Fake News

[Virginiá]

There is a such thing as freedom of speech and you can't shut them Infowars,Prison Planet,World Net Daily or Breitbart because you disagree with it.

Of course not. But Google can de-list them and Facebook could stop putting those sites in their feeds. Both those are private companies who are free to exclude or include what they wish.

[Virginiá]

It's a good thing there are other search engines like Yahoo or DuckDuckGo for when Google makes it where you can't search for Conservative websites 

I mean, others could as well. If Google/Bing delisted some of these sites, they would definitely see a marked dropped in viewers. And I'm not really talking about "conservative websites" wholesale. I don't have a problem with most conservative sites (even if I tend to disagree with their views and/or writing styles, such as news slanting)

We're on the same page that "fake news" are stories that can be proven false, right? Not just anything conservative?

[Virginiá]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/does-facebook-stop-fake-news-232689

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Virginiá]

The problem with that is a lot of Democrats as well as the Media label what ever story they don't like as "fake news". I think Pizzagate along with the Hillary e-mails are legitimate stories and not fake news.

I'm surprised that everyone just let this comment go unchallenged...

But how do you even truly challenge that? Sure, you can throw facts and logic at it, but when you're arguing with people who literally believe Podesta is running a child sex trafficking network out of a pizza shop and another who uses Breitbart as a source to challenge a fact-checking website, I mean... That's like trying to push an intact bulldozer down a sidewalk sewer drain. It doesn't work. It isn't compatible, and you're just wasting energy trying.

[Virginiá]

Do you think that fact checking websites should themselves be immune from fact checking. After other news outlets have their ideological biases whether its the populist nationalism of breitbart or the pro establishment liberalism of the Washington post.

Of course not, but using Breitbart to debate fact-checking sites is ridiculous. They are a right-wing tabloid site that is well-known for its extreme bias and one-sided nature. They have an agenda, and they don't tell you the whole story in their efforts to achieve said agenda. They are not even close to an objective source. When people appear to look to such sites for facts and and objective news, it makes me question their credibility, whether you are using Breitbart of a silly article from Salon.

[Virginiá]

Good article here from the Daily Caller pointing out the left wing ideological bent of Snopes,another of the 'fact checking' websites that Facebook is planning to use

http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/16/snopes-facebooks-new-fact-checker-employs-leftists-almost-exclusively/

So what if they almost exclusively hire liberals? That DC story is one big ad hominem attack against the people at Snopes, trying to discredit them entirely based on their own personal ideological leanings. Places like Snopes posts basically all the proof they used to come up with their conclusion. Same with politifact, and they both explain their position. With that information, you can follow their reasoning and verify if it is true.

If Breitbart was that thorough and clear, I wouldn't mind their fact checking either.

[Virginiá]

I enjoyed that post quite a bit TD.

[Virginiá]

I don't want to jump your post other than to comment on this:

The New York Times may still have a print edition (for the time being) but it is primarily read on the internet, in other words its a blog that happens to still have a print format.

NYT/other news sites are blogs now? They are absolutely not blogs. One or more authors from there might run a blog, even on the site, but that doesn't mean the site itself is a bog. You can't just redefine things like that as you wish. Blogs are still blogs, more personal online diaries as compared to a regular website. I mean your version seems to cover just about anything that provides information. So websites = blogs? If so, why is it blogs emerged as a distinct website form long after news websites had already existed?

Nope.

[Virginiá]

That was some serious projection for the Washington Post to complain about fake news.

What exactly are you saying?

[Virginiá]

The Washington Post has a lot of fake news.

I wonder how much of your opinion here is based in some way on Bernie/the primaries.

[Virginiá]

No the Washington Post really is churning out lots of BS.

ofc

[Virginiá]

ad hominem