FB revamp now includes Breitbart as "trusted news source"

[The East Marches II]

It's Facebook caving in to the constant and disproven conspiracy theories from the right wing that it's biased towards the left. The incessant bitching keeps up and Facebook will even accredit GayFrogs InfoWars.

I guess we should keep it up. I for one look forward to seeing Alex Jones in the newsfeeds. It'll spice things up a bit from the usual hysteria.

[Ethel mermania]

It's Facebook caving in to the constant and disproven conspiracy theories from the right wing that it's biased towards the left. The incessant bitching keeps up and Facebook will even accredit GayFrogs InfoWars.

I guess we should keep it up. I for one look forward to seeing Alex Jones in the newsfeeds. It'll spice things up a bit from the usual hysteria.

I kinda wanted to hear what the gay frogs had to say.

[Ifreann]

You know what, I wonder who defines what a "trusted news source" is, and what it isn't.

In this instance, Facebook defines it, and defines in a way that suits their business interests. Facebook are afraid of conservatives thinking that they're being censored on social media, lest that lead to regulation. So they're going to give the favoured news outlets of conservatives a stamp of approval.

[Ethel mermania]

You know what, I wonder who defines what a "trusted news source" is, and what it isn't.

In this instance, Facebook defines it, and defines in a way that suits their business interests. Facebook are afraid of conservatives thinking that they're being censored on social media, lest that lead to regulation. So they're going to give the favoured news outlets of conservatives a stamp of approval.

If you changed the word conservative to leftist we would be in word for word agreement.

Although tbh I dont think Facebook really minds the regulation. The more things they have to do the harder it is for competitors to enter the business.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

To me the real question is whether there is more profit to be made being a reliable news source in the long term, than being an untrustworthy one. Truth is I'm not sure there is any more.

[The Two Jerseys]

Yes, even trusted news sources can get fooled occasionally. Are you expecting infallibility?

One would expect them to be capable of not getting goose'd all the time or in the case of ABC, lying so obviously. Our media is rather pathetic at the moment given their loss in money and budget gets. Zoomer interns do not a news agency make.

Edit: let me not forget the Washington Post's incessant attacks and lies on Mr. Sanders. In no way is this driven by Jeff Bezos ownership of the firm.

Indeed. A respectable journalistic outfit would've researched, say, that incident with the Covington Catholic kids and uncovered the whole story instead of taking a 20 second video clip as gospel and smearing the kids' reputations.

I'm personally more concerned with the lies that the mainstream media gets away with telling because they're "trustworthy" and nobody questions them than I am with propaganda factories like Breitbart.

[Emulation White]

There is no such thing as a "trusted news source", all humans have bias and are prone to err or distort in information conveyal. It is your job to to supress your idealogical prejudices and try to analyze data to the best of your objective ability. I see no point in casting aspersions in arrogance, we are ALL guilty of either deception against ourselves or another; that is an inescacable truth.

[Ethel mermania]

To me the real question is whether there is more profit to be made being a reliable news source in the long term, than being an untrustworthy one. Truth is I'm not sure there is any more.

Oh that's easy an untrustworthy one. One that caters to its base.

But this is nothing new, as long as there have been papers and broadsheets it has always been either government controlled and biased, or private ownership controlled and biased towards its ownership. Whether its party owned papers of prewar england and germany, broadsheets during the American revolution or late 19th century. The folly is thinking any of these papers do not have an agenda.

[Nakena]

You know what, I wonder who defines what a "trusted news source" is, and what it isn't.

In this instance, Facebook defines it, and defines in a way that suits their business interests. Facebook are afraid of conservatives thinking that they're being censored on social media, lest that lead to regulation. So they're going to give the favoured news outlets of conservatives a stamp of approval.

A token tolerance for Breitbart as the one approved sauce as opposed to, lets say, any of the other outled that got the zucc?

[Mettaton-EX]

> ugh those postmodernist neon marxists want to convince everybody that morals and facts are relative

> facts are relative when they're inconvenient for me

Nice dodging of the point.

you tried to deflect the argument to fucking gamergate my dude, you're not exactly in a great position to accuse anybody of dodging the point

[HUElavia]

Facebook: "We need to make efforts to limit or prevent misinformation spread in our platform ahead of the 2020 election!"

