-
-
-
You do realize that it's possible to believe they have a right to remove content they dislike & still be critical when they remove content you think they shouldn't find objectionable
-
Of course. You do realize that taking this position is weak AF, because it's simple self-serving wishy-washy nonsense that doesn't stand on any clear principle. Don't you?
-
That's moronic. Unless Balko calls for government oversight to pressure or force Facebook to let these pages exist freely he isn't being hypocritical, he's just being misread. But you also misread what I wrote, so I'm not surprised you are having trouble seeing that.
-
You can insult my intelligence all you want, but it won't make you feel better about taking a stance that's not rooted in any kind of meaningful principle. You feel insecure because you have adopted a position that is not well grounded. Don't worry, you can always change it.
-
This reads like someone trying to extend negging into an Internet debate tactic. Wild.
-
Read it however you wish to. It is what it is.
-
that’s a rather wishy-washy stance for someone complaining about wishy-washy stances, but sure.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I defended idiot Alex Jones, and I'll also defend police accountability groups. It appears certain people on both sides of the divisive political spectrum only hate censorship when it's stuff they like that's being censored.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
You wanted censorship now you’re getting it
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
If we value security, privacy & basic human decency, Facebook should be deleted from our universe.https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/facebook-security-privacy-nightmare/ …
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Those groups post a lot of fake, exaggerated, embellished stories meant to inflame. I used to share them all the time until I began researching.
-
You're defending censorship? That is YOUR opinion, and one day it will be YOUR opinion that will be censored.
-
This purge, according to FB’s explanation- had nothing to do with content subject or quality and had everything to do with inauthentic behavior (like having fake profiles seed posts into groups)
-
I don’t think people have researched how fake websites use hyped up rhetoric for the sole purpose of driving people to their ad farms. This was the original use of the term “fake news” in the media in 15/16 before Trump co-opted it for himself. Facebook explained this clearly.
-
'Fake News' was a description of the media after it was taken over by Six Corps and rather than provide actual news, helped eg, to LIE THIS COUNTRY into war. FB naturally would not inform people of the real reason why people refer to the Corp Media as 'fake news'
-
Please don’t do that revisionist stuff. Here’s a typical article from before Trump hijacked the term “Fake News”. This is the phenomenon Facebook is cracking down on.https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38168281 …
-
I was there when the Fake News Media LIED US INTO IRAQ. Nothing 'revisionist' about it. They LIED US into a horrible war that killed thousands of US troops and untold numbers of innocent Iraqis. That is what we called them
#FakeNewsMedia -
I’m not talking about criticism of the MSM. I’m talking about the etymology of the term “Fake News” in the late 2016 news cycle. It was specifically used to mean click bait churning. After some conservative sites used them as real news, Trump flipped the phrase onto the MSM.pic.twitter.com/p77Av2FzR7
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
...