7 ms·

The problem with vetting is that it's unlikely to be done in an unbiased way. Facebook is a Silicon Valley company with a young staff that leans significantly t

The problem with vetting is that it's unlikely to be done in an unbiased way. Facebook is a Silicon Valley company with a young staff that leans significantly to the left. As a right-leaning individual this makes me uncomfortable because I know that staff aren't going to separate their politics from decision making surrounding vetting/choosing who gets to do the vetting. Here's a concrete example: Facebook staff, being left-leaning, do not view the "fine people hoax" as misinformation - their echo chamber wouldn't even bring it to their attention as something that could be misinformation, even though it is. The only solution would be for a politically balanced workforce to be making these decisions, ideally a satellite office in a purple state/city with quotas for political leaning, set up only for the purposes of vetting. If we lived in a less polarized society, this wouldn't be an issue. Would you feel comfortable if oil and gas workers who lean 80-90 percent Republican are "vetting" the information you're seeing (or are choosing who gets to do the vetting)? As Naval says, you have a good system if you can hand the keys over to your opposition and things don't go wrong.

srtjstjsj 6y ago
I'm curious what you consider the "hoax" in "very fine people hoax". Do you disagree with this analysis (linked below) which claims that the "only very fine non-white-nationalist people" Trump were either (a) at a different activity from the one Trump claimed they were doing, or (b) people who weren't there but Trump thought were there. That analysis puts Trump at best misinformed or confused, if not supportive of the white-nationalists https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/08/very-fine-people-charlottesville-who-were-they-2/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/08/very-fine...
- hnracer 6y ago
  Because about ten seconds later in the same speech he says he unequivocally condemns white supremacists. But the media (and the democrats in their advertising) cuts off that part of the speech, leaving a false impression in people's minds. This alone is evidence that he wasn't calling white supremacists fine people. Further, it was a large protest over a statue with thousands of people over a whole day, do you think there isn't one single non white supremact there protesting to keep it up? There's no evidence that Trump was referring to the tiki torch rally when he said fine people. He made the speech after the large protest and the terrorist attack, where by the law of large numbers there is inevitably going to be non-white supremacists attending to show support merely for the statue/history.
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    What specific people were both “very fine” and marching with Unite the Right? Trump said “both sides” so there must have been some good people on both sides. But I’ve seen their live-streams. The Unite the Right crowd was loudly and consistently shouting racial slurs and calling for racial violence. A very fine person would walk away upon hearing that. If people honestly supported history they would have asked the historians. The AHA put out a clear statement that taking down statues is not destroying history.
    - hnracer 6y ago
      There were lots of people protesting on that day in support of the statue that had nothing to do with the neo-nazis and white supremacists, in exactly the same way that there were lots of people protesting against the statue who were are not affiliated with antifa. Those are the people that Trump was presumably referring to, given that he explicitly said he was not talking about white supremacists (whom he condemned totally in the exact same speech).
      - UncleMeat 6y ago
        I would expect somebody who has "nothing to do with neo-nazis" to say "wow, I've made a huge mistake" and leave the first time they hear somebody they are marching next to shout "gas the k--es, race war now". Who specifically are these hypothetical good people? Unlike you, I do believe that every counterprotestor was associated with antifa. It was an antifascist counterprotest. That is antifa. Support for the Lee statue has never been seriously about history because the supporters of keeping it up never asked historians. I'm serious. UVA is an excellent history program. They could have asked the history faculty to decide. It wouldn't have gone in their favor.