Also Facebook:

[Salandriagado]

here's a good example, feel free to decide the truth for yourself

If misleading lies and garbage about a demographic group are enough to get you blacklisted, any paper that has published feminist articles is gonna have a bad time mate. This is the problem that leads to this point. Nobody has room to complain anymore.

You're absolutely right. Breitbart demonizes Muslims and downplays white terrorism.
On the other hand, the Guardian just published an article where they defend a female rapist on the grounds women raping men just isn't the same and isn't as bad because "muh historical oppression". It's also run articles with the title "Why shouldn't we hate men?" and so on, where the article lays out a case for why it's okay to hate men.

So should both be blacklisted?

Not blacklisted, but neither should be on a "trusted news source" list. Notably, fucking Reddit has both marked as untrustworthy (more specifically: both generate automated "yo, this news source has a history of lying" warnings when posted on /r/worldnews).

[Galloism]

Yes, even trusted news sources can get fooled occasionally. Are you expecting infallibility?

One would expect them to be capable of not getting goose'd all the time or in the case of ABC, lying so obviously. Our media is rather pathetic at the moment given their loss in money and budget gets. Zoomer interns do not a news agency make.

Edit: let me not forget the Washington Post's incessant attacks and lies on Mr. Sanders. In no way is this driven by Jeff Bezos ownership of the firm.

Who can forget the time they said Bernie Sanders lied about his average donation being $27, when it was actually $27.88. The fiend!

[Salandriagado]

In this instance, Facebook defines it, and defines in a way that suits their business interests. Facebook are afraid of conservatives thinking that they're being censored on social media, lest that lead to regulation. So they're going to give the favoured news outlets of conservatives a stamp of approval.

If you changed the word conservative to leftist we would be in word for word agreement.

Although tbh I dont think Facebook really minds the regulation. The more things they have to do the harder it is for competitors to enter the business.

Except that equivalent left-wing sources (MJ, Vox, and the like) are not on the list.

[Ostroeuropa]

Nice dodging of the point.

you tried to deflect the argument to fucking gamergate my dude, you're not exactly in a great position to accuse anybody of dodging the point

But it's not dodging the point. It's noting the aspects of Breitbarts journalism which were of good quality, better quality than other news sites. If all it takes for you to ignoring clickbait garbage and baiting prejudice against a group is the occasional deep dive and well sourced article on a particular topic, then Breitbart qualifies.

If that's not good enough, then a lot more than just Breitbart need to go on the chopping block.

If you changed the word conservative to leftist we would be in word for word agreement.

Although tbh I dont think Facebook really minds the regulation. The more things they have to do the harder it is for competitors to enter the business.

Except that equivalent left-wing sources (MJ and the like) are not on the list.

I don't know of any articles by MJ and so on that would qualify as quality journalism. It's not "This site publishes a lot of trash and therefore other sites that publish exclusively trash are equivalent", it's "Both of these sites publish a lot of trash and the occasional piece of quality journalism, so they are equivalent.".

I'm willing to be moved on my stance for MJ and so on.

If misleading lies and garbage about a demographic group are enough to get you blacklisted, any paper that has published feminist articles is gonna have a bad time mate. This is the problem that leads to this point. Nobody has room to complain anymore.

You're absolutely right. Breitbart demonizes Muslims and downplays white terrorism.
On the other hand, the Guardian just published an article where they defend a female rapist on the grounds women raping men just isn't the same and isn't as bad because "muh historical oppression". It's also run articles with the title "Why shouldn't we hate men?" and so on, where the article lays out a case for why it's okay to hate men.

So should both be blacklisted?

Not blacklisted, but neither should be on a "trusted news source" list. Notably, fucking Reddit has both marked as untrustworthy (more specifically: both generate automated "yo, this news source has a history of lying" warnings when posted on /r/worldnews).

I don't think such binary considerations are functional frankly. It would be better to note; "This is the clickbait trash this organization publishes, this is their outgroup they demonize to give their readers a 2spooky4me hook to keep them reading, and these are the topics on which they are occasionally trustworthy.".

That would apply to most news organizations, except those who completely lack the last element and really are nothing but trash and vilification.

But if you're going to have a trusted news source list with the criteria facebook appears to be using, then breitbart does in fact qualify. Breitbart is trustworthy when it comes to reporting on counter cultural movements and their critiques of left wing orthodoxy. That's about it. If you wanted to know what something like the MRM thinks, going to breitbart to find out is your best bet. If you go to the Guardian or others, most of their articles will be screaming about how they're Elliot Rogers, which is a lot like saying "Oh, extinction rebellion are just like the Oklahoma city bomber, they believe the same things", an outright slanderous lie that misinforms the reader.

