• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Zuckerberg throws out fact checkers, warns of more Drumpf-friendly line

Trausti said:
You don't think suspension of the Babylon Bee fits that card? Really?

Twitter suspends Rep. Banks’ account for misgendering trans health official


Eyj01-zWYAANWjq
Click to expand...
Are you saying that Twitter/X is a left-wing social media channel?
 
dudalb said:
I repeat the question who decides what is a lie and what is not?
or as the Romans said, who will watch the watcher?
Click to expand...
Exactly. Who has any authority to say the Earth is NOT flat? Or that vaccines do NOT cause autism? Or that <insert hated group here> is genetically inferior and is an abomination against nature? Best to leave these controversies to anonymous internet commentors.
 
Nowadays, freedom of speech is just another way of saying freedom to tell lies and freedom from those lies being corrected by fact checking.
Fact checking, on the other hand, is cancel culture, censorship and suppression: 'I am free to tell lies, so don't you start ruining my freedom by exposing them to the truth.'

By the way, sometimes commentaries from users work:
AES on X, Jan 10, 2025
Catturd just got humiliated..

Image
 
Last edited:
dann said:
Nowadays, freedom of speech is just another way of saying freedom to tell lies and freedom from those lies being corrected by fact checking.
Fact checking, on the other hand, is cancel culture, censorship and suppression: 'I am free to tell lies, so don't you start ruining my freedom by exposing them to the truth.'

By the way, sometimes commentaries from users work:
AES on X, Jan 10, 2025
Catturd just got humiliated..

Image
Click to expand...
Censorship 😱!
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Have they explained how fact-checking equals censorship, yet?

1. Far-right buffoon says something.
2. Someone else points out how they happen to be wrong or even deliberately lying, citing sources as they do so.
3. ???
4. CENSORSHIP!!

Solve for '???'.

eta: Bonus question, does this logic work both ways? If I say something wrong and someone on the Drumpf supporter side corrects me, is that censorship, too? Why/why not?
Click to expand...
If you disagree with me, that's censorship. If I disagree with you, that's freedom.

If you think about what I just said too hard or ask any questions about it, that's also censorship.
 
KDLarsen said:
Meta is evidently going full-on hard-right in terms of appeasement towards trump and his ilk:
www.theguardian.com

Meta terminates its DEI programs days before Trump inauguration

Meta, fresh off announcement to end factchecking, follows McDonald’s and Walmart in rolling back diversity initiatives
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
"In the memo, Janelle Gale, vice-president of human resources, wrote that the company would be ending several programs that targeted minority groups, including the Diverse Slate Approach, which she said “is currently being challenged” and representation goals, both of which have been used to promote diverse hiring practices."

I expect they're saying that to appease up-tighty-righties, but it appears they're just getting rid of a few DEI programs, and they'd have a lot, but that doesn't mean they're going to actively discriminate against anyone.
 
This reminds me of those people who declared themselves the enemy of antifa.

Fact-checkers are your enemy? The only reason you would say that is if lies are your weapon.
 
arthwollipot said:
This reminds me of those people who declared themselves the enemy of antifa.

Fact-checkers are your enemy? The only reason you would say that is if lies are your weapon.
Click to expand...
I am also the enemy of North Korea, because democratic people's republics piss me off..

And I'm friendly towards the UK, because monarchies get me so hot.

(/s)

Is appeal to perverted nomenclature a recognized fallacy? If not, it's past time it should be.
 
Orphia Nay said:
"Fact-checking" is a perverted nomenclature now? Post-Truth world indeed.
Click to expand...
It is when people appeal to the definition, instead of showing how the thing meets the standard.

The truth is that the United Kingdom is far more of a democratic people's republic than the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

There's nothing preventing a fact selector, or a reasoning and conclusion approver, from calling themselves a fact checker.
 
theprestige said:
It is when people appeal to the definition, instead of showing how the thing meets the standard.