        hnracer 6y ago
        I would also expect somebody to not march alongside neo-marxists and self-professed communists (antifa) with a history of violent extremism (according to the FBI director Wray) but there you go. > Support for the Lee statue has never been seriously about history This is irrelevant to the question of whether there were non-white supremacists in attendance. What matters as to people's motives is whether people think that it's about history, which many ordinary people do.
- itsoktocry 6y ago
  >I'm curious what you consider the "hoax" in "very fine people hoax". The idea that the POTUS just called racists who ran over and killed a woman "fine people" is beyond reason. A person with some objectivity can understand that Trump wasn't talking about white supremacists with his "fine people" statement. He was referring to there being "fine people on both sides" of the political spectrum, protesters and counter-protesters, at the protest. His point was that not all of those protesting the statue removal were white supremacists, some were "fine people". Of course, that's the story the left went with anyway, because Trump fumbled another one.
  - notahacker 6y ago
    Trump started the interview by questioning the notion of the alt-right before pivoting to argue that the 'alt-left' started the violence and falsely claiming the counterprotestors didn't have permits, before adding his endorsement of the Robert E Lee statue cause. He pointedly hasn't taken a similar tack of emphasising the involvement of fine people as well as bad people with other protests involving some degree of violence, such as BLM. That's the context a person someone with some objectivity is putting it in, and it's difficult to argue with a straight face that there is no degree of truth to the media reporting it as Trump endorsing the march.
- rayiner 6y ago
  Go to the transcript it’s clear as day: https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trump... > Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name." > Reporter: "George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same." > Trump: "George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?" > Reporter: "I do love Thomas Jefferson." > Trump: "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue? > "So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. First, it’s crystal clear from the transcripts that he’s saying “I’m not talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally.” Painting that as one of the “(a) or (b)” options is shamelessly deceitful. So what does he mean? The city was renaming a park named after Robert E. Lee. Trump is making a totally reasonable point: not everyone protesting taking down a statute of Robert E. Lee is a white supremacist or a neo-nazi. And he’s point is actually prescient. The reporter says he loves Thomas Jefferson. Well, my high school is named after Thomas Jefferson, and just a few years later they’re trying to change the name of the school. Is Trump wrong that there were people there who were just protesting the name change? Was literally everyone in that crowd a white supremacist or neo-nazi? Maybe but that would be odd. I grew up in Virginia. Lots of well meaning but maybe insensitive people lionize Robert E. Lee. Maybe they all stayed home that day. But it would be fair to guess they didn’t. Regardless, whether or not those Robert E. Lee buffs were actually present has nothing to do with how to interpret Trump’s statement, because it’s unambiguous. Maybe his speculation was incorrect. So what? That doesn’t mean it’s fair to portray it as an “if not supportive of white nationalists” statement because it’s unambiguously not that. If the headline was: “Trump incorrectly assumes that good people attended rally, but in reality everyone was a white supremacist” that would have been a good headline. Good commentary about how outdated it is to lionize Robert E. Lee. But instead the media went for an interpretation that was clearly not what Trump meant.