[Ifreann]

In this instance, Facebook defines it, and defines in a way that suits their business interests. Facebook are afraid of conservatives thinking that they're being censored on social media, lest that lead to regulation. So they're going to give the favoured news outlets of conservatives a stamp of approval.

If you changed the word conservative to leftist we would be in word for word agreement.

If I did that I'd be wrong.

Although tbh I dont think Facebook really minds the regulation. The more things they have to do the harder it is for competitors to enter the business.

It's hard for competitors to compete because of the nature of social networks. Small networks are inherently less useful than big ones, and Facebook is already huge.

---

In this instance, Facebook defines it, and defines in a way that suits their business interests. Facebook are afraid of conservatives thinking that they're being censored on social media, lest that lead to regulation. So they're going to give the favoured news outlets of conservatives a stamp of approval.

A token tolerance for Breitbart as the one approved sauce as opposed to, lets say, any of the other outled that got the zucc?

What?

[TURTLESHROOM II]

This is like citing Conservapedia as a reputable source on politics

Or Wikipedia! Or CNN!

Are you even capable of seeing the plank in your eye?

---

Also, the fact that a website uses trashy click bait headlines doesn't discount the news or opinions in the article. My main beef with Breitbart is their sleazy way of attracting views, not what they report. From what I've seen, they link to other sources occasionally, usually to the primary sources or studies.
I also disagree with the Birther conspiracies they used to peddle, and while Breitbart has published their fair share of conspiracies, they have also published actual news.

Even tabloids like the WND have done right or covered things no one else would. It was the National Enquirer that exposed John Edwards!

[Totenborg]

Zuckerberg’s abomination needs a nice anti-trust action.

100% agree. Give em the old Standard Oil treatment.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

Who can forget the time they said Bernie Sanders lied about his average donation being $27, when it was actually $27.88. The fiend!

Great! Now you know how Trump's "ten thousand lies in his presidency" meme came to be. No politician has ever gone without lying, but a lot of times, the things listed as "lies" are mistakes or ignorance, which has no malicious or deceitful intent. This example with Bernie is a classic case of disreputable smears and goes to show the bias and ill will of the mainstream media.

Remember, if you see the words "fact checker" or "here's a fact check", it's propaganda.

[Ifreann]

Who can forget the time they said Bernie Sanders lied about his average donation being $27, when it was actually $27.88. The fiend!

Great! Now you know how Trump's "ten thousand lies in his presidency" meme came to be. No politician has ever gone without lying, but a lot of times, the things listed as "lies" are mistakes or ignorance, which has no malicious or deceitful intent. This example with Bernie is a classic case of disreputable smears and goes to show the bias and ill will of the mainstream media.

Remember, if you see the words "fact checker" or "here's a fact check", it's propaganda.

Does this mean that you're propagandising us with this fact check on fact checkers? Or is it only propaganda if you literally use the words "fact check"?

[Totenborg]

You know what, I wonder who defines what a "trusted news source" is, and what it isn't.

From what I see, as much as Breitbart has it's flaws, the OP's statements are a manifestation of political bias in favour of the left-wing media.

But apparently this is where diversity gets you -- libs get the news they want, cons get the news they want, and the truth? Fuck the truth, it never gave us what we wanted anyway!

And here is where the "Sons of Liberty dilemma" begins again - who decides what the truth is? Opinion of Breitbart's writers has the same right to be heard a that of any other outlet, and it's our duty to filer it and decide the truth for ourselves.

Can we at least agree that Breitbart is bottomfeeding horseshit? Can we agree on those?

No, we don't, no matter how many flaws that platform has.

Nonsense. Free speech does not guarantee a platform. One can talk all they want, but nobody has to give them a mic.

[Totenborg]

your weird vendetta against feminism is in no way based on facts. it's also entirely irrelevant to the topic.

But this is the problem. You're in no position to decide that. A white nationalist could just as easily say your weird vendetta against the alt-right is in no way based on facts. You're both engaged in the same behavior.

Yet you want us to say Breitbart is different from other sites on the basis of how it reports the news. That simply isn't true. It merely targets different people for outgrouping and telling lies about.

