Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

I think this entire situation is quite hilarious. First off, if you depend on Facebook for news, then you get what you deserve. Then again, I feel that way about anyone using Facebook to begin with.

When I was telling my kids for every minute you are on Facebook, you lose one IQ point, I was doing so in jest. Now? Not so sure I was kidding. I mean, the basic idea behind Facebook,,.....keeping up with friends and family, is not a bad idea at all, but the implementation is down right horrific. I wonder about the charactoer of anyone allowing themselves to be sucked into that foolishness.
 
nutzo said:
You lose all credibility when you say the NYT is legit.
Click to expand...

...not a party to any one side, but NYT is the most legit of them all considering that all news service's wont front page publish anything that they are favor to. They all do(nt). Its an extension of the 5ifth Amendment - against self incrimination. So NYT will quickly publish dirt on someone else, but slow to react/retract something that makes them look bad. Havent seen any false stories, but a few stories from reporters that seemed ok to fabricate.

Not sure if I blame the Times for them.

...and if I am wrong, I will correct this post (y)
 
Khahhblaab said:
...not a party to any one side, but NYT is the most legit of them all considering that all news service's wont front page publish anything that they are favor to. They all do(nt). Its an extension of the 5ifth Amendment - against self incrimination. So NYT will quickly publish dirt on someone else, but slow to react/retract something that makes them look bad. Havent seen any false stories, but a few stories from reporters that seemed ok to fabricate.

Not sure if I blame the Times for them.

...and if I am wrong, I will correct this post (y)
Click to expand...
 
theBrownLlama said:
so how is FB going to determine whether some publication is legit on some fronts but completely bonkers in others.
Click to expand...

FB doesn’t have to do anything. Users will put trust “votes” in news sites they agree with until the whole thing is a liberal echo chamber. This is what FB wants, however they are enabling the users to do it for them.
 
nutzo said:
I'd have to disagree with you on some of those choices.
You lose all credibility when you say the NYT is legit.
Click to expand...
Thanks for proving my point. Wingnuts always discount any publication that doesn't tow their party line.
 
azuza001 said:
This is just another attempt at Facebook to try and be relivent as a news source provider without wanting to get someone to actually fact check their news. First it was "get a computer to make sure it's real" now it's "that doesn't work, let's just have our users figure it out for us."

News flash : Facebook is not where anyone should get their news from. It's great for sharing personal news like what happened to aunt milly yesterday but real-world news is not it's designed purpose and it doesn't do it well. Either hire people to actually check news before it's posted or stop this nonsense.
Click to expand...
They can't realistically fact check news reported by publications. There's simply too many. What they can do is start with publications that are reputable (and most city/state/national newspapers are legit) and then go from there. But even that's open to manipulation, because new pubs that are added could start out publishing only legit articles and then once past the gate keepers slowly start adding fake news (aka propaganda)
 
nutzo said:
And you just showed you're bias.

I don't expect the NYT to be perfect, but to me they are nothing more than a tabloid that on rare occasion stumbles into the truth.
Click to expand...
We've got a comedian here.
 
lilbabycat said:
All of those report from a certain viewpoint. What they say is (usually) factually true, but is very purposefully written in a way for the the reader to take a different interpretation than reality, and those agencies know that. And lets not get into the "opinion" stories, which are the vast majority of these publication's "product", and of course usually the first result of any given search you might have if you don't explicitly add "-opinion" to your google search.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/us/politics/trump-government-shutdown.html
If you don't see the bias in an article like this one, you're hopeless. And of course the ever present "sources say" which is roughly translated as "this is the part where we speculate and mislead you with our own opinion but imply its reality so we can better effect your opinion of the subject". In this article its "according to people on both sides familiar with" and "according to one person familiar with the discussion", but there are many variations. Sometimes its an actual source, sometimes its entirely made up... You never know because"someone familiar with..." can be anyone. I'm "familiar with" the discussion of the budget, therefore by the language of this article, I could be their source.
Click to expand...

That's called people who aren't willing to speak on the record and in most cases they have at least 2 sources. But hey, I won't try to convince you. You've got some Breitbart and Infowars to get to. Enjoy that Trump milk.
 
BSmith said:
I think this entire situation is quite hilarious. First off, if you depend on Facebook for news, then you get what you deserve. Then again, I feel that way about anyone using Facebook to begin with.
Click to expand...

Ocellaris said:
FB doesn’t have to do anything. Users will put trust “votes” in news sites they agree with until the whole thing is a liberal echo chamber. This is what FB wants, however they are enabling the users to do it for them.
Click to expand...

nilepez said:
Thanks for proving my point. Wingnuts always discount any publication that doesn't tow their party line.
Click to expand...

nilepez said:
They can't realistically fact check news reported by publications. There's simply too many
Click to expand...


