« May the Fourth Be With You Book List | Main | Wednesday Books: A symphony of the unfinished »

May 10, 2016

Comments

Nudity and Truth: both NSFW

BTW, since when has Facebook been more obligated to be "neutral" than Breitbart is?

I have lived several decades without Facebook, and hope to live a couple more the same way, so I hold no brief for that particular corporation, but is it not the Crybabies of the Right who are champions of free speech for "persons" like Facebook Inc.?

--TP

If Facebook is so horribly biased against conservatives, why not just start another social media site which isn't? After all, Facebook is merely a private corporation, doing what it likes. In this case, exercising its right to free speech - see Citizens United.

If Facebook were a government site, that would be another story. But clearly it isn't. It merely has enormous power due to its dominance in the market. And what conservative could object to a company being a quasi-monopoly?

I think they will get heat because the trending topics SEEMS like it should be politically agnostic. But is it some kind of fraud to insert your own? IDK. But all in all, it could be a small dent in the FB armor.

I forgot to add that this:

"Trending curators are discriminating against isn't that they're conservative, it's that they're bad: too much of their "news" is actually deceptive propaganda."

Is not just a right wing phenomenon. I got lots of Hilary skewers Trump bs stories in my timeline.

So Facebook minions are instigating their own little Ministry Of Truth.

The Senate Is Launching An Inquiry Into Facebook's Trending News: Here's What's Going On

Thune leading the charge
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-wrong-republican-pick-fight-facebook

It's as if those rage-fueled lawmakers have never heard of "The Streisand Effect". I suspect they're about to find out.

"Thune" sounds like it would make an interesting word to redefine as a verb.

"Man, he TOTALLY Thuned that goat!"

I do a lot of my own suppression of right-wing BS by blocking anything from the untrustworthy/plain-stupid (sometimes cartoonishly so)/hateful sources my more conservative friends sometimes share, usually with little or no commentary of their own. It seems to be a never-ending process, because the supply of ridiculous right-wing sources seems to be endless.

If I were more doctrinaire, I would probably unfriend, unfollow or block my friends who most often share the stuff, making it much easier on myself. But I actually value their friendship, politics aside, so I just block whatever sources they get their BS from, though they continue to find new ones all the time.

My more liberal friends seem, in general, to share more in-depth, well-sourced and thoughtful things of a political nature, and usually have something of their own to say about those things (rather than simply posting a photo with misleading text added to it that some random jackass created and which is easily debunked were one to take the less than a minute required to do so, should one care enough about not spreading blatant falsehoods, assuming one was even capable of detecting them).

Maybe I'm just biased, but I calls 'em likes I sees 'em. Sorry (or not sorry) if that bothers anyone.

I have to agree with the good doctor that the amount of bile spewed by right-wing sources far outweighs whatever analog there is coming from the left.

What's "facebook"?

If Facebook is so horribly biased against conservatives, why not just start another social media site which isn't?

The more interesting question is why such a thing doesn't already exist. The technology isn't that hard; the start-up costs aren't that large. I can think of a number of plausible reasons, some snarky and some not.

What's "facebook"?

It's like "face-plant", only using a book.

You're welcome.

hsh, I block the sites just as you do. And I agree that there seems like a never ending string of them. More than that, the actual content of the stories rarely matches the title. I get lots of left stuff just hating on trump and Cruz, and Ryan and Rubio, even Kasich. So they are typically less hysterical, but no more accurate.

"If Facebook is so horribly biased against conservatives, why not just start another social media site which isn't?"

It was called Reaganbook. It was less than successful. Apparently conservatives believe that all websites either have to be biased in their favor or completely neutral. So much for freedom.

Marty:

What are the sources of the "no more accurate" news items your liberal friends are linking?

There are certainly some I tend to mistrust: HuffPo and DailyKos *may* get my click, but my eyes are ready to roll at any moment.

Breitbart, though, is both extremely popular and actively toxic.

The Senate Is Launching An Inquiry Into Facebook's Trending News: Here's What's Going On
The party of small government, folks!

Doc, I have to confess I can't name them, when they hit my feed I just block them. I don't block Huffpo, sometimes I find the slant interesting even if I'm not sure its accurate and sometimes the stuff they just reprint is ok. Dailykos I just pass by. Breitbart is not the worst by far, but I have it blocked.

My aunt recently posted a clearly fake photo of Hillary Clinton shaking hands with Osama Bin Laden with some stupid caption. It's been debunked who knows how many times, but somehow the BS detector doesn't go off. My cousin and I got on her case enough that she finally removed it.

I do see some similar things from the left, but I'm equally as skeptical when they just don't sound quite right to me. They're few and far enough between that I don't usually bother to block the source, but I will sometimes comment on their falsity if I go to the trouble of debunking them for myself. And I certainly don't promulgate the stuff by sharing it like some of my friends do.

