FB revamp now includes Breitbart as "trusted news source"

[Ostroeuropa]

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?

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.

Compare and contrast:
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/08/ ... -feminism/

V

https://time.com/134152/the-toxic-appea ... -movement/

The mentions of Elliot Rodger are outright propaganda in the second piece for one simple reason:

He wasn't an MRA. He never visited MRA forums nor sites, nor did he believe in their doctrine, nor identify as one. He was a misogynist and an anti-feminist red piller, and because the second writer conflates all anti-feminism as the same thing, they feel comfortable calling Elliot Rodger an MRA.

Breitbart is more honest about these kinds of groups and what they get up to than much of the media.

[Shofercia]

Liberals: "waaa, Clinton lost, Russian bots bad, employ our fact checkers!"
FB: "What's the cheapest way to do it?"
Liberals: "here, take over volunteers, they're totally unbiased, because people love spending their free time doing thankless tasks where they have no bias!"
FB: "Sounds like bullshit, but hey, we can make money!"

---

Conservatives: "What the actual fuck?! That actually worked for Liberals, and FB just wants money. Boycott FB until they allow our factcheckers!"
FB: "Ok, ok, we allow, same terms as Liberal Factcheckers"
Conservatives: "Done!"

---

Liberals: "What the fuck, FB is now going with Brietbart?! How'd that happen?! We no understand!"

---

Me:



On a serious note, if you're going to have the NY Times as a "trusted source" - the one that found WMDs in Iraq, that's now claiming that Tulsi is totally a Russian Agent, that manages to get foreign policy wrong again, and again, and again, that fucks up economic analysis, that typically sides with Liberals on virtually any issue, that failed to address Obama's betrayal of Kurds but whines endlessly about Trump's, etc, etc, etc, so if that's a valid source - what isn't?

[Totenborg]

Liberals: "waaa, Clinton lost, Russian bots bad, employ our fact checkers!"
FB: "What's the cheapest way to do it?"
Liberals: "here, take over volunteers, they're totally unbiased, because people love spending their free time doing thankless tasks where they have no bias!"
FB: "Sounds like bullshit, but hey, we can make money!"

---

Conservatives: "What the actual fuck?! That actually worked for Liberals, and FB just wants money. Boycott FB until they allow our factcheckers!"
FB: "Ok, ok, we allow, same terms as Liberal Factcheckers"
Conservatives: "Done!"

---

Liberals: "What the fuck, FB is now going with Brietbart?! How'd that happen?! We no understand!"

---

Me:

(Image)

On a serious note, if you're going to have the NY Times as a "trusted source" - the one that found WMDs in Iraq, that's now claiming that Tulsi is totally a Russian Agent, that manages to get foreign policy wrong again, and again, and again, that fucks up economic analysis, that typically sides with Liberals on virtually any issue, that failed to address Obama's betrayal of Kurds but whines endlessly about Trump's, etc, etc, etc, so if that's a valid source - what isn't?

Yeah, but aren't you super pro-Russian interests?

[Shofercia]

Liberals: "waaa, Clinton lost, Russian bots bad, employ our fact checkers!"
FB: "What's the cheapest way to do it?"
Liberals: "here, take over volunteers, they're totally unbiased, because people love spending their free time doing thankless tasks where they have no bias!"
FB: "Sounds like bullshit, but hey, we can make money!"

---

Conservatives: "What the actual fuck?! That actually worked for Liberals, and FB just wants money. Boycott FB until they allow our factcheckers!"
FB: "Ok, ok, we allow, same terms as Liberal Factcheckers"
Conservatives: "Done!"

---

Liberals: "What the fuck, FB is now going with Brietbart?! How'd that happen?! We no understand!"

---

Me:

(Image)

On a serious note, if you're going to have the NY Times as a "trusted source" - the one that found WMDs in Iraq, that's now claiming that Tulsi is totally a Russian Agent, that manages to get foreign policy wrong again, and again, and again, that fucks up economic analysis, that typically sides with Liberals on virtually any issue, that failed to address Obama's betrayal of Kurds but whines endlessly about Trump's, etc, etc, etc, so if that's a valid source - what isn't?

Yeah, but aren't you super pro-Russian interests?

Are you ever going to address my arguments, or are you going to continue attacking me and getting red text semi-warnings, (but not actual warnings,) from the mods?

[Totenborg]

Yeah, but aren't you super pro-Russian interests?

Are you ever going to address my arguments, or are you going to continue attacking me and getting red text semi-warnings, (but not actual warnings,) from the mods?

