Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday November 18 2016, @08:01AM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Friday November 18 2016, @05:10PM

    by jmorris (4844) on Friday November 18 2016, @05:10PM (#428930)

    Come to gab.ai and see how it works. The only censorship from the system itself is for things that are illegal and would bring liability to Gab itself. They then give YOU tools to filter what you get and YOU are free to use or not use them as you think wise.

    That is how the Right builds social media. We know we can win the argument on a level field and build with that assumption in the design plans. Of course the legacy social media platforms SAID they were open platforms, but we all should know what the 1st Law of SJW is by now, right? Difference is Gab and the new Alt-Tech being built is being explicitly designed to resist SJW entryism to prevent their being consumed and converged to serve social justice instead of their original purpose.

    The Left depends almost entirely on controlling the Narrative to win. This time they controlled the Legacy Media, the Academy, the Entertainment Industry, all the 'commanding heights of the culture'. The only thing they didn't have a firm grip on was a few spergs and shitlords posting memes on the Internet. So it is totally obvious that the solution is to drop heavy handed censorship on em, right?

    More echo chambers is not the solution, echo chambers are the problem..

    Ok, so now that you know the legacy social media can't avoid being echo chambers, by virtue of adopting policies to purge all opposing views, are you closing your accounts and moving to open systems? Have you registered for a Gab account yet?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1) by evil_aaronm on Friday November 18 2016, @05:54PM

    by evil_aaronm (5747) on Friday November 18 2016, @05:54PM (#428967)

    "Win the argument"? The Right's argument is that "government should be small," but yet intrusive in our personal lives - dictating against abortion, gay marriage and butt sex, as if any of that concerns them. The Right's argument is that minorities and non-Christian religions are certainly *not* equal to white Christians, and often not worthy of any sort of decency. The Right's argument is that men rule, women drool: fuck equal pay for equal work; women should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. The Right's argument is that everyone else should suffer so the 1% can profit.

    If that's the kind of shit you believe, there's nothing for us to discuss; I have no use for you.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @06:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @06:54PM (#429007)

      The Right's argument is that "government should be small," but yet intrusive in our personal lives - dictating against abortion, gay marriage and butt sex, as if any of that concerns them. The Right's argument is that minorities and non-Christian religions are certainly *not* equal to white Christians, and often not worthy of any sort of decency. The Right's argument is that men rule, women drool: fuck equal pay for equal work; women should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. The Right's argument is that everyone else should suffer so the 1% can profit.

      Sounds like your mind's made up, with no chance of fact or reason intruding into your awareness. "There are only two labels, and everyone who has a label slapped on them is 100% for the best/worst of everything attached to the label."

      Grow up, small child.

    • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday November 18 2016, @06:56PM

      by jmorris (4844) on Friday November 18 2016, @06:56PM (#429010)

      Nice strawman you are debating. Lemme clue in to what your actual opponents want.

      The Right's argument is that "government should be small," but yet intrusive in our personal lives..

      This only seems a paradox because you can't escape your narrow thinking. Government doesn't need to be one global entity settling policy for everyone on the planet. It doesn't even need to make all decisions in Washington D.C. Accept that new idea and your confusion will begin to resolve itself.

      Diversity is more than people of every color and preference for where and what they use their genitals for coming together to think exactly alike.

      dictating against abortion, gay marriage and butt sex, as if any of that concerns them

      Question, and it is a serious question. Did you know that most Constitutional scholars, even Progressives ones, are in agreement that Roe v Wade was a bad decision from a Constitution Law point of view? That it was a textbook case of judges making law? Even the ones who like the result admit it can't be defended with reason. Stop here and use Google to confirm what I just wrote because you aren't going to believe it from me. It is important that you understand this idea.

      So it was an error and is going away, it is only a matter of when. Now what happens after that error is corrected? Fifty States had various laws on the books when the SCOTUS swept them all away; those laws will return and likely be revisited by the States. CA, NY, etc. will probably go as far as Congress allows, full on infanticide if they can get away with it, meanwhile most States will restrict it more than current Supreme Court Law permits. The end result is more people are going to be happy.