We are moving towards or are somewhat in a "Man who shot Liberty valance" reality. Possibly a dangerous situation. Do we really believe that everything is as open as freedom of speech tries to protect.

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend".

Imagine all of the false 'truths' that will be believed when FB users become their own J Jonah Jameson. Edit the stories that they want to see with the spin that sells more newspapers. Spiderman isnt saving anyone he's a crook. "Masked menace terrorizes town"

Misquotes become legend. What a mess this could be.
 
A real dark side of this will be when media sites cater their news just so people on Facebook like it. The Facebook audience is huge and news outlets are fighting to stay relevant. There is a huge opportunity for a few outlets to take over the news feed simply by showing people what they want to see.
 
trudude said:
Click to expand...


....not enough, sry.

I hold that fake news is news that is created while taking a shower or similar to the US senator who turned in one of our female counter agents because he didnt like her husband. A totally created situation. Creating drama when there shoundn't be.

Donald jr's own e-mail and his own admittance showed that he spoke to a russian reporter (lawyer?) to see if what they said about having disparaging info on Hillary was true. This is 'NOT' fake news. When the son of a presidential candidate goes to whom we have diplomatic issues with to gain info about one of our candidates - I kinda see how someone like bannon felt it was touching on treason.

Going to a communist country to find the shade(dirt) to throw at his fathers opponent. This is enough to start an investigation. Remember, Trump stated on record: 'Russia" if you are listening, see if you can find out about the e mails that Clinton deleted.

Like father like son?

Sry. Maybe dis-information though. Jr's e-mails are still out there, and an investigation is warranted.
 
TMCM said:
You are absolutely incorrect. For every time NYT gets it wrong (which they then write a retraction for) they get it right 100s of times. NYT is not brietbart, infowars, mother jones, occupy democrats, or any other BS claptrap "news" publication.
Click to expand...

I recently canceled my local paper.
One of the main reasons is the increased reprinting of NYT stories. I can almost always tell a NYT's story as soon as I start reading it. They are that biased.
If I want biased reporting, I can just watch CNN/MSNBC
 
Khahhblaab said:
Donald jr's own e-mail and his own admittance showed that he spoke to a russian reporter (lawyer?) to see if what they said about having disparaging info on Hillary was true. This is 'NOT' fake news. When the son of a presidential candidate goes to whom we have diplomatic issues with to gain info about one of our candidates - I kinda see how someone like bannon felt it was touching on treason.
Click to expand...

You really need to look at the entire story (what we now know happened). Of course I doubt you will see this reported in the NYT.

Yes, a Russian lawyer said she had dirt on Hillary, and Donald jr met with her.
Instead of dirt, she started talking about wanting to change a law about adopting Russian kids.
Accepting information from a non US citizen is NOT a crime. Neither in meeting with one who would like a change to a US law.
Paying a foreign agent for information would be a violation of election laws, you know, like how Hillary laundered money through Fusion GPS to pay a British agent to go to Russia to dig up dirt about Trump.

There's also the issue that this Russian lawyer met with someone at Fusion GPS before and after she met with Donald jr.
Same company Hillary and the Democrats where paying for opposition research.
Sounds like a setup to me.

Fake news is not just reporting false information.
Selectively not reporting news that doesn't fit the narrative, and leaves the reader with a false understanding of the truth is just as bad or even worse.
 
nutzo said:
Selectively not reporting news that doesn't fit the narrative, and leaves the reader with a false understanding of the truth is just as bad or even worse
Click to expand...

Im gonna have to check on the Clinton accusations that you posted because I have never heard of them B4. I'm not all that political, I just see and hear things that make me go 'HUH'.

I cant change my position on what Donald jr said he did, since the intent was to gather bad news on an american, and his own voice admitted he did so. I also cant change what Donald Sr. said because it was during his campaign in which it was said.

These things make me go 'HUH'?

Did I really hear what this guy say? Nah, cant be. Now a year later - I can see how someone would be reluctant to bring up these issues, but I expect that folks hold the guys responsible for seemingly joining forces with the Russians and not say it's fake news that they are under investigation for possible Russian collusion. Thats my only issue.

These statements are part of the internet so effectively part of the public record. I didnt link them here - they are easily found.

The mystery is how anyone can say that the Russia investigation is a false / fake investigation. There is proof as to why someone may feel that it needs to be done.

