🔵
Social media has no business determining what's "fake news" and what's not.
@realcaseyrollins "FakeNews"for me is the Facism's current way of trying to discredit opposition and legitimate media, information, without any real argument or discussion.
The person most in the spot light in the current Fascism movements is a regrettable choice, imo. Shocking that people fall for such base level arguments and manipulation.
🇳🇱
The truth is that fake news is a very legitimate problem and Trump absolutely is constantly the target of it.
With that said Trump is legitimately a horrible president and that is true with or without Fake News making it look worse. But then again so was Obama and in some ways even worse than Trump. This isnt a justification of Trump but just an indication that American politicians tend to be shitty no matter what party they come from.
@freemo @design_RG I don't think #Trump has been a bad president. There are only a few things I can point out that he's done I don't like, namely the trade war, not promoting responsible spending, and supporting the FDA's ban on certain ecig flavors.
It also of course must be mentioned that Obama was the subject of fake news too.
The issue is, when you have elites in Silicon Valley determine which stories you can and can't see, they will undoubtedly push for their own agenda.
We disagree on two points. The obvious one is Trump being a bad president, but thats also a bit of a tangent.
The other is that its the elites in Silicon Valley that are the issue. Most of the news agencies arent Silicon Valley Elites running the show, though it is Elites. The issue is far simpler than that... News is for-profit. That means they will do what makes them money and that is secondary to Truth or Honesty. Since people in the USA are all extremist they basically WANT bias, and what the paying public wants they get.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins I think Casey's reference to the Tech high level people is in terms of their social media owned sites being controlled by algorithms, and allowing advertising pretty much unfiltered (facebook), opposing any regulations of such ads (facebook again), or making complete exemption of content regulations for celebrities (twitter, see trump's own mouthpiece and how it clashes with stated site TofC).
All of that corporate soc media is a dump, imo, I like some of the media present in twitter (and sadly not here, for now, as this network is still small).
Social Media certainly allows for the spread of Fake News I suppose, people share it and all. Before that it was chain e-mails though so I'm not sure social media is so much to blame as it is simply the medium of choice.
With that said I see no reason why people being allowed to gossip fake news would, inherently, cause an increase in fake news. A society of scholars likely wouldnt see this effect at all for example.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins Because the large social media networks are all corporate owned and profit driven, we have scandalous episodes like the Cambridge Analytica one.
Then again, State sponsored efforts at manipulating people's minds, via ad campaigns, and troll farm actions. The FSB is very active on this front.
I don't comdemn them for this, as the opposing side has done the same in different ways, besides openly funding insurrection and regime change campaigns in many places.
See also : Chile, 1973. Assassination of a President, inside the saet of government, funded by foreign interests including corporate ones. Ford Foundation for example.
Chile suffered a lot, and now is once again in turmoil, as the injustice and myseries caused by the economic policies spearheaded by the Chicago School, and first implemented in post coup Chile, lead to tremendous disparity and unrest in the country.
There are plenty of scandelous reasons to hate FB. I am not implying we dont have a right to hate them. I am just saying they are not to blame for the spread of fake news, that is on us as a people.
I think their defense of "Free Speech" rights for not filtering or analyzing any paid advertising is immoral and corrupt.
Rotten, even. Just to keep the cash flow in. So, not excusable in a Publisher situation like the hosts of such media social sites in truth are.
The fact they are making money off it is concerning. But personally i find all ads on the internet as something to be avoided. I dont find filtered ads as any more appealing than non-filtered. In fact, I'd much rather have the freedom as a user to decide for myself if those are my choices.
I have no ethical issue with them making money. I just find Ads to be disrupticve of my personal enjoyment and as such go to great lengths to avoid them. If FB were a paid service I'd likely pay to get rid of ads and not have any issue with that.. presuming they were stealing my data too (I'd also pay so they dont in that case)
@realcaseyrollins
Facebook needs to get revenue from somewhere, just to keep the lights on the bill for data centers and electricity alone must be astronomical. So I don't expect them to have no ads, I would block them as a matter of course if I wanted to use their services, which I don't, it's just too boring and repetitive in there.
I do support Wikipedia, giving them a regular donation to keep it running. Many people use it and can't or won't donate, but they also have operating costs.
Their service for me is worth way more than the FB walled garden.
@freemo @design_RG I don't have an issue making money. FaceBook must be funded somehow. At their scale, ads might not be necessary. (It must be noted that Wikipedia doesn't have ads.)