4 ms·

Thee larger problem is factual accuracy. With all the propaganda going around, it is hard to find the truth. Any attempt to classify such opinions will inevitab

Thee larger problem is factual accuracy. With all the propaganda going around, it is hard to find the truth. Any attempt to classify such opinions will inevitably further a propaganda. As someone said, we live in strange timeline where comedians are more trustworthy than politicians.

stef25 7y ago
FB does work with 3rd party fact checkers. We should be able to trust people from places like Reuters to remain fairly neutral.
- metabeard 7y ago
  When they use Breitbart as a 3rd party fact checker how can we trust them?
- tmp20191105 7y ago
  3rd party fact checkers themselves are highly biased. If you think reuters is neutral, then you really don't understand the "news" business. The "news" business isn't in the business of news. It's in the influence business. The founder of reuters started off peddling radical revolutionary propaganda. Paul Julius Reuter worked at a book-publishing firm in Berlin and was involved in distributing radical pamphlets at the beginning of the Revolutions in 1848. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters#History Besides, the problematic part with "news" involve "non-factual" news but rather political "news". Whether globalism is good or bad. What, if anything, to do about climate change. Nonsense like veganism, etc. There, by nature, can't be fact-checked because it is a value/contextual judgment rather than a factual one. Capitalism vs communism, nationalism vs globalism, immigration vs nativism, alt-right vs alt-left, traditional media vs social media, etc.
  - stef25 7y ago
    Reuters having started off spreading radical pamphlets is about as relevant as Hitler being involved in the development of Volkswagen. Nobody in charge needs to (or even can) decide if something like globalism or communism is good or bad, just that no obvious lies are spread while discussing it.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  Authority doesn't really work on the net. The information will be discarded anyway if people just want to.
anjc 7y ago
> With all the propaganda going around, it is hard to find the truth If bot/organized posts are properly classified as spam then surely the factual accuracy of someone's postings don't really matter anymore, as anything "inaccurate" falls into the realm of "opinion" or just human error. Presumably it's ok to be wrong. So I don't see any problem with a person believing that e.g. Epstein was killed, and posting online about this belief. I don't see a problem with grassroots communities arising around this belief. It only seems to me to be an issue when such postings are sponsored/encouraged because of e.g. some political aim, and proper spam detection would mitigate this.

stef25 7y ago

FB does work with 3rd party fact checkers. We should be able to trust people from places like Reuters to remain fairly neutral.

metabeard 7y ago
When they use Breitbart as a 3rd party fact checker how can we trust them?
tmp20191105 7y ago
3rd party fact checkers themselves are highly biased. If you think reuters is neutral, then you really don't understand the "news" business. The "news" business isn't in the business of news. It's in the influence business. The founder of reuters started off peddling radical revolutionary propaganda. Paul Julius Reuter worked at a book-publishing firm in Berlin and was involved in distributing radical pamphlets at the beginning of the Revolutions in 1848. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters#History Besides, the problematic part with "news" involve "non-factual" news but rather political "news". Whether globalism is good or bad. What, if anything, to do about climate change. Nonsense like veganism, etc. There, by nature, can't be fact-checked because it is a value/contextual judgment rather than a factual one. Capitalism vs communism, nationalism vs globalism, immigration vs nativism, alt-right vs alt-left, traditional media vs social media, etc.
- stef25 7y ago
  Reuters having started off spreading radical pamphlets is about as relevant as Hitler being involved in the development of Volkswagen. Nobody in charge needs to (or even can) decide if something like globalism or communism is good or bad, just that no obvious lies are spread while discussing it.
raxxorrax 7y ago
Authority doesn't really work on the net. The information will be discarded anyway if people just want to.

anjc 7y ago

> With all the propaganda going around, it is hard to find the truth If bot/organized posts are properly classified as spam then surely the factual accuracy of someone's postings don't really matter anymore, as anything "inaccurate" falls into the realm of "opinion" or just human error. Presumably it's ok to be wrong. So I don't see any problem with a person believing that e.g. Epstein was killed, and posting online about this belief. I don't see a problem with grassroots communities arising around this belief. It only seems to me to be an issue when such postings are sponsored/encouraged because of e.g. some political aim, and proper spam detection would mitigate this.