I'll check the points you pointed out later....
 
nutzo said:
Hillary laundered money through Fusion GPS
Click to expand...

...although I didnt go real deep into what you posted, I have enough info to at least pose conflicting info pertaining to your views about what happened.

Hilary didn't launder money<well according to wiki on the trump-russia dossier>. What happened was they - the democrats - hired a law firm to hire someone to find out more about then candidate Trump. Its called opposition research and one of the companies that specialize in it is called Fusion GPS. Not 'Global positioning satellites', but 'Global research, political analysis and strategic insight.

Since they hired Fusion GPS, fusion had carte blanch as to who to next hire to get the job done. Fusion hired steele through Orbis business intelligence because he was a known expert in russian affairs because he was formally an 'employee' of MI6.

This is the connection. There isnt any close collusion with clinton and steele. As a matter of fact, Fusion and Orbis met with trump and Obama before he took office and the FBI warned him that there was potentially damaging info about trump in the pages of the report. Its more a Trump Russian dossier than a Clinton generated dossier.

But why all of the worry if he didnt do anything?

Have you seen this:

I'm only going by what I read from wikki. I usually check a few sources B4 I stand on an issue. But since wikki can be edited by the opposition, I bet that there is a lot a truth about it.

If someone uses a legal business - 'opposition research' to find out the underbelly of their opponent and Jr. takes the bait, there are <probably> two guilty parties. No. "I dont do that "is an effective way to not be setup in the hands of a Russian lawyer.

Interesting situation either way. Take a look at the video.
 
So much misinformation.

The NYT has an op-ed section. It is full of opinions. They are quite clear on this. It doesn't invalidate their straight news coverage. It is perfectly valid for analysts/journalists to draw conclusions as long as they make it clear what is an opinion and what is a fact. Contrast this with low quality "journalism" like Breitbart, which tries to sell opinions as facts. Or, for that matter, the Michael Wolfe book. It should be taken with a massive grain of salt, since it isn't independently corroborated. If you've listened to the mainstream media, plenty of those folks are denouncing Wolfe's journalistic rigor.

I get so sick of hearing that the mainstream media is biased. It's not some evil plot to mislead you. They simply report stories that you don't like from time to time. Just because it contradicts your worldview doesn't make it false. We're all wrong sometimes. Learn and move on.

Trump yelling "fake news" should be heard as "unfavorable coverage." If he can't stand it, he shouldn't have gotten into politics.
 
nutzo said:
And leftist always try to shut down anything that doesn't preach their party line.
Click to expand...
Puhleeze. you said nothing other than I odn't agree with the NYT, therefore it's fake news. If you actually have something factual to say, then say it and provide sources. Until then, you're just another wingnut (and FYI, I don't differentiate between left/righ wing nuts) whining about pubs that write stories you disagree with. I'm sure you don't understand that, because all your friends agree with yout, but I've got friends that bitch about leftist news and others that complain about rightist news and they're literally complaining about the same publication and in some cases the same exact fucking story!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
MarkVI said:
So much misinformation.

The NYT has an op-ed section. It is full of opinions. They are quite clear on this. It doesn't invalidate their straight news coverage. It is perfectly valid for analysts/journalists to draw conclusions as long as they make it clear what is an opinion and what is a fact. Contrast this with low quality "journalism" like Breitbart, which tries to sell opinions as facts. Or, for that matter, the Michael Wolfe book. It should be taken with a massive grain of salt, since it isn't independently corroborated. If you've listened to the mainstream media, plenty of those folks are denouncing Wolfe's journalistic rigor.

I get so sick of hearing that the mainstream media is biased. It's not some evil plot to mislead you. They simply report stories that you don't like from time to time. Just because it contradicts your worldview doesn't make it false. We're all wrong sometimes. Learn and move on.

Trump yelling "fake news" should be heard as "unfavorable coverage." If he can't stand it, he shouldn't have gotten into politics.
Click to expand...
Same is true with the WSJ. I don't base my analysis of newspapers based solely on the editorial section. NYT's editorial section is very liberal. WSJ's is very conservative. WaPo has a mixture, but is mostly to the left. AZ Republic's is mostly to the right. All of those papers have great reporters that report the news. Sadly the wingnuts don't like those papers, because liberals wingnuts think the WSJ and the AZ Republic are right wingnut paper and right wingers think that WaPo and NYT are left wing papers. They're all wrong, though both sides will look for mistakes to prove their point. All of those papers are solid, even though I disagree with 1/2 of the editorial pages.
 
Facebook says they will let users mark news as fake.

people on the internet will spend thousands of man hours arguing about the merits of the situation.