srtjstjsj 6y ago

I'm curious what you consider the "hoax" in "very fine people hoax". Do you disagree with this analysis (linked below) which claims that the "only very fine non-white-nationalist people" Trump were either (a) at a different activity from the one Trump claimed they were doing, or (b) people who weren't there but Trump thought were there. That analysis puts Trump at best misinformed or confused, if not supportive of the white-nationalists https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/08/very-fine-people-charlottesville-who-were-they-2/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/08/very-fine...

hnracer 6y ago
Because about ten seconds later in the same speech he says he unequivocally condemns white supremacists. But the media (and the democrats in their advertising) cuts off that part of the speech, leaving a false impression in people's minds. This alone is evidence that he wasn't calling white supremacists fine people. Further, it was a large protest over a statue with thousands of people over a whole day, do you think there isn't one single non white supremact there protesting to keep it up? There's no evidence that Trump was referring to the tiki torch rally when he said fine people. He made the speech after the large protest and the terrorist attack, where by the law of large numbers there is inevitably going to be non-white supremacists attending to show support merely for the statue/history.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  What specific people were both “very fine” and marching with Unite the Right? Trump said “both sides” so there must have been some good people on both sides. But I’ve seen their live-streams. The Unite the Right crowd was loudly and consistently shouting racial slurs and calling for racial violence. A very fine person would walk away upon hearing that. If people honestly supported history they would have asked the historians. The AHA put out a clear statement that taking down statues is not destroying history.
  - hnracer 6y ago
    There were lots of people protesting on that day in support of the statue that had nothing to do with the neo-nazis and white supremacists, in exactly the same way that there were lots of people protesting against the statue who were are not affiliated with antifa. Those are the people that Trump was presumably referring to, given that he explicitly said he was not talking about white supremacists (whom he condemned totally in the exact same speech).
    - UncleMeat 6y ago
      I would expect somebody who has "nothing to do with neo-nazis" to say "wow, I've made a huge mistake" and leave the first time they hear somebody they are marching next to shout "gas the k--es, race war now". Who specifically are these hypothetical good people? Unlike you, I do believe that every counterprotestor was associated with antifa. It was an antifascist counterprotest. That is antifa. Support for the Lee statue has never been seriously about history because the supporters of keeping it up never asked historians. I'm serious. UVA is an excellent history program. They could have asked the history faculty to decide. It wouldn't have gone in their favor.
      - hnracer 6y ago
        I would also expect somebody to not march alongside neo-marxists and self-professed communists (antifa) with a history of violent extremism (according to the FBI director Wray) but there you go. > Support for the Lee statue has never been seriously about history This is irrelevant to the question of whether there were non-white supremacists in attendance. What matters as to people's motives is whether people think that it's about history, which many ordinary people do.
itsoktocry 6y ago
>I'm curious what you consider the "hoax" in "very fine people hoax". The idea that the POTUS just called racists who ran over and killed a woman "fine people" is beyond reason. A person with some objectivity can understand that Trump wasn't talking about white supremacists with his "fine people" statement. He was referring to there being "fine people on both sides" of the political spectrum, protesters and counter-protesters, at the protest. His point was that not all of those protesting the statue removal were white supremacists, some were "fine people". Of course, that's the story the left went with anyway, because Trump fumbled another one.
- notahacker 6y ago
  Trump started the interview by questioning the notion of the alt-right before pivoting to argue that the 'alt-left' started the violence and falsely claiming the counterprotestors didn't have permits, before adding his endorsement of the Robert E Lee statue cause. He pointedly hasn't taken a similar tack of emphasising the involvement of fine people as well as bad people with other protests involving some degree of violence, such as BLM. That's the context a person someone with some objectivity is putting it in, and it's difficult to argue with a straight face that there is no degree of truth to the media reporting it as Trump endorsing the march.
rayiner 6y ago
Go to the transcript it’s clear as day: https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trump... > Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name." > Reporter: "George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same." > Trump: "George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?" > Reporter: "I do love Thomas Jefferson." > Trump: "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue? > "So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. First, it’s crystal clear from the transcripts that he’s saying “I’m not talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally.” Painting that as one of the “(a) or (b)” options is shamelessly deceitful. So what does he mean? The city was renaming a park named after Robert E. Lee. Trump is making a totally reasonable point: not everyone protesting taking down a statute of Robert E. Lee is a white supremacist or a neo-nazi. And he’s point is actually prescient. The reporter says he loves Thomas Jefferson. Well, my high school is named after Thomas Jefferson, and just a few years later they’re trying to change the name of the school. Is Trump wrong that there were people there who were just protesting the name change? Was literally everyone in that crowd a white supremacist or neo-nazi? Maybe but that would be odd. I grew up in Virginia. Lots of well meaning but maybe insensitive people lionize Robert E. Lee. Maybe they all stayed home that day. But it would be fair to guess they didn’t. Regardless, whether or not those Robert E. Lee buffs were actually present has nothing to do with how to interpret Trump’s statement, because it’s unambiguous. Maybe his speculation was incorrect. So what? That doesn’t mean it’s fair to portray it as an “if not supportive of white nationalists” statement because it’s unambiguously not that. If the headline was: “Trump incorrectly assumes that good people attended rally, but in reality everyone was a white supremacist” that would have been a good headline. Good commentary about how outdated it is to lionize Robert E. Lee. But instead the media went for an interpretation that was clearly not what Trump meant.