There's also a good bit of BS political stuff that isn't especially particular to the right or left, and there's a lot BS that just isn't political at all, to be found on facebook. A lot of people seem not be skeptical enough not to blindly share things without verifying them. It's not solely a right-wing thing, but most of the political BS I see that leans strongly in one direction or the other is leaning right.

I, for one, look forward to hearing how a A GOP Senator is going to Fix the Internet, with this One Weird Trick.

F*ck off, GOP:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fairness+Doctrine

When will Drudge the right-wing news aggregator and his choice of haberdashery be investigated and harassed?

As for Limbaugh and the rest of the lying right-wing noise machine and their clearly murderous policy proposals, I'm for the federal government staying out of it, but I want to see violence against them across the board.

Facebook posted this sh*t:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ted-nugent-doctors-video-hillary-clinton-shot

Nugent requires a bullet in the head.

The right wing in this country is subhuman. Their tender First Amendment pig- and rat-f*cking is going to pale next to the Second Amendment remedies coming their way.

The more interesting question is why such a thing doesn't already exist. The technology isn't that hard; the start-up costs aren't that large.

Both of these statements are...not true. The technology behind FB is actually a great deal more advanced than you realize. Note that FB has hundreds of thousands of servers.

As for startup costs, social networks are very sticky. People spend time with their friends are and don't spend time at new networks where their friends aren't (Metcalfe's law rules the day). Realistically, that means that even an awesome amazing competitor that was just better in several ways would probably wither on the vine long before it gained enough users to break even.

Source: I used to be an FB engineer.

"Source: I used to be an FB engineer."

I agree that the tech, particularly the foundation tech is not simple. The stickiness is a problem that can be overcome over time, AOL-FB-Snapchat.

But, IMO, the challenge for a right wing version is most people don't associate themselves as being that far right, and wouldn't identify to their friends that they should go there to "friend" them.

So I'm curious as to why this is being investigated by the Senate.

Isn't Facebook an entirely private business? Can't they do whatever they want with their content?

Why are our illustrious, free-market loving, GOP senators investigating what a purely private business decides to put -- and not put -- on it's trending pages?

Surely it can be as partisan, or non-partisan, as it wishes. What possible government interest can their be?

Count:

Dial it back. No threats of violence against persons, no matter how richly they deserve it.

is whether Facebook's young Trending curators were trying to weed out stories that are deceptive, false or even dangerous.

I think the charge is that the curators were deleting conservative stuff *that was trending*. That is, misrepresenting what was trending.

Now, it may be that we need helpers to keep us from reading inaccurate right wing agitprop, but this is as different thing than that.

That said"

So I'm curious as to why this is being investigated by the Senate.

Me too. Seems like bullshit.

Isn't Facebook an entirely private business? Can't they do whatever they want with their content?

I thought so too. The gov't has zero business messing around with or even requesting an accounting of anyone's editorial decision making.

If Facebook was lying about what was trending to serve a particular narrative, shame on Facebook. But, really, is anyone surprised by this?

"Why are our illustrious, free-market loving, GOP senators investigating what a purely private business decides to put -- and not put -- on it's trending pages?"

Well, since they can't use public bathrooms any longer, so they need somewhere to download their crap.

As far as a conservative alternative is concerned, what would that be ?
Foxbook ?

Actually, News Corp sort of already tried that, but didn't really know what to do with it, and....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myspace

Anyway, the opposite of Facebook would surely be Assbook ?

Also, bear in mind that the world's most successful online news site is the UK's Mail Online - not exactly liberal media.

"Why are our illustrious, free-market loving, GOP senators investigating what a purely private business decides to put -- and not put -- on it's trending pages?"

They need something to do to fill the time that was once taken up by Senators doing their jobs, like conducting hearings on conservative Supreme Court nominees.

Aren't Judge Merrick Garland's trending political free-speech rights being suppressed and violated by this one branch of the federal government?

Or isn't he offering the Republican Senators the only free speech that counts ... money?

Anyway, the opposite of Facebook would surely be Assbook ?

Don't you mean Arsebook?

Of course. I was just being polite.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-only-thing-worse-than-a-manipulated-%E2%80%9Ctrending%E2%80%9D-list--an-unfiltered-on-162716282.html

The conservative conniption over the alleged editing of trending "news" by Facebook is pretty good accompaniment to Donald Trump's citing National Enquirer "stories" (planted by his own people -- Roger Stone, et al) about whomever is on his revolving daily sh*t list and having the so-called "news media" pick it up and legitimize it as "maybe" not true, but worthy somehow of mention, I guess because now anything and everything that comes out of an American mouth, any American mouth, is now sacred, special utterance.

I guess editors now are going the way of Walter Cronkite, climate change scientists, and the bullsh't about unelected bureaucrats: mediating expertise that is not the boss of me and may not infringe on any special American's sacred individual supply of unending horsesh*t about all subjects.