Facebook says we will sell you data on what consumers don't like which news and by proxy more personal details about their life. ​

clever girl.
 
MarkVI said:
So much misinformation.

The NYT has an op-ed section. It is full of opinions. They are quite clear on this. It doesn't invalidate their straight news coverage. It is perfectly valid for analysts/journalists to draw conclusions as long as they make it clear what is an opinion and what is a fact. Contrast this with low quality "journalism" like Breitbart, which tries to sell opinions as facts. Or, for that matter, the Michael Wolfe book. It should be taken with a massive grain of salt, since it isn't independently corroborated. If you've listened to the mainstream media, plenty of those folks are denouncing Wolfe's journalistic rigor.

I get so sick of hearing that the mainstream media is biased. It's not some evil plot to mislead you. They simply report stories that you don't like from time to time. Just because it contradicts your worldview doesn't make it false. We're all wrong sometimes. Learn and move on.

Trump yelling "fake news" should be heard as "unfavorable coverage." If he can't stand it, he shouldn't have gotten into politics.
Click to expand...
The New York Times directly contributed to taking us into the Iraq War by reporting false information fed to them without verifying it. It doesn't get much more "fake news" than that. Does that invalidate everything else they report on? Of course not. Does reporting disinformation on such a massive scale to the point it could have impacted the course of history call their credibility as an institution into question? Yes, it does.

The Washington Post got bought out by Jeff Bezos, who also made a deal with the CIA for $600 million for handling their cloud services. You think that doesn't create a conflict of interest if the paper were to report on something damaging to the CIA or any operations they were involved in?

It's the same situation across major outlets. They all have good historical reputations, but they're all eroding due to the influence of money and wanting access. Saying they're just peddling drivel is a gross simplification, but so is also saying they're reputable. It's not that simple anymore. It's all a case-by-base basis and the topic being reported.
 
nilepez said:
Same is true with the WSJ. I don't base my analysis of newspapers based solely on the editorial section. NYT's editorial section is very liberal. WSJ's is very conservative. WaPo has a mixture, but is mostly to the left. AZ Republic's is mostly to the right. All of those papers have great reporters that report the news. Sadly the wingnuts don't like those papers, because liberals wingnuts think the WSJ and the AZ Republic are right wingnut paper and right wingers think that WaPo and NYT are left wing papers. They're all wrong, though both sides will look for mistakes to prove their point. All of those papers are solid, even though I disagree with 1/2 of the editorial pages.
Click to expand...
WSJ is hit or miss on being conservative. It's owned by the Murdoch's that own Fox, which itself is moving way more liberal. WSJ bias depends wholly on the writer. One of their editors endorsed Hillary Clinton, for crying out loud.

Washington Times (right) and the Hill (left) are respectable online sources that stay pretty neutral in their reporting. There is nothing on the WSJ about "the memo" right now, but it's #1 on the Hill. Illegal actions by the top Democrats, FBI and Justice Department are way bigger news than a temporary shutdown of Congress, which is just a smokescreen for what's really going down.
 
Last edited:
If it can have the like button replaced by a Donald Trump emoji titled "Fake News", that would work well
 
Hmm. sounds like we need an important sounding government office to handle deciding what news is fake or real. How about.. a Ministry.. that sounds important and trustworthy, you know, like a religion or something.

Hmm.. How about the Ministry of Truth. Yes, and we'll just get normal people to be members of the MoT. of course, we can't have those normal people doing anything offensive, so we'll need to have a MoT overseer. That one person will be in charge of deciding what the MoT can and cannot say. Excellent. Oh and I suppose that overseer will need to be overseen.. and that should be done by hmm.. How about a Priminister. Elected by the masses, yes excellent. But what if the Priminister becomes influenced and corrupt? surely we need someone to oversee the priminister.. I know, We'll have a God King. Excellent, the God king is utterly infallible, I mean, Just look at his title. Gods who are also kings of gods are perfect in every way. Oh, but what of diversity? How about we add a God Queen as well. The God queen will ensure all of the other people with important sounding titles are kept on the side of diverse thinking and compassion.. Hmm.. It seems we will need another ministry to overlook all of this.. I'll have to think on that a bit more.
 
nilepez said:
They can't realistically fact check news reported by publications. There's simply too many. What they can do is start with publications that are reputable (and most city/state/national newspapers are legit) and then go from there. But even that's open to manipulation, because new pubs that are added could start out publishing only legit articles and then once past the gate keepers slowly start adding fake news (aka propaganda)
Click to expand...