The truth is that the United Kingdom is far more of a democratic people's republic than the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

There's nothing preventing a fact selector, or a reasoning and conclusion approver, from calling themselves a fact checker.
Click to expand...
That's a typically nihilistic and extreme viewpoint, technically "correct" in a fatalistic and extreme way.
 
Orphia Nay said:
That's a typically nihilistic and extreme viewpoint, technically "correct" in a fatalistic and extreme way.
Click to expand...
When I actually flex my nihilism, you'll know it. Assuming you visit the kinds of R&P threads where I advance such ideas. This right here is just an observation of the systemic and institutional state of play.

You call yourself a skeptic? What did you do that you satisfy yourself that Facebook's "fact checkers" lived up to their name? Let alone earned their keep?
 
theprestige said:
When I actually flex my nihilism, you'll know it. Assuming you visit the kinds of R&P threads where I advance such ideas. This right here is just an observation of the systemic and institutional state of play.

You call yourself a skeptic? What did you do that you satisfy yourself that Facebook's "fact checkers" lived up to their name? Let alone earned their keep?
Click to expand...
You're not paying attention.

I've never defended Facebook's fact checkers.

On page 1:

Orphia Nay said:
I can't say that I ever saw anything officially fact-checked on Facebook ever. That could be because Facebook tended to not promote political and social content.
Click to expand...

They weren't doing a good job. The aim was a noble aim, but they weren't doing it properly.
 
Orphia Nay said:
"In the memo, Janelle Gale, vice-president of human resources, wrote that the company would be ending several programs that targeted minority groups, including the Diverse Slate Approach, which she said “is currently being challenged” and representation goals, both of which have been used to promote diverse hiring practices."

I expect they're saying that to appease up-tighty-righties, but it appears they're just getting rid of a few DEI programs, and they'd have a lot, but that doesn't mean they're going to actively discriminate against anyone.
Click to expand...
My guess is that the execs are being told to curtail hiring minorities (except possibly Indians), but they want to disguise what they're doing so as not to hurt the customer base as much as possible.
 
Orphia Nay said:
You're not paying attention.

I've never defended Facebook's fact checkers.

On page 1:



They weren't doing a good job. The aim was a noble aim, but they weren't doing it properly.
Click to expand...
That's largely because facebook never wanted fact checkers. What they implemented was a Potemkin version.
 
Matthew Best said:
Spotted on Facebook:

View attachment 58440
Click to expand...

Orphia Nay said:
You're not paying attention.

I've never defended Facebook's fact checkers.

On page 1:



They weren't doing a good job. The aim was a noble aim, but they weren't doing it properly.
Click to expand...
TO me, it always comes down to who will fact check the fact checkers.
But I do find the social medi moguls bowing and scraping to Trump to be a disgusting spectacle.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Note, they're not going to fact-check but they are going to "continue to focus these systems on tackling illegal and high-severity violations, like terrorism, child sexual exploitation, drugs, fraud and scams".
Click to expand...
If that is true, looks like they will still be "censoring conservatives".
 
They only broke the link to the article itself because they feared it violated their policy on revenge porn. Pretty much the same reason Peter Theil was able to use Hulk Hogan to sue Gawker into the ether. You could still discuss it and its contents, or link to other places that linked to the article.

Also, there is still plenty of evidence it was part of a propaganda campaign. I guess you don't find it odd a career prosecutor like Rudy Giuliani would completely disregard the chain of custody for such a ground breaking piece of evidence.
 
dudalb said:
TO me, it always comes down to who will fact check the fact checkers.
But I do find the social medi moguls bowing and scraping to Trump to be a disgusting spectacle.
Click to expand...
They should have qualified immunity. So they can properly do their jobs
 
dudalb said:
TO me, it always comes down to who will fact check the fact checkers.
Click to expand...
Anyone who wants to. You're making them sound like some kind of jury that has the final say on what's true or untrue, or hands out some kind of sentence or punishment. Are you thinking about moderators?
 