      Your team framed the argument as "Marriage Equality" in an attempt to win by control of the language. Now consider a different way to frame the debate. We see it as "Marriage Redefinition". We believe that marriage is a concept common to every known human culture and that though we use a different word in every language they all mean basically the same thing. With one exception[1] they mean one male mated to one or more females. It isn't about love, it isn't about inclusion or any of that new age babble, it is about organizing a civilization in ways best for propagating the species and thus the civilization. Your team demanded that, without the slightest justification other than feelz, everyone redefine the concept in ways we believe make the institution less useful for the intended purpose. When we raise reason based objections we get HATER yelled at us, which we don't consider a valid argument. So what I want from you is for you to try considering the issue from both sides and at least admit that there ARE two sides to the debate. Then again, ponder the idea that the magic of Federalism would help allow both sides to live in the same country.

      As for butt sex, we were ok with tolerance. But your team made it clear that wasn't nearly good enough. Acceptance wasn't even good enough. No, they thought they had the whip hand and doubled down to full on submission. Never again would there be a day without gay rammed in everyone else's face. Not content with winning the war, doubling down with World War T before they even finished bayoneting the wounded from the Gay Wars, Queer progs joined the racist progs declaring they were looking forward to the extinction of cis white males. And we aren't really shocked that mentally unstable people given a little power went totally batshit crazy and became some of the sorest winners ever seen in history, mostly saddened; because the backlash is probably going to be stuffing their ass all the way back into the closet for decades.

      If you would like to see the rest of your strawmen ignited I can do that, but since I'll probably just get a "Fuck you!" as reply.....

      [1] I got called for saying without exception, and got schooled.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @07:18PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @07:18PM (#429030)

        Ugh, there really is no hope for a valid discussion here. I agree the GP threw around some pretty nasty labels, but quite a few are true.

        full on infanticide if they can get away with it

        See, its not a lie to say the conservatives want to ban gay marriage because it hurts their "feelz". How does it impact you? How do straight marriages suffer from the fact that two homosexual people are married??? The conservative base is authoritarian and the opposite of freedom (except within your confined modes of thinking) and spewing shit like infanticide just shows how much kool-aid you've swallowed.

        Sweet baby jesus, jmorris you make me understand why some people predict that civil war is the only next step. There is no reasoning with you at all, your viewpoints are so polarized that there is no discussion. Just angry yelling back and forth.

      • (Score: 2) by dry on Saturday November 19 2016, @04:17AM

        by dry (223) on Saturday November 19 2016, @04:17AM (#429266) Journal

        Government doesn't need to be one global entity settling policy for everyone on the planet.

        It does seem that the enforcement of basic human rights does have to come from the top down. Otherwise you end up with jurisdictions denying basic rights such as the freedom of expression. Perhaps you like the idea of your State/county/municipality being able to illegalize various forms of speech.

        Then there is the question that you raise about who gets human rights. Do dead people have the same rights as the living? What about potential people? You bring up infanticide and then seem to equate it to killing a potential. Where do we draw the line. Where I am, it's pretty simple, a human being is a living breathing person. When you're born (alive), you're a person.

        In most societies, marriage is a union of 2 (and sometimes more) people. Lots of societies haven't cared about what genitals those 2 people have. Seems to be a Jewish Christian Muslim thing based on some goat herders morals. Having people in society without children to help raise other children is a net positive. Americans knew this before the crazy followers of the bible showed up.

        You seem to be like whats his name who said "Give me Liberty or Death" so he had the freedom to go home and whip the 55 slaves that he owned. Should liberty include the freedom to own people and do what you want with them? Most of your speech seems to be that is what you believe, or at least to remove others freedoms as your personal social justice war.

      • (Score: 2) by choose another one on Sunday November 20 2016, @12:30AM

        by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 20 2016, @12:30AM (#429722)

        This only seems a paradox because you can't escape your narrow thinking.

        Yup.