Your argument was that Breitbart can't be good because they publish garbage statistics in an attempt to demonize muslims and make people afraid of them.

Buddy. You've got a problem if that's your standard, because that is every news organization. I'm using feminism because it's easiest to prove feminist news sources do that to men all the time.

Good god, do you alway try to drag your weird hatred of women into everything?

[Ostroeuropa]

But this is the problem. You're in no position to decide that. A white nationalist could just as easily say your weird vendetta against the alt-right is in no way based on facts. You're both engaged in the same behavior.

Yet you want us to say Breitbart is different from other sites on the basis of how it reports the news. That simply isn't true. It merely targets different people for outgrouping and telling lies about.

Your argument was that Breitbart can't be good because they publish garbage statistics in an attempt to demonize muslims and make people afraid of them.

Buddy. You've got a problem if that's your standard, because that is every news organization. I'm using feminism because it's easiest to prove feminist news sources do that to men all the time.

Good god, do you alway try to drag your weird hatred of women into everything?

Anti-feminism /=/ Anti-women.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=why+do+yo ... =0&PC=DCTS

[Attempted Socialism]

Breitbart has some of the best news coverage on;
Gamergate
Anti-feminism
The Trump movement (Being one of the only publications to accurately gauge the mood of the country and so on).
For example.

I was unaware of any Breitbart news on these topics. Do you have any trusted source on your claim that Breitbart has news, and covers these topics in a journalistic way?

your weird vendetta against feminism is in no way based on facts. it's also entirely irrelevant to the topic.

But this is the problem. You're in no position to decide that. A white nationalist could just as easily say your weird vendetta against the alt-right is in no way based on facts. You're both engaged in the same behavior.

Yet you want us to say Breitbart is different from other sites on the basis of how it reports the news. That simply isn't true. It merely targets different people for outgrouping and telling lies about.

No, it's not just the same. Breitbart is in the make-up-basements-business (Along with white nationalists), and we see that every time we check them. Meanwhile, actual news organisations are generally truthful (If biased).0

Your argument was that Breitbart can't be good because they publish garbage statistics in an attempt to demonize muslims and make people afraid of them.

Buddy. You've got a problem if that's your standard, because that is every news organization. I'm using feminism because it's easiest to prove feminist news sources do that to men all the time.

Breitbart is garbage as news because they don't do news. They manufacture propaganda that is at best reality-adjacent.

The "trusted" news sources were convinced that Jussie was the victim of a hate crime, so... *shrug*

And they promoted the US attack on Iraq. So? "News outlet makes mistake" versus "Bullshit outlet fabricates all stories whole-cloth" are not equally bad.

There is no such thing as a "trusted news source", all humans have bias and are prone to err or distort in information conveyal. It is your job to to supress your idealogical prejudices and try to analyze data to the best of your objective ability. I see no point in casting aspersions in arrogance, we are ALL guilty of either deception against ourselves or another; that is an inescacable truth.

Gleefully making up everything, playing "connect the dots" with their own conspiracies and money-making schemes is not just a bias. It's deliberately being wrong (As in, they know they're making shit up and do it anyway, for money or politics). Washington Post or Wall Street Journal are sometimes bad news sources because they're biased. Breitbart is fundamentally not a news source - it's a reactionary version of a collection of fables.

[Galloism]

Who can forget the time they said Bernie Sanders lied about his average donation being $27, when it was actually $27.88. The fiend!

Great! Now you know how Trump's "ten thousand lies in his presidency" meme came to be. No politician has ever gone without lying, but a lot of times, the things listed as "lies" are mistakes or ignorance, which has no malicious or deceitful intent. This example with Bernie is a classic case of disreputable smears and goes to show the bias and ill will of the mainstream media.

Remember, if you see the words "fact checker" or "here's a fact check", it's propaganda.

Here's the thing though - if you read the whole article it becomes blatantly obvious that it's a fucking ridiculous thing to accuse someone of lying for only reading off the dollars amount or rounding the wrong way.

The problem is they're counting on people to not read past the headlines. And sometimes, when it's a fact check on Trump, it's the same type of behavior - if you read past the headline, you'll see how ridiculous the headline is.

Sometimes it's not.

The problem is, a lot of people don't read past the headline. If you read past the headline, you can determine in each case whether it's true, false, or sort of true but such a hair split it's utterly ridiculous.