SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the no-more-profits-from-false-prophets dept.
Google and Facebook finally announced steps to tackle fake news on their respective platforms this week following increasing pressure from critics eager to halt the flow of falsehoods online.
Both companies said they will prohibit fake news websites from advertising on their platforms, thus reducing the exposure of such articles to the public while also starving the companies of an important source of advertising income.
The move comes after the companies received a wave of criticism over its role in propagating misinformation, particularly in this election cycle in which many observed that a bitter partisan war was potentially worsened by polarizing news sources touting untrue assertions. While the technology companies have in the past been hesitant to mediate the flow of news, this change might signal a change in thought as they come to grip with the real-life implications of lackluster surveillance on their platforms.
Wrongthink will not be permitted, citizens.
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Friday November 18 2016, @01:20PM
Manipulation is in the eye of the beholder. It isn't like this is black and white, from news commentary to even satire. Poe's law exists for a reason.
The only thing willfully ignorant is thinking this won't be abused. It's not like google and facebook are apolitical. And even the most gullible would look askance at the circumstances of being stalwarts for the truth now.
(Score: 5, Informative) by BasilBrush on Friday November 18 2016, @04:09PM
Actually, there is some black. There was lots of completely false news, such as for example The Pope endorsing Trump. It's not political bias to filter out complete lies.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Friday November 18 2016, @06:21PM
Just to be clear: this is taking an article researched by Buzzfeed
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442291/buzzfeed-facebook-fake-news-study-methodology-questioned [nationalreview.com]
especially when Clinton was claiming Pepe was a symbol of white nationalism.
You sure you want to die on that hill?
Oh and
http://www.usapoliticshome.com/pope-francis-endorses-hillary-clinton/ [usapoliticshome.com]
(Score: 1, Troll) by BasilBrush on Monday November 21 2016, @04:37PM
Far right web-site claims right-wing fake news phonomenon didn't exist.
Meanwhile person posting said far-right link denies white supremacist symbol was a white supremacist symbol.
Yes, there was an enormous problem with fake news supporting Trump.
And the green frog-like image was a white supremacist symbol.
And it's pretty obvious you are far-right.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday November 18 2016, @06:56PM
It's not political bias to filter out complete lies.
Yeah, you can say that, but when complete (and incomplete!) lies is all the alt-right has, if we filter these we will be banning a whole political, um, orientation? conspiracy? disinformation operation? something. Banning2. So, it would be political bias. Justified, but bias none the less.
(Score: 2, Troll) by jmorris on Friday November 18 2016, @08:45PM
You can still say that with a straight face after WikiLeaks? You have big balls on ya, give ya that.
If we are discussing the banning of fake news and ANY of the outlets named there escape the list, it is just a political purge of dissent. Somehow I do not think nytimes.com, huffingtonpost.com, cnn.com, etc. are what you are salivating over seeing banned though.
Now to your slander against the Alt-Right. Care to back that bold assertion up Champ? Link to a lie on any of the more main steam alt-right outlets. Not a difference of opinion, not a hatefact, not even a error of fact checking. A lie is a very specific thing, a falsehood knowingly uttered. Show us. You assert that it is all we do, demonstrating this should therefore be simple. So go, read the latest post from the Supreme Dark Lord, or the headline of Breitbart.com[1], anything posted TODAY and fisk it here for our amusement. Show us these lies if they are so obvious to your discerning eye.
Demonstrate for us the Three Laws in action. ikanread was practice target yesterday, your turn!
[1] Breitbart isn't really alt-right but you guys (who generally don't read it and don't really know what the alt-right is anyway) insist it is so whatever.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday November 18 2016, @10:26PM
Show us these lies if they are so obvious to your discerning eye.
No.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @12:12AM
I have no idea why anyone bothers to engage with you anymore, particularly as you have no affinity for truth.
Other than P.T. Barnam's old saw: "there's a sucker born every minute."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @03:14AM
To whom are you responding, my dearly beloved and possibly self-identical AC? I cannot tell if you are talking about jmorris or aristarchus! Since aristarchus is refusing to to engage, as you suggest, I assume you are referring to jmorris? You are not alone, bro!
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:19AM
Yes, versooth! At least P.T. Barnham was only fleecing the Americans of their money, and actually provided some entertainment! Siamese twins, bearded lady, the incredible Fiji Mermaid!!! But jmorris and the alt-right can only produce fake news, like the Pope endoring Trump, Hillary's emails and endless Benghazi!!!!! Plans to take Runaway's 9-11, sorry, his 1911 from him. Profit motivated abortionists, chem-trails, Mormon versions of the Constitution, Vaxxers, Holocaust deniers, Climate change deniers, White supremicists. (This last one is particularly egregious: anyone who has spend any time around the alleged "superior" whites realizes rather quickly that there must be significant genetic damage affecting native intelligence among these volk.)
.
And now it comes out that David Ickes has outed Steven Banning as one of the Lizard People! Jmorris! I am calling you out! Prove to SoylentNews that Banning is not one of the Lizard People! Ickes has this on high authority, by direct supernatural subimbularization, or some thing. Can you prove that he is wrong? Well, punk, can ya?