I agree with you that it's an impossible job, but that's kind of my point. Facebook isn't a news release platform, it was not designed that way and it should not try to be that. If a news organization wants to have a Facebook page to release news then that's not something Facebook should even get involved in. Let them do it. But the counter to that is Facebook needs to not try and push that pages articles onto other people, again just let those that want to go there and read their news do so, and those that don't just don't go to the page.

Oh well, Facebook is just one big mess anyways lol. I feel sorry for the people that have to "watch for improper issues".
 
Every time I see one of these threads... people like to put things into one of two silos, makes it easy for them.

The reality is all publications are fallible, this back and forth of my side/your side is stupid and exactly what they want. Read everything, look a little closer, make up your own mind. If your not willing to do that, you'd be doing everyone else a favor if you'd just stop consuming the 'news'.
 
Khahhblaab said:
The mystery is how anyone can say that the Russia investigation is a false / fake investigation. There is proof as to why someone may feel that it needs to be done.
Click to expand...

Maybe because the previous administration used the fake Russia dossier to get FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign?
Maybe because the fake Russia dossier was nothing more that opposition research paid for by the Clinton and democrat campaigns?
Maybe because everyone Muller hired donated and supported Hillary?
Maybe because FBI agent Peter Strzok was fired from the investigate over anti-trump messages and is the same agent involved in covering up crimes in the Hillary email server investigation?

(just to name a few)
 
(just to name a few)[/QUOTE]
nutzo said:
Maybe because the previous administration used the fake Russia dossier to get FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign?
Maybe because the fake Russia dossier was nothing more that opposition research paid for by the Clinton and democrat campaigns?
Maybe because everyone Muller hired donated and supported Hillary?
Maybe because FBI agent Peter Strzok was fired from the investigate over anti-trump messages and is the same agent involved in covering up crimes in the Hillary email server investigation?

(just to name a few)
Click to expand...

<dont have a long list, just two>

Trump asking Russia to hack Clintons emails:



Trump Jr stating he had a meeting with a Russian lawyer to find dirt on Hillary:


Trump JR 01.PNG
Trump JR 01.PNG


Trump jr 02.PNG
Trump jr 02.PNG


I dont know how tthis will turn out, its just reasons - not made up - to have an investigation on his truthfullness.
 
Aireoth said:
Every time I see one of these threads... people like to put things into one of two silos, makes it easy for them.

The reality is all publications are fallible, this back and forth of my side/your side is stupid and exactly what they want. Read everything, look a little closer, make up your own mind. If your not willing to do that, you'd be doing everyone else a favor if you'd just stop consuming the 'news'.
Click to expand...
This isn't about the WSJ vs the NYT or even American Spectator vs Mother Jones. It's about sites that promote propaganda in an effort to either mislead the public and cause division. This isn't about partisan politics, even if that's how these sites target the population.
 
Coffeve said:
Lefttards do exactly the same thing so really you just proved his.
Click to expand...

No, I gave a variety of well respected publications as ones that could be considered legit sources and he immediately says that NYT isn't legit because...well just because. I didn't attack any legit conservative papers and there are plenty of them out there. Now if you mean there are left wingnuts that do what he does? Yeah, sure. I don't differentiate between left and right wingnuts. They're all part of the problem.
 
sleepeeg3 said:
WSJ is hit or miss on being conservative. It's owned by the Murdoch's that own Fox, which itself is moving way more liberal. WSJ bias depends wholly on the writer. One of their editors endorsed Hillary Clinton, for crying out loud.

Washington Times (right) and the Hill (left) are respectable online sources that stay pretty neutral in their reporting. There is nothing on the WSJ about "the memo" right now, but it's #1 on the Hill. Illegal actions by the top Democrats, FBI and Justice Department are way bigger news than a temporary shutdown of Congress, which is just a smokescreen for what's really going down.
Click to expand...
Rabinowitz? If so, that in and of itself shows how bad Trump is, because she's been a pretty reliable conservative for as long as I can remember though it's worth nothing she's not really a reporter. She does editorials and I've seen some reviews of TV shows.
 
nilepez said:
This isn't about the WSJ vs the NYT or even American Spectator vs Mother Jones. It's about sites that promote propaganda in an effort to either mislead the public and cause division. This isn't about partisan politics, even if that's how these sites target the population.
Click to expand...

My side, your side, my side, your side.
 
Good luck with that. Two local news organizations posted a false story last week and I posted proof along with two links showing that. Surprise surprise I was marked as spam. All of the sudden it made sense that every single comment on the article was leaning toward one political side and literally none on the other. My guess is they were marking every opposing viewpoint as spam and getting it deleted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top