I don't use Facebook so I'm personally indifferent to what happens there. But my larger view of social media is cautionary: the genesis of social media took the position that the marketplace of ideas would sort everything out, and as Clive Thompson points out, that was a dismal failure. The founders and early operators of social media were comically naive in their beliefs about how political and social camps organized to manipulate organs of free expression. Insofar as social media has a disproportionate influence in real-world politics, I am interested. If the claim is that third-party moderation has become too restrictive, dismissive, or biased, then I'd like to see better examples of improper moderation before I agree that reopening the floodgates of cooperative community moderation is the better choice; conversely I would like to see actionable plans for avoiding the repeat of past failure. The point is to stop the pendulum from swinging, not to complain about the extremities of each swing.
 
angrysoba said:
Also Zuckerberg obviously wants to cozy up to Trump now. Those power stations for his data centers are not going to just fall into his lap. Like other tech people, Musk, Thiel, Andreesen, Bezos etc…. they need to bend the knee to be favoured. We have a new era of shameless oligarchy coming up.
Click to expand...

What makes you think any of this is new?
 
Donal said:
They only broke the link to the article itself because they feared it violated their policy on revenge porn. Pretty much the same reason Peter Theil was able to use Hulk Hogan to sue Gawker into the ether. You could still discuss it and its contents, or link to other places that linked to the article.

Also, there is still plenty of evidence it was part of a propaganda campaign. I guess you don't find it odd a career prosecutor like Rudy Giuliani would completely disregard the chain of custody for such a ground breaking piece of evidence.
Click to expand...
What link to what article? What does this have to do with Facebook not fact-checking?
 
angrysoba said:
Well, that could be one way to reconcile yourself to it. Just assume ‘Twas ever thus and resolve not to be bothered by sheer venal plutocracy.
Click to expand...
Be bothered by it all you want. Hell, you can even try to do something about it. I didn't post that in order to be pessimistic.

But if you think it's new, then you don't understand the problem, and when you don't understand a problem, your efforts to fix it likely won't help.
 
JayUtah said:
I don't use Facebook so I'm personally indifferent to what happens there. But my larger view of social media is cautionary: the genesis of social media took the position that the marketplace of ideas would sort everything out, and as Clive Thompson points out, that was a dismal failure. The founders and early operators of social media were comically naive in their beliefs about how political and social camps organized to manipulate organs of free expression. Insofar as social media has a disproportionate influence in real-world politics, I am interested. If the claim is that third-party moderation has become too restrictive, dismissive, or biased, then I'd like to see better examples of improper moderation before I agree that reopening the floodgates of cooperative community moderation is the better choice; conversely I would like to see actionable plans for avoiding the repeat of past failure. The point is to stop the pendulum from swinging, not to complain about the extremities of each swing.
Click to expand...

We are a few decades into this whole internet discussion thing, and it's become clear that all unmoderated fora descend into hellholes dominated by exasperating bullies that can't grasp that a lack of response isn't conformation of a claim. Every time I've experienced this in a political context these are far-right wing conspiracy minded crackpot bullies, but I can imagine a bunch of tankie types doing the same bulldozing just I've never seen it.

This site has survived as a usable site because of moderation. Most of the hard core anti-moderation people originally here went to a parallel site some years ago and it took a bit but that one became dominated by this sort of garbage. Eventually reasonable people become exhausted and leave and it becomes an angry echo chamber. Moderation should be scrutinized, but that is a far cry from abandoning it.

Fact checking is the least obtrusive way to handle the paradox of tolerance. The fora that abandon it will enter a death spiral of nonsense.
 
Suddenly said:
Fact checking is the least obtrusive way to handle the paradox of tolerance.
Click to expand...
Only if you do it well.

Facebook was not equipped to do it well. It's probably better to not do it at all than to do it poorly.
 
Suddenly said:
This site has survived as a usable site because of moderation.
Click to expand...
Eh? The moderation here seems limited to profanity, pornography, and personal attacks, not whether your facts are correct or your argument is politically acceptable. As it should be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom