New York (CNN Business)The debate over Facebook`s decision to allow President Trump`s reelection campaign to pay to run false ads on its platform encapsulates the awkward moral, social and civil... Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Quests. | Journs. | Gen. | News | Quiz | Links | TV | Music | Movies | Games | Sports | Sug. | Lit. | Jokes | Artcls. | Newb | O.S.
Facebook's refusal to fact-check Trump could be its defining 2020 decision

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next (showing 1-25 of 141)

Back to Thread List
Bottom Last Post

1 month ago - Friday 10/18/19 - 6:22:42 PM EST (GMT-5)
New York (CNN Business)The debate over Facebook's decision to allow President Trump's reelection campaign to pay to run false ads on its platform encapsulates the awkward moral, social and civil questions that have dogged the company since 2016.

Facebook's argument is this: As a private company, it shouldn't have the power to censor the leader of the free world, even if he lies. Those lies, Facebook says, will be tested and exposed by the media and through political discourse.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/10/tech...
1 month ago - Friday 10/18/19 - 6:23:32 PM EST (GMT-5)
But not so, says former vice president Joe Biden's campaign. They complained to Facebook last week after the Trump campaign began running false ads about the Bidens and Ukraine - - an issue which is now central to the impeachment inquiry. Facebook, the Biden team says, should shut down the ads.

"Our approach is grounded in Facebook's fundamental belief in free expression," Katie Harbath, Facebook's public policy director, responded to the Biden campaign. "Political speech is already arguably the most scrutinized speech there is. Thus, when a politician speaks or makes an ad, we do not send it to third party fact checkers."
1 month ago - Friday 10/18/19 - 6:24:45 PM EST (GMT-5)
Facebook's argument might be more convincing in a world without the platform. The company has helped create and enhance ideological echo chambers. Some Facebook users only follow and engage with content with which they agree. Hundreds of Facebook groups exist with thousands of members devoted to various presidential candidates. There, campaign talking points are repeated ad-nauseum.
1 month ago - Friday 10/18/19 - 6:28:24 PM EST (GMT-5)
I was surprised that people I know would re-post false claims about a political person, usually a democrat or how there is no global warming or other junk. I had to take them off my list
1 month ago - Friday 10/18/19 - 6:29:04 PM EST (GMT-5)
Who becomes the arbitrator of what is a lie?

I think Facebooks position is a good one.
1 month ago - Friday 10/18/19 - 6:44:07 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 10/18/19 - 6:29:04 PM Noldor wrote:
Who becomes the arbitrator of what is a lie? I think Facebooks position is a good one.


Facts exist in the world, Noldor. You don't just get to say something isn't a lie because it's inconvenient to you/your candidate.

This is a ***change*** in FB policy. And in advertising for other goods and services, you certainly aren't allowed to lie. They basically changed their policy because the president is completely incapable of NOT lying.
1 month ago - Friday 10/18/19 - 6:46:19 PM EST (GMT-5)
Or they understand they’re not in the fact checking business and do not want to spend money fact checking every ad by everyone.
1 month ago - Friday 10/18/19 - 6:47:42 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 10/18/19 - 6:46:19 PM Noldor wrote:
Or they understand they’re not in the fact checking business and do not want to spend money fact checking every ad by everyone.


Even under the old policy, ads were pretty much just taken down when they were REPORTED by others for blatant falsehoods. And the Trump campaign had several removed for this reason.

This change is dangerous. Trump could put up an ad that says Jews kill Christian babies and drink their blood, and no one could do anything about it.
1 month ago - Friday 10/18/19 - 6:54:30 PM EST (GMT-5)
I’m ok with taking down ads that are reported as being racist or obscene or offensive if a certain number of people report it.
1 month ago - Friday 10/18/19 - 6:56:12 PM EST (GMT-5)
Some ‘facts’ are debatable. Eg. collusion with the Russians
1 month ago - Friday 10/18/19 - 6:56:34 PM EST (GMT-5)
Zuckerberg is really anxious to make 300$.

1 month ago - Friday 10/18/19 - 6:57:18 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 10/18/19 - 6:54:30 PM Noldor wrote:
I’m ok with taking down ads that are reported as being racist or obscene or offensive if a certain number of people report it.


The ads shouldn't have to be racist or obscene or offensive if they're f*cking FALSE.
1 month ago - Friday 10/18/19 - 7:13:20 PM EST (GMT-5)

1 month ago - Friday 10/18/19 - 7:19:59 PM EST (GMT-5)
She never said this but it was repeated many times


1 month ago - Friday 10/18/19 - 7:28:48 PM EST (GMT-5)
“ Those lies, Facebook says, will be tested and exposed by the media and through political discourse. ”
1 month ago - Friday 10/18/19 - 7:36:54 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 10/18/19 - 6:29:04 PM Noldor wrote:
Who becomes the arbitrator of what is a lie? I think Facebooks position is a good one.
On Friday 10/18/19 - 6:44:07 PM birdsong4j wrote:
Facts exist in the world, Noldor. You don't just get to say something isn't a lie because it's inconvenient to you/your candidate.


Kinda like when people like you criticized Trump for his 'Muslim ban' rather than accurately portraying it as what it really was?
1 month ago - Friday 10/18/19 - 8:19:52 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 10/18/19 - 7:28:48 PM Noldor wrote:
“ Those lies, Facebook says, will be tested and exposed by the media and through political discourse. ”

Except there are stupid impressionable people like you who see this sh*t and run with it never bothering to question the info and use reliable sources to verify.
1 month ago - Friday 10/18/19 - 8:20:31 PM EST (GMT-5)
Glad the Nazi showed up to defend lies paid for by the president.
1 month ago - Friday 10/18/19 - 8:51:17 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 10/18/19 - 7:36:54 PM CowDung wrote:
Kinda like when people like you criticized Trump for his 'Muslim ban' rather than accurately portraying it as what it really was?



Trump promised a "total and complete shutdown" of Muslims entering the United States.


snopes
1 month ago - Friday 10/18/19 - 8:53:25 PM EST (GMT-5)
Dec. 7, 2015: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."

March 9, 2016: "I think Islam hates us ... We can’t allow people coming into this country who have this hatred of the United States and of people that are not Muslim.”

1 month ago - Friday 10/18/19 - 9:52:18 PM EST (GMT-5)
...but that's really not what the travel ban was.
1 month ago - Saturday 10/19/19 - 7:42:48 AM EST (GMT-5)
True. The travel ban is not the Muslim ban that Trump promised.
1 month ago - Saturday 10/19/19 - 11:29:26 PM EST (GMT-5)
...but it was characterized as a 'Muslim ban' by those that oppose Trump, which as Bird would say, it was 'f*cking FALSE'.
1 month ago - Sunday 10/20/19 - 12:45:23 AM EST (GMT-5)
Trump made a promise during his campaign to ban Muslims from entering or immigrating to the US ( https://www.theguardian.com/us-news... ). Trump characterized his immigration policy as banning Muslims.

Once Trump took office and had to face the realities of implementing immigration policy (i.e. laws that prevent discriminatory immigration policies), Trump modified his policy to superficially follow the law.

Trump critics correctly characterized his policy as a pretext for a discriminatory, illegal Muslim ban.

Once again you’re whitewashing discrimination. This is why you have the reputation you do on this site.
1 month ago - Sunday 10/20/19 - 1:10:03 AM EST (GMT-5)
Bullpoo.

Trump's travel ban was characterized falsely as being a 'Muslim ban'.

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next (showing 1-25 of 141)



You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Back to Thread List
Top

 
Edit