        We see it as "Marriage Redefinition". We believe that marriage is a concept common to every known human culture and that though we use a different word in every language they all mean basically the same thing. With one exception[1] they mean one male mated to one or more females. It isn't about love, it isn't about inclusion or any of that new age babble, it is about organizing a civilization in ways best for propagating the species and thus the civilization.

        And there is your narrow thinking.

        See, your definition is not my definition, it isn't even the definition of the mainstream church I was raised in (so that must be at least two exceptions). In fact (it isn't clear - ambiguous parse failure) you may to be trying to conflate _two_ very different definitions (monogamy and polygamy, raising the quesiton is polygamy many people in one marriage or one person in many marriages?) into one in order to argue that everyone thinks the same. In my reality, monogamy and polygamy are a classic example that proves there is no universal definition of marriage - not even close.

        You've also left out of your definition the duration / permanence of marriage (e.g. until death, until divorce, until husband says certain words three times, or only for a few hours) and who organises and controls marriage (church or state). Those are rather important, some would say the most important, features of marriage. Throughout history many many people have died in disputes around those parts of the definition (at least since the English reformation but probably before that too). Where I live, "church vs state" is still not decided, and each couple has to decide if they want a religious marriage, a civil marriage, or both - and for most religions the definition is _not_ the same as the civil marriage, and some people may not even qualify for one or the other because the rules are so different.

        With so many definitions of marriage, and so many changes in definitions over the centuries, it should not be surprising that there are some people who would not _need_ to redefine marriage in order to facilitate an equality-of-access argument for same-sex couples. To you it seems illogical without a fundamental redefinition, to them it is not, because your definitions are different to start with. Note: "different", not "wrong", on both sides.

        The good news is that you probably don't need to change your definition (unless you personally want a same sex marriage - but that is your internal conflict to resolve), with the caveat that I am not sure where you are, but everywhere that I have looked at this issue is handled in the same way as the church-vs-state issues around marriage definition - agree to disagree. Your rights to get married according to your definition are not affected, and (typically) religions retain control of their definition and can make their own decisions on it, as they always could - the first place you could get married as a same sex couple here was in fact in a church, purely by decision of that church, civil marriages came later.

        • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday November 20 2016, @08:47PM

          by jmorris (4844) on Sunday November 20 2016, @08:47PM (#430067)

          See, your definition is not my definition, it isn't even the definition of the mainstream church I was raised in

          But you just agreed that it IS a question of definition, not equality. And I can assure you that not so long ago, back when your church was a religious institution instead of a social justice converged organization, it agreed with my position because the very idea there could be a different one was such heresy it has no place in any major world religion a hundred years ago, hell, you would be hard pressed to find one thirty years ago that wasn't just a Communist front group. Just depends whether you hold to the religious belief that History only flows one way, to the Sunny Uplands or do you hold a more pessimistic view (I say realistic) that societies rise and fall again and that we have been in a decline toward decadence and decay for quite a while now. Anonymous Conservative says it is natural r/K selection at work as resource availability varies over time. Take your pick, opinions are like assholes.

          With so many definitions of marriage

          Not really. Every human culture used marriage as part of their customs to regulate the sexual practices and mating behavior of their society. The definition was remarkably stable until the last couple of decades. In cultures with large gender imbalances (usually due to violence) they almost always permitted men to marry multiple wives, otherwise they tended toward 1-1 because they were all solving the same basic problems. Men must have (reasonably) certain paternity and rights be to motivated to perform the support function needed to permit females to perform their vital function of producing the next generation. Large numbers of unattached men must be discouraged to prevent the social instability they cause, unattached single women cause different but equally destabilizing problems. Every civilization evolved very similar solutions to these similar problems. Men and men, women and women are not problems that required solving. Redefining civilization itself for their feelz makes for a less functioning civilization. As does the rest of the sexual revolution btw, no fault divorce, shame free single motherhood, PUAs sluts and hookup culture, etc.

  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @07:02PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @07:02PM (#429016)

    Do they have a "jmorris" filter? Can we get one of those here?