Facebook Bans Fake News Sites From Using Its Advertising Network

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The "me too" news of the day is this item from the WSJ. Now that Google has announced that it will no longer allow fake news sites to use its ad network, Facebook has jumped on the bandwagon to ban fake news sites as well.

Facebook Inc. on Monday banned fake news sites from using the company’s advertising network to generate revenue, a Facebook spokesman said, following a similar move by its rival Alphabet Inc.’s Google. The move adds fake news sites to the category of misleading, illegal and deceptive sites, which are already barred from using the Facebook.
 
Ducman69 said:
That sucks for CNN.
Click to expand...

as funny as that is... it actually raises a good point.

What is considered 'fake' news? Because the mainstream press has completely failed us as journalists. From misleading articles to outright lies.... and even ignoring news when it didn't benefit their candidate. They have no problem with passing opinion as fact and in turn, zero integrity.

Both Facebook and Google worked very closely with Clinton to try and get her elected.... so that begs the question, will they be censoring 'news' they deem unworthy? Much like CNN and other tabloids did for the last 18 months? Facebook, Twitter and Reddit were the only places where you could actually find legitimate news about what was going on with stories the media refused to cover (aka, Wikileaks or any other groups that didn't fall in line with Obama admin).

These companies clearly have a political bias and agenda.... I'm not sure how comfortable I am with becoming the gatekeepers of information.

edit: Personally, I think the new WH should pull press credentials from all the current press and re-evaluate what real journalism is, and re-issue press passes from there. CNN is clearly out.
 
Last edited:
The damage is done. Too many reality TV/social media idiots got their "news" from FB before the election. There was definitely an agenda. Yes, my tinfoil hat is doing fine.

Watch the movie "Idiocracy." Very funny movie, and apropos.
 
7ahKZg.jpg
 
maverikv said:
You guys think this is . . . Bad? Wow
Click to expand...

No, it's good. We think it's bad that Facebook allowed it to happen in the first place and is now using it as PR fodder as in "look at the good we are doing we should get an award".
 
About bloody time....all these fake news sites and how gullable people are in taking them seriously.
 
Also people just wanna listen to news they agree with. It has nothing to do with the truth !!
 
Spyhawk said:
And Brietbart.com is all one needs for real news....
Click to expand...
I've never seen Breibart actually falsify any news, they are just very selective on what they consider newsworthy promoting anything pro-right and anti-left. Breibart advertises itself as a politically conservative American news/opinion site though, and does not have a false pretense of bringing impartial fair and balanced news. If the left does something bad though, often its one of the few places you can find out about it uncensored, unlike say CNN that warned America that reading about the Wikileaks is illegal and they shouldn't google it.
 
Ducman69 said:
I've never seen Breibart actually falsify any news, they are just very selective on what they consider newsworthy promoting anything pro-right and anti-left. Breibart advertises itself as a politically conservative American news/opinion site though, and does not have a false pretense of bringing impartial fair and balanced news. If the left does something bad though, often its one of the few places you can find out about it uncensored, unlike say CNN that warned America that reading about the Wikileaks is illegal and they shouldn't google it.
Click to expand...

Not sure if serious
 
The news isn't news anymore it's ratings based, seems like TV news gets most of their content from newspapers instead of any true investigative journalism. How many fake news stories did the major networks not fact check and put on air? I know of at least a few.

It boggles the mind that people like and share whatever comes up on their feed which coincides with their bias instead of seeing if any of its true. My MIL finally stopped forwarding emails a while back when I would fact check her and show her whatever it was, was false or unsubstantiated.

Whatever happened to believe half of what you see and none of what you hear?
 
Spyhawk said:
Also people just wanna listen to news they agree with. It has nothing to do with the truth !!
Click to expand...

Confirmation bias. I"m right, because this very slanted news site says so. JFK was an inside job because of conspiracytheoristsrus.com says so.

I wish the news would present the facts and let the viewer decide how they feel about it. Not tell the viewer how they should feel. "Journalism" as it stands now is just opinion pieces presented as news. The journalists are pushing their own personal biases.

That's why I use multiple news sources for controversial subjects. And when doing so, you can really see how things are twisted to fit a certain narrative. Some things omitted, some things added that weren't really part of it, etc.. Some aren't lies, just willful omission.

Of course, the people on Facebook that believe this shit are also the same ones that repost "Facebook is changing it's privacy settings. Copy and paste this: I do NOT give Facebook permission to my nads.".
 
maverikv said:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/07/21/big-falsehoods-an-updated-guide-to-andrew-breit/168051
Click to expand...
... c'mon now? Their examples of falsehoods are like politifact saying Trump is "False: Liar Liar Pants on Fire" because he said he would take no salary as president, but he's actually taking a $1 salary, lol! Its nit picking beyond reason to find fault.

For example, in the ACORN investigation they mention in your "fact checker", if they weren't guilty, ACORN wouldn't have been sued into bankruptcy, banned from operating in the state of Ohio, with now 70 total convictions of ACORN employees primarily for voter fraud (40 campaign workers or government workers convicted of vote-buying, intimidation or ballot forgery, and 23 cases of multiple voting or voting by ineligible voters). Yes, ACORN itself wasn't convicted by and large, but they had so many employees including high level organizers which is the reason it was shut down, as it become a political liability. And yes, they said that Obama didn't ACTUALLY pay $800K to ACORN, but the fact is that his campaign did give $800K to Citizen's Services inc, which IS an ACORN affiliate (so a denial is like saying "Oh, I didn't give Ford money, I gave it to Lincoln, but Lincoln is part of Ford Motor Company at large). And if it weren't for Breibart, its likely we never would have learned of the extent of the voter fraud.

Of course Breibart like so many died of a mysterious and convenient heart attack, and the CIA declassified the use of its "heart attack gun" that it has had in operation since the 70s, which is metabolized by the body and doesn't show up in toxicology reports.
 
Last edited:
K, whatever man. You wanted one and I posted a list of dozens of them. Carry on with your echo chamber.
 
maverikv said:
K, whatever man. You wanted one and I posted a list of dozens of them. Carry on with your echo chamber.
Click to expand...
Well, you're basically trying to say that a legitimate news site is a fake news site by citing a fake news site, so I provided an example of how their nitpicking is nonsense.

But that shows the inherent problem with these systems on who gets to decide what is and isn't legitimate news, like how cringeworthy it was when Hillary during the debates (to which she got coaching and even the questions in advance... talk about crooked) was telling people watching to fact check Donald on HillaryClinton.com, as if her own campaign was a fair and balanced source of truth, lol!

Google and Facebook want to become "The Ministry of Truth", but when they are both contributing to one of the two politicians campaigns and advocating for them, it doesn't feel very good when your "fact checkers" are politically biased.
 
Ducman69 said:
Well, you're basically trying to say that a legitimate news site is a fake news site by citing a fake news site, so I provided an example of how their nitpicking is nonsense.

But that shows the inherent problem with these systems on who gets to decide what is and isn't legitimate news, like how cringeworthy it was when Hillary during the debates (to which she got coaching and even the questions in advance... talk about crooked) was telling people watching to fact check Donald on HillaryClinton.com, as if her own campaign was a fair and balanced source of truth, lol!

Google and Facebook want to become "The Ministry of Truth", but when they are both contributing to one of the two politicians campaigns and advocating for them, it doesn't feel very good when your "fact checkers" are politically biased.
Click to expand...

Hey man, you're the one that said these sites can be fact based with a point of view. I provided you a site with a point of view's fact based list of Breitbart's lies.

Breitbart is an alt right nonsense factory. If you read it for anything but a laugh or to see what the latest BS right wing talking point for the day is, you have no business taking part in a discussion of facts in the media because you clearly are not interested in facts at all.
 
maverikv said:
Hey man, you're the one that said these sites can be fact based with a point of view. I provided you a site with a point of view's fact based list of Breitbart's lies.

Breitbart is an alt right nonsense factory. If you read it for anything but a laugh or to see what the latest BS right wing talking point for the day is, you have no business taking part in a discussion of facts in the media because you clearly are not interested in facts at all.
Click to expand...
Sorry but you are not qualified to judge whether it is a legitimate news site or not. It "was" a source of news (wikileaks) that mainstream news sites largely ignored. If you choose news sites that ignore factual news while disparaging news sites that covers those factual stories than you are a partisan hack and "you have no business taking part in a discussion of facts in the media because you clearly are not interested in facts at all."
 
K whatever. If you guys read Breitbart there's really no point in arguing with you cuz it's impossible to pierce that bubble of stupidity
 
maverikv said:
K whatever. If you guys read Breitbart there's really no point in arguing with you cuz it's impossible to pierce that bubble of stupidity
Click to expand...
Tell the truth: you were stunned and blind-sided by last Tuesday's results. "Your" source of information failed you. You closed your mind to sources of information that would have provided you with a "true" perspective. You are placing political correctness above maintaining intellectual objectivity.

Because I read Drudge and Bretbart and the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post and the New York Times and the Financial Times and the Daily Mail and Russia Today and the London Times, etc. etc. last Tuesdays results occurred "exactly" as I expected. I went to bed at exactly 10:32 pm EST fully confident that my side was going to win. I was properly informed while most others were not.

Closed minded = bubble of stupidity. Open minded = objective thinker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top