMg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaI0u0ZdpMg So the idea that they should still after all this time be permanently tainted is ridiculous and frankly is just an excuse by those who have different political persuasions.
        10y ago
- maxfurman 10y ago
  It's simple! If you want to believe it, it's "alternative media," and if you don't it's a filthy lie.
collias 10y ago
Exactly. Yesterday was a great example of mainstream sources losing credibility. They were all over the (as far as I know) totally unverified document that an intelligence agency decided to leak to Buzzfeed for some reason. They wonder why no one trusts them anymore...
- ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
  The fact that mainstream journalists are caught letting political operatives write their articles for them doesn't help their credibility either. Oh, and they're of course silent when it comes to reporting on their own corruption.
  - collias 10y ago
    It reminds me of that clip of CNN saying that we could only get the Wikileaks emails through their interpretation, and we shouldn't be reading them ourselves. ...turns out it was because they were implicated in them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DcATG9Qy_A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DcATG9Qy_A
    - gspetr 10y ago
      CNN is so corrupt it looks like a parody network. Their most egregious breach of ethics to date: On October 31, 2016, the New York Times reported: "CNN has severed ties with the Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, after hacked emails from WikiLeaks showed that she shared questions for CNN-sponsored candidate events in advance with friends on Hillary Clinton's campaign." CNN said it had accepted her formal resignation on October 14, adding: "We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor."
      - threeseed 10y ago
        Donna Brazile shared questions with the candidates and CNN promptly terminated her position. What exactly did CNN do wrong here ? By your definition every company that has a employee who makes an egregious mistake is corrupt.
lordCarbonFiber 10y ago
To borrow the sentiment from Tim Minchin: if alternate news media was news it would just be called news.
resfirestar 10y ago
Why are you lot so reflexively opposed to anything related to journalism, even when explicitly aimed to help alternative media? It certainly doesn't make it look like you just want people to get news from more sources.
- gspetr 10y ago
  How is Facebook, known to be biased[1] is going to "help alternative media"? This looks like a power play to regain smeared credibility under the guise of "people's platform". [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/09/former-facebook-staff-say-conservative-news-was-buried-raising-questions-about-its-political-influence/?utm_term=.bc318f964d4d https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/09/fo...
- mattlevan 10y ago
  People, and hackers especially, generally don't "trust" Facebook to provide them with a platform to publish anymore. And why would they? Facebook will never open source the software responsible for determining what, when, and how people see news articles.
sergiotapia 10y ago
"Fake News" put some egg on their face and they're scrambling to find a way to censor alternative news.

by setra 10y ago

Qworg 10y ago

How do you draw the line between "alternative media" and "lies"?

Vaskivo 10y ago
You shouldn't censor lies. You should prove that they are lies. [EDIT] (just to add something to my post) If you delete/ommit/censor lies youd end up with: a) If every lie is removed, maybe everything that was removed is a lie. Which is not true. b) You end up with a "cry wolf situation", which may blow up hardly on facebook. You don't "cry wolf". You show that the wolf is there. Otherwise, the first time you screw up, you will lose all credibility.
- komali2 10y ago
  But people don't believe proof that a lie is a lie - see the entire Trump phenomena. All he has to do is Tweet "fake news," and people won't believe any attempts to rationalize.
  - Vaskivo 10y ago
    Just because it doesn't work perfectly it doesn't mean we shouldn't do the right thing. To me, the ends don't justify the means.
- matt4077 10y ago
  There's this old saying: "You can't prove a negative". It's wrong in that you often can indeed prove a negative, but the idea is still useful. Example: What would it take to conclusively proof that I never killed anybody vs. that I did? For the former, you'd basically need a continuous video feed from my birth. (b) "hardly" means something other than what you're thinking. No worries, many Russians make that mistake when speaking english.
wfo 10y ago
I could ask how you draw the line between "mainstream media" and "lies" just as easily and just as poignantly. The answer is easy in both cases. When they lie, it's a lie. When they don't, it's not.
- oculusthrift 10y ago
  because "mainstream media" like nyt and wapo have well respected, educated journalists working around the clock to research stories and find evidence whereas "alternative media" is a guy in his moms basement making up stories. just as with science, people only dispute it when it goes against their own interests.
  - NoGravitas 10y ago
    That's quite an oversimplification. Your characterization of the alternative media is sometimes right (except that they're usually not making up stories -- they're usually summarizing stories produced by regular journalists, often with an editorial overlay). But there are also alternative media sources doing real research and investigative journalism, like Democracy Now! and the Intercept. On the other hand, the biggest, most respected of the mainstream publications, the NYT and the WaPo, have permanently tainted themselves by acting as stenographers for US government disinformation campaigns -- most notably in the run-up to the Iraq war, when they consistently promoted the fake WMD story.
    - threeseed 10y ago
      The Iraq War happened well over a decade ago. And the New York Times et al all did internal reviews of their behaviour and made substantive changes. From Morning Joe, this morning, you can already see that the New York Times has learnt lessons from that era: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaI0u0ZdpMg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaI0u0ZdpMg So the idea that they should still after all this time be permanently tainted is ridiculous and frankly is just an excuse by those who have different political persuasions.
      - 10y ago
maxfurman 10y ago
It's simple! If you want to believe it, it's "alternative media," and if you don't it's a filthy lie.

collias 10y ago

Exactly. Yesterday was a great example of mainstream sources losing credibility. They were all over the (as far as I know) totally unverified document that an intelligence agency decided to leak to Buzzfeed for some reason. They wonder why no one trusts them anymore...

ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
The fact that mainstream journalists are caught letting political operatives write their articles for them doesn't help their credibility either. Oh, and they're of course silent when it comes to reporting on their own corruption.
- collias 10y ago
  It reminds me of that clip of CNN saying that we could only get the Wikileaks emails through their interpretation, and we shouldn't be reading them ourselves. ...turns out it was because they were implicated in them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DcATG9Qy_A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DcATG9Qy_A
  - gspetr 10y ago
    CNN is so corrupt it looks like a parody network. Their most egregious breach of ethics to date: On October 31, 2016, the New York Times reported: "CNN has severed ties with the Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, after hacked emails from WikiLeaks showed that she shared questions for CNN-sponsored candidate events in advance with friends on Hillary Clinton's campaign." CNN said it had accepted her formal resignation on October 14, adding: "We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor."
    - threeseed 10y ago
      Donna Brazile shared questions with the candidates and CNN promptly terminated her position. What exactly did CNN do wrong here ? By your definition every company that has a employee who makes an egregious mistake is corrupt.

lordCarbonFiber 10y ago

To borrow the sentiment from Tim Minchin: if alternate news media was news it would just be called news.

resfirestar 10y ago

Why are you lot so reflexively opposed to anything related to journalism, even when explicitly aimed to help alternative media? It certainly doesn't make it look like you just want people to get news from more sources.

gspetr 10y ago
How is Facebook, known to be biased[1] is going to "help alternative media"? This looks like a power play to regain smeared credibility under the guise of "people's platform". [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/09/former-facebook-staff-say-conservative-news-was-buried-raising-questions-about-its-political-influence/?utm_term=.bc318f964d4d https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/09/fo...
mattlevan 10y ago
People, and hackers especially, generally don't "trust" Facebook to provide them with a platform to publish anymore. And why would they? Facebook will never open source the software responsible for determining what, when, and how people see news articles.

sergiotapia 10y ago

"Fake News" put some egg on their face and they're scrambling to find a way to censor alternative news.