7 ms·

Plus this particular boy wonder very confidently stood up in front of everyone and said fake news is BS right after the elections.

wyldfire 8y ago
Was that really the case? I believe you, I just don't recall hearing that. I wonder how he was convinced.
- paulddraper 8y ago
  IDK if this is what the OP is thinking, but Zuckerberg said something like "Anyone who thinks the election was rigged is missing the message that American voters had for the country." EDIT: > Mark Zuckerberg has rejected the notion that fake news on Facebook influenced the outcome of the US election, describing it as a “pretty crazy idea”. > “Voters make decisions based on their lived experience,” he said at the Techonomy conference near San Francisco on Thursday. > “There is a profound lack of empathy in asserting that the only reason someone could have voted the way they did is because they saw fake news,” he said, and anyone who believes that has “failed to internalize” the message supporters of Donald Trump sent during the election. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/10/facebook-fake-news-us-election-mark-zuckerberg-donald-trump https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/10/facebook-... He didn't say fake news doesn't exist; he said it did not determine the American president.
  - pdpi 8y ago
    > He didn't say fake news doesn't exist; he said it did not determine the American president. It's even more specific: Fake news might have had an actual effect on the election, but blaming the election result on fake news fundamentally amounts to not accepting responsibility for your own side's failures.
    - dane-pgp 8y ago
      That sounds like victim blaming. If (as an extreme hypothetical) one side used lies and laundered foreign money to win the election, and the other side didn't do that and lost, then the losing side doesn't need to "accept responsibility for their own failures", they need justice. We don't yet know the full story of what actually happened in the last American presidential campaign, though, so this is moot for now.
      - bmelton 8y ago
        But what if, extending your extreme hypothetical, both sides used lies and laundered foreign money?
        dane-pgp 8y ago
        Then instead of focusing on accepting responsibility for their own failure, the losing side would need to focus on addressing their lack of ethics and potential criminality. (Both sides would need to focus on that, regardless of whether they won or loss). Unfortunately I don't know what "justice" would look like in such a situation, but perhaps re-running the process without the unethical and criminal elements would be a good first order approximation.
        reaperducer 8y ago
        >But what if, extending your extreme hypothetical, both sides used lies and laundered foreign money? They both did. But one side is accused of taking money from scary Russia, while the other took money from fluffy bunnies Ireland, England, France, and other allies. The "us versus them" narrative is easier to work with than the "us versus other people who are allied with us but also not supposed to do these things." Plus, America has loved underdogs since the days when baseball was interesting. Since H lost, it's usual to attack T. If H won instead of T, then it would be the other way around. It's just how America works.
- spiderfarmer 8y ago
  Yes he denied the possibility of it influencing an election. https://themoscowproject.org/collusion/zuckerberg-denies-facebook-involvement-election/ https://themoscowproject.org/collusion/zuckerberg-denies-fac...
azangru 8y ago
> and said fake news is BS Isn't this a matter of opinion rather than of fact?
- spiderfarmer 8y ago
  Given how many people believe fake news, you simply can’t deny it’s a threat. Not just for democracy, but also in healthcare (antivaxxers) and a host other areas.
  - azangru 8y ago
    But hasn't this always been the case? Some people write or say stupid shit; other people believe stupid shit. The demand for stupid shit that motivates writers and speakers comes from people who believe it, or from the wealthy and powerful agents who want others to believe it. Education helps, to a certain extent. But treating fake news as some sort of a new threat seems strange.
    - kungtotte 8y ago
      Until the Internet and social media in particular, there was no way for people to spread information this quickly and efficiently. People are very susceptible to believing false information stated eloquently, and this as you say has always been true, but in days past the spread of such information was limited to very disreputable channels and were quite easily countered with that fact alone. "Where did you get that from? Oh, <publication> is full of shit, everyone knows that Joey". Now it takes ten minutes for a Facebook post to be heard 'round the world and people believe it implicitly. Spreading fake news has never been easier, and countering it has never been harder.
      - Anon1096 8y ago
        Your description of the past is really really wrong. In the US "fake news" just used to be the "yellow press" and it was as widely spread as the fake news of today. In fact the Spanish American War was basically entirely started because of the yellow press and the cries of "Remember the Maine" despite the sinking of the ship probably just being an accident.

wyldfire 8y ago

Was that really the case? I believe you, I just don't recall hearing that. I wonder how he was convinced.

paulddraper 8y ago
IDK if this is what the OP is thinking, but Zuckerberg said something like "Anyone who thinks the election was rigged is missing the message that American voters had for the country." EDIT: > Mark Zuckerberg has rejected the notion that fake news on Facebook influenced the outcome of the US election, describing it as a “pretty crazy idea”. > “Voters make decisions based on their lived experience,” he said at the Techonomy conference near San Francisco on Thursday. > “There is a profound lack of empathy in asserting that the only reason someone could have voted the way they did is because they saw fake news,” he said, and anyone who believes that has “failed to internalize” the message supporters of Donald Trump sent during the election. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/10/facebook-fake-news-us-election-mark-zuckerberg-donald-trump https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/10/facebook-... He didn't say fake news doesn't exist; he said it did not determine the American president.
- pdpi 8y ago
  > He didn't say fake news doesn't exist; he said it did not determine the American president. It's even more specific: Fake news might have had an actual effect on the election, but blaming the election result on fake news fundamentally amounts to not accepting responsibility for your own side's failures.
  - dane-pgp 8y ago
    That sounds like victim blaming. If (as an extreme hypothetical) one side used lies and laundered foreign money to win the election, and the other side didn't do that and lost, then the losing side doesn't need to "accept responsibility for their own failures", they need justice. We don't yet know the full story of what actually happened in the last American presidential campaign, though, so this is moot for now.
    - bmelton 8y ago
      But what if, extending your extreme hypothetical, both sides used lies and laundered foreign money?
      - dane-pgp 8y ago
        Then instead of focusing on accepting responsibility for their own failure, the losing side would need to focus on addressing their lack of ethics and potential criminality. (Both sides would need to focus on that, regardless of whether they won or loss). Unfortunately I don't know what "justice" would look like in such a situation, but perhaps re-running the process without the unethical and criminal elements would be a good first order approximation.
      - reaperducer 8y ago
        >But what if, extending your extreme hypothetical, both sides used lies and laundered foreign money? They both did. But one side is accused of taking money from scary Russia, while the other took money from fluffy bunnies Ireland, England, France, and other allies. The "us versus them" narrative is easier to work with than the "us versus other people who are allied with us but also not supposed to do these things." Plus, America has loved underdogs since the days when baseball was interesting. Since H lost, it's usual to attack T. If H won instead of T, then it would be the other way around. It's just how America works.
spiderfarmer 8y ago
Yes he denied the possibility of it influencing an election. https://themoscowproject.org/collusion/zuckerberg-denies-facebook-involvement-election/ https://themoscowproject.org/collusion/zuckerberg-denies-fac...

azangru 8y ago

> and said fake news is BS Isn't this a matter of opinion rather than of fact?

spiderfarmer 8y ago
Given how many people believe fake news, you simply can’t deny it’s a threat. Not just for democracy, but also in healthcare (antivaxxers) and a host other areas.
- azangru 8y ago
  But hasn't this always been the case? Some people write or say stupid shit; other people believe stupid shit. The demand for stupid shit that motivates writers and speakers comes from people who believe it, or from the wealthy and powerful agents who want others to believe it. Education helps, to a certain extent. But treating fake news as some sort of a new threat seems strange.
  - kungtotte 8y ago
    Until the Internet and social media in particular, there was no way for people to spread information this quickly and efficiently. People are very susceptible to believing false information stated eloquently, and this as you say has always been true, but in days past the spread of such information was limited to very disreputable channels and were quite easily countered with that fact alone. "Where did you get that from? Oh, <publication> is full of shit, everyone knows that Joey". Now it takes ten minutes for a Facebook post to be heard 'round the world and people believe it implicitly. Spreading fake news has never been easier, and countering it has never been harder.
    - Anon1096 8y ago
      Your description of the past is really really wrong. In the US "fake news" just used to be the "yellow press" and it was as widely spread as the fake news of today. In fact the Spanish American War was basically entirely started because of the yellow press and the cries of "Remember the Maine" despite the sinking of the ship probably just being an accident.