Not insulting you. I'm saying that you appear to have a strong pro-Russian interests perpsective, given your signature, so your perspective on Tulsi may need to be seen in that light. Hey, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

[Miami Shores]

Ha.

Hahaha.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA--

Facebook’s launch of a new section on its flagship app dedicated to “deeply-reported and well-sourced” journalism sparked immediate controversy on Friday over the inclusion of Breitbart News, a publication whose former executive chairman explicitly embraced the “alt-right”.

Facebook News is a separate section of the company’s mobile app that will feature articles from about 200 publishers. Friday’s launch is a test and will only be visible to some users in the US.

The initiative is designed to quell criticism on two fronts: by promoting higher quality journalism over misinformation and by appeasing news publishers who have long complained that Facebook profits from journalism without paying for it. The company will pay some publishers between $1m and $3m each year to feature their articles, according to Bloomberg.

Participating publications include the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, BuzzFeed, Bloomberg and ABC News, as well as local newspapers such as the Chicago Tribune and Dallas Morning News.

Founded in 2005 by conservative writer Andrew Breitbart, the outlet is notorious for its role in promoting extreme rightwing narratives and conspiracy theories. Thousands of major advertisers have blacklisted the site over its extreme views. Breitbart News achieved greater influence and a wider audience under its executive chairman Steve Bannon, who went on to run Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016. For years, the publication used a “black crime” tag on articles and promoted anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant views.

In 2017, BuzzFeed News reported on emails and documents showing how the former Breitbart tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos had worked directly with a white nationalist and a neo-Nazi to write and edit an article defining the “alt-right” movement and advancing its ideas.

Facebook has long faced scrutiny for its reticence to police white nationalism and far-right hate on its platform. In July 2017, the Guardian provided Facebook with a list of 175 pages and groups run by hate groups, as designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center, including neo-Nazi and white nationalist groups. The company removed just nine of them.

Following the deadly “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville in August 2017 – which was organized in part on a Facebook event page – the company cracked down on some white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups. Enforcement was spotty, however, and a year after Charlottesville, several groups and individuals involved in Charlottesville were back on Facebook. It was not until March 2019 that the company decided that its policy against hate should include white nationalism, an ideology that promotes the exclusion and expulsion of non-white people from certain nations.

Asked about the inclusion of Breitbart News at a launch event for Facebook News in New York, Zuckerberg declined to comment on “any specific firm” but added, “I do think that part of having this be a trusted source is that it needs to have a diversity of … views in there. I think you want to have content that kind of represents different perspectives, but also in a way that complies with the standards that we have.”

-- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahaaaahaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaahhhhhhh...

... so, this is where we are.

Breitbart. Fucking Breitbart.

To operate its news tab, Facebook is paying a number of media outlets between $1-$3 million to license their content. While I don't know yet if Breitbart is among the beneficiaries, the prospect of Steve Bannon's former employer-slash-platform for the alt-right peddling shit like these in a platform as large as fucking Facebook and getting paid boggles the mind.

Almost as much as the notion of Breitbart being "a trusted news source" that delivers "high-quality" "deeply-researched and well-sourced" journalism to millions of users.

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!

Let me be outstandingly clear here: I am for freedom of speech. I've waffled both ways about it in the past, but it's better to know who you're dealing with than to walk in blindly, expecting nothing -- or worse, something else.

But can we at least agree that Breitbart both does NOT deserve the platform Facebook is giving it? Can we at least agree that Breitbart is bottomfeeding horseshit? Can we agree on those?

Duhon Brietbart is a credible right wing news source just like MSNBC is a credible leftist news source, always allowed under NS Rules. Not to you and many of your leftist friends, but it is to millions of American right wing citizens. Both the right and the left spins certain news to the right and the left. The Right spins it to the right, and the left spins it to the left. But all news sources have substance to their posts.

I can read and source from the right and from the left, I can read between the lines of their spins the substance of their posts.

Just because you and your leftists friends disagree with any posts of right wing sources does not make them not credible.

Does not make your posts right and our posts wrong, that is democracy in America the USA.

Not eternal dictatorships like in Cuba, I know from personal experience for obvious reasons.

[Shofercia]

Are you ever going to address my arguments, or are you going to continue attacking me and getting red text semi-warnings, (but not actual warnings,) from the mods?

Not insulting you. I'm saying that you appear to have a strong pro-Russian interests perpsective, given your signature, so your perspective on Tulsi may need to be seen in that light. Hey, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

You don't need to have any perspective to be able to grasp the simple fact that Putin didn't tell Tulsi to run for Congress in 2012, in order to enable Trump's reelection in 2020. You don't need any perspective to grasp the simple fact that Hillary Clinton is a vindictive bitch, who had it out for Tulsi ever since Tulsi endorsed Bernie, instead of Dear Leader Clinton. Is Bernie Sanders a Russian agent too? Is Jill Stein? Is Comey? After all, he was also, (according to Hillary Clinton, not to sanity,) responsible for Clinton's defeat. Where does the wheel of insanity stop?

[Gormwood]

Not insulting you. I'm saying that you appear to have a strong pro-Russian interests perpsective, given your signature, so your perspective on Tulsi may need to be seen in that light. Hey, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

You don't need to have any perspective to be able to grasp the simple fact that Putin didn't tell Tulsi to run for Congress in 2012, in order to enable Trump's reelection in 2020. You don't need any perspective to grasp the simple fact that Hillary Clinton is a vindictive bitch, who had it out for Tulsi ever since Tulsi endorsed Bernie, instead of Dear Leader Clinton. Is Bernie Sanders a Russian agent too? Is Jill Stein? Is Comey? After all, he was also, (according to Hillary Clinton, not to sanity,) responsible for Clinton's defeat. Where does the wheel of insanity stop?

"Gabbard is being groomed by Russia for a possible attempt to siphon off Democratic votes by running her as an independent."

You: "LOL MSM saying Gabbard is Russian Agent LOL".

Were you salivating at the chance for disingenuous hyperbole and dabbing on the libs?

[Aureumterra]

Wtf is up with Facebooks bipolar disorder? At one moment, they’re shutting down reasonable conservative voices, and at the next, they’re citing Breitbart as a reputable news source.

Buzzfeed and Breitbart are journalistic jokes. I trust the homeless guy more who rants about the end times being soon and america actually being a giant bear in the bible which slew babylon which is actually germany....

bf news has some of the best investigative journalism in the country, due to all the clickbait money they're swimming in. there's no need for false both-sidesism

Oh look, a buzzfeed apologist

[Salandriagado]

Yeah, but aren't you super pro-Russian interests?

Are you ever going to address my arguments, or are you going to continue attacking me and getting red text semi-warnings, (but not actual warnings,) from the mods?

We'll respond to your arguments when you make one that has any actual content, rather than just being a whole pile of outright lies.

[Galloism]

Buzzfeed and Breitbart are journalistic jokes. I trust the homeless guy more who rants about the end times being soon and america actually being a giant bear in the bible which slew babylon which is actually germany....

bf news has some of the best investigative journalism in the country, due to all the clickbait money they're swimming in. there's no need for false both-sidesism

They’re also unironically extremely sexist, and completely lack self awareness of the same.

[Aureumterra]

bf news has some of the best investigative journalism in the country, due to all the clickbait money they're swimming in. there's no need for false both-sidesism

They’re also unironically extremely sexist, and completely lack self awareness of the same.

Remember the Buzzfeed feminist who claimed that men are biologically built to be rape machines? That’s some great investigative journalism

[Risottia]

[quote="Duhon";p="36372881"]Ha.
.../quote]

Give FB two years and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion will become "a reputable peer-reviewed publication".

[Shofercia]

You don't need to have any perspective to be able to grasp the simple fact that Putin didn't tell Tulsi to run for Congress in 2012, in order to enable Trump's reelection in 2020. You don't need any perspective to grasp the simple fact that Hillary Clinton is a vindictive bitch, who had it out for Tulsi ever since Tulsi endorsed Bernie, instead of Dear Leader Clinton. Is Bernie Sanders a Russian agent too? Is Jill Stein? Is Comey? After all, he was also, (according to Hillary Clinton, not to sanity,) responsible for Clinton's defeat. Where does the wheel of insanity stop?

"Gabbard is being groomed by Russia for a possible attempt to siphon off Democratic votes by running her as an independent."

You: "LOL MSM saying Gabbard is Russian Agent LOL".

Were you salivating at the chance for disingenuous hyperbole and dabbing on the libs?

So where's the evidence of all of this grooming? She appeared on RT? She appeared on Tucker Carlson? She is against randomly bombing countries? Such grooming, much wow. Also, not talking about all of the libs in that post - just the once who still continue to support Clinton after she royally fucked over the DNC. When someone takes a dump on you, an argument claiming that said dump made you a better person, is a bit hard to digest without laughter.

[Shofercia]

Are you ever going to address my arguments, or are you going to continue attacking me and getting red text semi-warnings, (but not actual warnings,) from the mods?

We'll respond to your arguments when you make one that has any actual content, rather than just being a whole pile of outright lies.

So all you'll do is attack me with lies, while projecting, and deliberately failing to comprehend what I wrote. Gotcha.

[Miami Shores]

We'll respond to your arguments when you make one that has any actual content, rather than just being a whole pile of outright lies.

So all you'll do is attack me with lies, while projecting, and deliberately failing to comprehend what I wrote. Gotcha.

You all see what I mean we are wrong and they are right. We are wrong based on facts, and they are right based on their own facts, no wonder we cant disagree on any issues and leave it at that.

I have been told at least a few times my sources are wrong and their sources are right lol.

I have been told many times by certain nations my views are wrong and their views are right, I at least don do so. I am proud of myself for not doing so.

Especially when I post and link anything in defense of President Donald J Trump of America, The USA.

I have been told I have no business posting my views on the Democrats Biden Primary elections thread.

I defend my posts strongly and disagree with any nation, including on my Pet issue of Cuba on NS for obvious reasons.

We all have different economic, political and social cultural views and neither is wrong.

That is democracy in America the USA, and the nations you are all posting from, not the eternal revolutionary dictatorships of Venezuela and Cuba, which in Cuba's case I know personally for obvious reasons.

[Nakena]

I wonder if the Tulsi Gabbard dislikers can even make an comprehensive argument really. I mean there could be, either in favor or against. But alas...

[Miami Shores]

I wonder if the Tulsi Gabbard dislikers can even make an comprehensive argument really. I mean there could be, either in favor or against. But alas...

You are correct nak good post.

[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.

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.

This is exactly the idealogical bias I'm speaking of. Views that you condemn are manufactured propaganda, whilst those you condone or mildly disapprove of are merely biased. No, they are all propaganda. They all distort, fabricate, misreprepresent and seek to influence before inform. Money+power+aggressive idealogical agendas=corruption. There is not an objective news apparatus I can think of that is genuine and innocuous in its goal to inform. Actually, I think the weatherman gets a pass. I would also appreciate if you would stop trying to implicate White Nationals in all your attempted smearing, that's really not warranted.

[Klorgia1]

This is just insane. Read Breitbart for five minutes and look for reputable, intelligent sources and news worth. There is nothing. They are idiots, plain and simple.
Is Facebook really looking to keep the Alt-Right users that much?

On the other hand, this does beg the question: how far into the Orwell Window is Breitbart?

[Big Jim P]

Could be worse. They could consider CNN etc to be trusted news sources.

[Gagium]

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.

This is exactly the idealogical bias I'm speaking of. Views that you condemn are manufactured propaganda, whilst those you condone or mildly disapprove of are merely biased. No, they are all propaganda. They all distort, fabricate, misreprepresent and seek to influence before inform. Money+power+aggressive idealogical agendas=corruption. There is not an objective news apparatus I can think of that is genuine and innocuous in its goal to inform. Actually, I think the weatherman gets a pass. I would also appreciate if you would stop trying to implicate White Nationals in all your attempted smearing, that's really not warranted.

Everything here, this.

[Necroghastia]

So all you'll do is attack me with lies, while projecting, and deliberately failing to comprehend what I wrote. Gotcha.

You all see what I mean we are wrong and they are right. We are wrong based on facts, and they are right based on their own facts, no wonder we cant disagree on any issues and leave it at that.

I have been told at least a few times my sources are wrong and their sources are right lol.

I have been told many times by certain nations my views are wrong and their views are right, I at least don do so. I am proud of myself for not doing so.

Especially when I post and link anything in defense of President Donald J Trump of America, The USA.

I have been told I have no business posting my views on the Democrats Biden Primary elections thread.

I defend my posts strongly and disagree with any nation, including on my Pet issue of Cuba on NS for obvious reasons.

We all have different economic, political and social cultural views and neither is wrong.

That is democracy in America the USA, and the nations you are all posting from, not the eternal revolutionary dictatorships of Venezuela and Cuba, which in Cuba's case I know personally for obvious reasons.

Stop fucking lying. No one has said anything of the sort. People attack you for lying, no one has said anything about not being able to post "your views." I dare you to prove otherwise.

[The Black Forrest]

Could be worse. They could consider CNN etc to be trusted news sources.

Hmmm? CNN has more credibility then facebook.

As to the outrage? It's facebook. Why would you trust anything that posts there?

[Miami Shores]

Could be worse. They could consider CNN etc to be trusted news sources.

Hmmm? CNN has more credibility then facebook.

As to the outrage? It's facebook. Why would you trust anything that posts there?

I accept all sources but I read the substance of the posts past the right win spin and past the left wing spin. I don't tell any nation my sources are credible and your sources are not credible on any issues, and the videos speak for themselves.