I suppose Sarah Death Palin and the Donald and their minions will now not only object to anyone proofreading and interpreting their fractured gonzo syntax into vaguely understandable speech, but they'll demand that the rest of us talk like them too.

When they write the history of the Rise and Fall of American civilization, the epitaph will be different than those for other extinct civilizations.

Well, Americans were just so full of sh*t and came to value and treasure their own individual sh*t to such a degree, even if it was much shittier than the commonly accepted sh*t that at least kept the lights on, that they ran out of places to put it, and finally it all down on their heads like the lava flow of Vesuvius.

I suspect the whole spat rests on a category error.
For some reason people (and this is not a party political point) feel that the "Trending curators" are different, and should be more 'objective', than news reporters/editors. Once you accept that there are such things, rather than a pure algorithm which sorts stuff Purely on a single metric, it's hard to see why this should be so.
Insert a human into the process, and there is no real objectivity, only editorial policy.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/facebook-is-not-suppressing-hiding-conservative-political-content-says-socialflow-ceo-on-scandal-214335835.html

Meanwhile, the subhuman Republican filth among us are free to break the law:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/sally-kern-oklahoma-capitol-guns

Trend this too:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/george-zimmerman-sell-gun-trayvon-martin

The Martin family should purchase the gun and stalk murderer Zimmerman as he goes about his Republican talking points funded by the murder of their son.

If you read the link above regarding conservative Oklahoma lawmakers breaking the very gun laws they pass, maybe these corrupt vermin have reason to fear for their lives:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/insurers-shun-risk-oil-linked-quakes-soar-oklahoma-050412299--sector.html

Count, you'll love this article's comments from Republican on Trump's border fence. But then, while the legislators and business owners quoted are Republicans, they also happen to be located along the border. And they think Trump has no clue about the border.

Shocker! Trump clueless.

What are the sources of the "no more accurate" news items your liberal friends are linking?

Addicting Info is a pretty awful one that I see regularly. It's the only one that really burnt itself into my brain, but there's a number of leftwing clickbait sites that crop up in my feed alongside the rightwing ones.

AddictingInfo and OccupyDemocrats are both purveyors of utter leftwing crap.

Whether they compare with Breitbart and other right-wingy purveyors of crap is not really my concern, because I try to avoid both.

The more I pay attention to stuff my FB friends post as purported news, the more time I have to spend fact-checking. So, I normally don't bother so much.

WJ, you may want to reread that article. We have much longer and more porous border here in TX. Whether it can be effectively walled, one hundred percent, is unlikely. However, I'm quoting what your article says:

But, Bilbray said, no barrier -- not even Trump's wall -- will stop the flow of illegal migrants as long as federal agents don't do more to punish employers for hiring them and enforce immigration laws all over the country.

There is a role for obstacles, including walls, but without enforcement, nothing else matters. Obama is not enforcing the border and employers of illegals are not being held accountable. TX border ranchers think he is not only clueless as to what is happening, but criminal in his lack of executing the laws of the land. They may be wrong, or only right to a degree, but I don't think you are correctly presenting the point of the border residents in CA. That one guy doesn't carry a Glock on his hip for balance.

Facebook:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/05/trump-butler-anthony-senecal-facebook-kill-obama

When did Texas border ranchers start paying attention:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/20/number-of-illegals-levels-off-fewer-crossing-mexic/?page=all

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/10/american-principles-action/has-barack-obama-deported-more-people-any-other-pr/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/19/high-rate-of-deportations-continue-under-obama-despite-latino-disapproval/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/02/u-s-deportations-of-immigrants-reach-record-high-in-2013/

That first link doesn't work.

Fixed it.

Meanwhile, back at the ACA:

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20160512/NEWS/160519949

AddictingInfo and OccupyDemocrats are both purveyors of utter leftwing crap.

I was going to mention OccupyDemocrats after NV brought up AddictingInfo. They do the pithy put-some-words-on-a-photo thing too much for my taste. My take is that most of it is of the not-exactly-fair (or just generally dumb) variety than the other blatantly and ridiculously false sort of stuff I see from more right-wing sources (frex: the Clinton-Bin Laden photo I mentioned), but it's still not worthwhile either way.

I tried to find the list of sites I have blocked in FB. It would be long, but I cant find it.

Didn't catch this in the Gizmodo quote in Doc's on a previous reading:

""Every once in awhile a Red State or conservative news source would have a story."

Oh, they have stories, alright. But they aren't news sources. If they are news sources, I'm Chet Huntley.

I guess the definition of "trending", when it comes to news, is now akin to "turds that float the best".

We have much longer and more porous border here in TX.

And those Oklahomans can be damned tricky.

Maybe someone can persuade Andy Schlafly to start Conservabookia. It could trend interviews with Barack Hussien Obama's four wives and proofs that evolution is a hoax

And those Oklahomans can be damned tricky.

There was the The Texas-Israeli War: 1999 when Texas was invaded from Oklahoma...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad