FB revamp now includes Breitbart as "trusted news source"

[Duhon]

Facebook is equivalent to a particularly dirty intercity alleyway, where people relieve themselves and write their feelings down on the side of buildings for all to see. People steal away there to smoke and get into drunken fistfights over honor.

Facebook is for proles, and nothing good ever comes of it.

this is cool and all but we are proles

[Risastorstein]

What's wrong with the first and third articles you linked?

[Duhon]

What's wrong with the first and third articles you linked?

they seem to be working fine on my end
why? what are you getting?

[Galloism]

With regard to Rodger, I don't know what you define as MRA sites. So when there's a clear overlap between MRAs, Incels, red-pillers and whatever else that movement calls itself, I don't see it as a particularly egregious error.

MRAs and red pillers hate each other more than fascists and communists, for the record. MRAs hate red pillers because they see them as just trying to work the system instead of improving it, and red pillers think MRAs are delusional that it can be changed. And everyone hates the incels.

What you’ve done here is casually group fascists and communists as basically the same because they both hate the current system, while not knowing a damn thing about either one.

Just like the Times.

And yes I said the times. New York Times, Time Magazine, whatever else that paper calls itself, I don’t see it a particularly egregious error.

[Risastorstein]

What's wrong with the first and third articles you linked?

they seem to be working fine on my end
why? what are you getting?

I was talking about the content of the articles, I wasn't reporting a technical issue. Sorry if it was unclear. Yes, it's not PC but both are true to some extent. Young Muslim men in the West are the most prone to radicalization and Micah Johnson's motives were evident.

[Emulation White]

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.

What was the ideological bias? WSJ is as much my ideological enemy as the modern, English-language version of Sturmer, so I'm genuinely curious. The difference is that I recognise how WSJ is actually doing news; with a clear ideological slant, ever in favour of the capitalist class or to affirm their readers, sure, but still news that are related to and commenting on reality. Whatever made-up universe Breitbart reports from may take their faerie tales as news, but I think we ought to recognise them as roughly as valid a news source as H.C. Andersen.
You're also robbing corruption, propaganda and bias of any value or coherence in order to deliver your "both sides"-argument. Corruption is usually defined as abuse of entrusted power for private gain, just FYI.

No, you cannot do "news" with an "idealogical slant". Bias in the pursuit of objective knowledge is the epitome of corruption. Bias can lead to omission, misrepresentation, lack of perspective and even fabrication; confirmation bias is a good example. I perceived your idealogical bias as you tried to guilt by association White Nationals with Breitbart and include them in a smear in unwarranted fashion. I do not appreciate being condescended to and spoken to like a child and it is ridiculous for you to tell me organizations whose end goals are $$$ and power are not corrupt. They are the epitome of corruption and I do not have an ounce of faith in any of them because they objectively should not be taken as "news" when their primary goal is to influence. So please, don't tell me I'm robbing corruption, propaganda and bias of coherence for the sake of trying to "win" some petty internet debate.

[Xmara]

Wow

What's next, Infowars?

[Big Jim P]

nobody's disputing that other news sources have a spin. breitbart outright fabricating stories all the time is different.

How is it different from CNN making up stuff like "you can walk into any gun store in the country and walk out a half hour later with a machine gun"?

It all depends on whose narrative is being supported.

[Heloin]

Wow

What's next, Infowars?

America's Finest News Source.

[Nakena]

Wow

What's next, Infowars?

Nah they got zucct from FB long time ago. As got a lot of other dissident (or alt-right...) groups and so on.

As said probably Breitbart is an token outlet they decided to tolerate and add to the pool to keep a bridge alive to the more trumpist leaning parts of their userbase.

Tokenism is the practice of making only a perfunctory or symbolic effort to be inclusive to members of minority groups, especially by recruiting a small number of people from underrepresented groups in order to give the appearance of racial or sexual equality within a workforce.[1][2][3] The effort of including a token employee to a workforce is usually intended to create the impression of social inclusiveness and diversity (racial, religious, sexual, etc.) in order to deflect accusations of discrimination.[4]

[Totenborg]

Considering the ZuccMeister Extreme acts and looks less human every day, I'm starting to think they just didn't think this through. My guess is they'll be reversing this soon.



Ignoring that Breitbart are a bunch of far-right creepos with the credibility of J. Jonah Jameson. Classy.

"Get me photos of the emails, Spoderman"

When had Breitbart promoted fascism though?

Eh, I guess I conflated white nationalism and fascism.
I suppose they're not always interchangeable. Regardless:

https://www.adl.org/resources/backgroun ... gs-to-know

[Duhon]

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.

that the first amendment guarantees the right to free speech does not then endow every news outlet with the same truth value, or else the daily stormer would have the same standing as bbc

or -- to pursue a funnier analogy -- the onion and breitbart would both be speaking truth to power

diversity of views only gets conscientious consumer so far before he has to concede that all news outlets that say "2+2=5" all the time are flat-out wrong and should not have wide readerships

[Samadhi]

I'm more concerned people are still using Facebook.
And care about the news.

[Liriena]

At this point, FB is just running up the score to see how much they can make everyone hate them before the next administration smashes them into pieces.

[Necroghastia]

I'm more concerned people are still using Facebook.
And care about the news.

...Why shouldn't people care about the news?

[Dumb Ideologies]

There are very few trustworthy news sources these days. Even places I used to go for relatively cool-headed takes now have what I'd diplomatically call a "very pronounced editorial steer".

There's an absurd amount of difference between the falling standards of some news sources (And, for the record, I don't think it's falling) and the non-news, anti-knowledge, wrong-and-awful opinion-spewing operation known as Breitbart.
Sure, "reputable" news sources backed the US attacks against Iraq, and yellow journalism is a thing, but sensationalising headlines, promoting war criminals and having clear editorial stances are still news-related or news-adjacent, which is remarkably different from Breitbart.

I don't disagree. My point is merely that you have to dig for strictly news content in current year.

Lots of news places are being flooded with shitty non-news content than drowns out the actual news. BBC a lot lately, flooded with loads of non-news shit, where the entire thing is about diversity and making a liberal political point. You know, "here is a person doing a thing you wouldn't expect based on their personal characteristics", or "I'm a bearded lady here's my life story", "why my pronouns are important to me", "what it's like to be an Asian drag-queen" or whatever. The news is being turned into a lifestyle supplement and you have to go out of your way to search for the big affairs of the day because the algorithm tries to sell you the dumbed down twattery.

Noting a general decline is not a denial that Breitbart is a different kind of beast - they absolutely are, they lack the token presence of reliable news and they literally often fabricate shit to make it fit their narrative.

[Saturna1ia]

Just download the Associated Press and Reuters apps for news. They're free with ads, but Facebook has ads too.

[The Black Forrest]

I'm more concerned people are still using Facebook.
And care about the news.

Facebook has been useful for finding lost friends. One my high school buddies is living in Greece. Didn’t know. Found each other via FB.

Other then that? The only things I will comment on are things I don’t care everybody knows.

[Miami Shores]

This post fits this thread well:

A few of you say Brietbart or other right wing sources are not credible and leftist sources are credible, you are all always right and we are all always wrong, especially when we defend Trump. I say I respect all leftists sources, what I mean is I don't question or put down the credibility of leftist sources, like a few of you put down the credibility of right wing sources, so I defend Breitbart and all right wing sources. I don't care if you quote and post from any leftists sources, but it bothers you guys when we post from right wing sources like Breitbart and even Fox News.

I hope and trust this explains it well.

[Duhon]

This post fits this thread well:

A few of you say Brietbart or other right wing sources are not credible and leftist sources are credible, you are all always right and we are all always wrong, especially when we defend Trump. I say I respect all leftists sources, what I mean is I don't question or put down the credibility of leftist sources, like a few of you put down the credibility of right wing sources, so I defend Breitbart and all right wing sources. I don't care if you quote and post from any leftists sources, but it bothers you guys when we post from right wing sources like Breitbart and even Fox News.

I hope and trust this explains it well.

Feel free to put down anything you find dubious if not outright false.

[Saturna1ia]

Miami Shores if you're going to do this to yourself at the very least don't be vague about it. Provide the names of these left wing sources others are using as credible whilst assailing Breitbart and Fox News. Sources aren't all about the "right vs left" divide. There's also reputable vs unreputable. The National Review is a better source than Buzzfeed. MSNBC is a better source than Breitbart. Etc.

[Samadhi]

I'm more concerned people are still using Facebook.
And care about the news.

...Why shouldn't people care about the news?

Because it's crap.
It's untrustworthy

I'm more concerned people are still using Facebook.
And care about the news.

Facebook has been useful for finding lost friends. One my high school buddies is living in Greece. Didn’t know. Found each other via FB.

Other then that? The only things I will comment on are things I don’t care everybody knows.

Eh I found my brother on LinkedIn. So I see your point there.

[Duhon]

At this point, FB is just running up the score to see how much they can make everyone hate them before the next administration smashes them into pieces.

you might not be wrong:

Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg was in the hot seat Wednesday defending his position that political advertisements on the social media site are not and will not be fact-checked—even if the information is false.

The 35-year-old tech mogul said his stance was two-fold: It's important to give people a voice, and the revenue from political ads was too small to justify the controversy surrounding the matter.

"From a business perspective, the very small percent of our business that is made up of our political ads does not come anywhere close to justifying the controversy that this incurs for our company," Zuckerberg told members of the House Financial Services Committee. "So, this really is not about money."

if that's not enough context, this is more than enough context

https://videos.newsweek.com/share/513124?amp=1&autostart=1&publisher=amp_nw&items=1&nwcat=nwus-politics&iabcat=IAB11-4

[Miami Shores]

This post fits this thread well:

A few of you say Brietbart or other right wing sources are not credible and leftist sources are credible, you are all always right and we are all always wrong, especially when we defend Trump. I say I respect all leftists sources, what I mean is I don't question or put down the credibility of leftist sources, like a few of you put down the credibility of right wing sources, so I defend Breitbart and all right wing sources. I don't care if you quote and post from any leftists sources, but it bothers you guys when we post from right wing sources like Breitbart and even Fox News.

I hope and trust this explains it well.

Feel free to put down anything you find dubious if not outright false.

This is the perfect thread to discuss this.

I see I did not get through to any of you Duhon my NS Friend despite our political differences. As I said I respect all left wing sources, as I don't question or put down the credibility of leftist sources.

I say the right spins it to the right and the left spins it to the left, I can read between the lines the substance of both spins.

I consider all right wing sources and all left wing sources credible, what I mean is they all have substance in their posts, but the right spins it to the right and the left spins it to the left.

Serious question, are their any right wing sources you and your friends consider credible?

Do any right wing sources have substance in their posts?

[Necroghastia]

...Why shouldn't people care about the news?

Because it's crap.
It's untrustworthy

All of it? How do you propose people keep up with current events, then?