> People become "journalists" because there's money in it, through ads
So what? Most of the internet runs on ads.
> Facebook is one hundred percent to blame. By reaching so many users and being so prominent in all those users' lives, they are directly responsible if they choose to stuff trash quality articles, which directly influence opinions, in there because it's the more profitable option.
I think you underestimate how difficult it is to define "trash". Once you begin censoring "garbage", you introduce bias.
This is the reason our country has free speech. It's the only practical way to keep us from revolting.
Imagine if Facebook were owned by Trump or Bannon and they were removing "fake news". You would be even more upset, right?
> People are dumb, and faillible. It's incredibly easy to sway their opinion one way or the other. You are, I am, we all are easily influencable. All that's different is the amount of fact checking that's done after.
I agree. Do you learn better through your own experience or when someone tells you what to do all the time?
>> People become "journalists" because there's money in it, through ads
>So what? Most of the internet runs on ads.
Which is an entirely other story, that in my opinion is even worse.
But the point is in the entire paragraph. Most of these people do not become journalists to bring accurate and researched reporting. It's purely pecause there's money in it. Potentially lots. The guy working for the NYT and the guy working for Buzzfeed have two very, very different definitions of deontology.
>I think you underestimate how difficult it is to define "trash". Once you begin censoring "garbage", you introduce bias.
Removing obvious lies is a start. Which, for a start, would remove a good part of breitbart, infowars, and a few left leaning journals. And it's fine! Truth is not biased.
>This is the reason our country has free speech. It's the only practical way to keep us from revolting.
Your usage of free speech has been widely criticized in the entire world and no European country would trade their free speech for yours, for example. It could also be argued that a good old revolution might have made your country better. Dusting off that woefully outdated constitution, reworking your political system, etc. instead of worshipping it as some shining star.
>Imagine if Facebook were owned by Trump or Bannon and they were removing "fake news". You would be even more upset, right?
If they are _actual_ fake news (i.e. not what Trump considers fake news, but proper lies, or voluntary misdirection), I wouldn't give a damn as long as it is done on both sides.
>I agree. Do you learn better through your own experience or when someone tells you what to do all the time?
If it's something I actually want to learn? Myself. If it's something I don't really care about? Eh, I might let other people tell me about it. And that's the dangerous part. I have limited time and ability to do fact checking. It takes someone five minutes to type up a "Hillary Clinton doesn't enjoy poptarts and eats children" story, and an order of magnitude more for me to debunk it for everyone. Enough of those articles and it effectively overtakes truth in people's minds. That is the exact same thing in Facebook feeds. People are getting bombarded with articles, some accurate, many not. You simply cannot fitler them. Especially if you're not aware they are false. Critical thinking skills are one part of the solution. But until everyone is properly trained (and then the methods of propaganda will have evolved), for the good of society, people particularly vulnerable to it must be protected.
Also, let's not forget that a good majority of people are told what to do all the time, at leas tat work. It wouldn't be suprising that part of this behavior is translated to their personal time, which includes getting informed.
> Removing obvious lies is a start. Which, for a start, would remove a good part of breitbart, infowars, and a few left leaning journals. And it's fine! Truth is not biased.
You definitely underestimate the difficulty of identifying bias. Words imperfectly define truth. Words can be ambiguous, even when you have a video recording. Reporting is always a bit biased, and if you filter topics at a macro level, that can introduce a huge bias.
> Your usage of free speech has been widely criticized in the entire world and no European country would trade their free speech for yours, for example.
Well guess what, Europe gets to be more liberal because it doesn't need to invest in as big a military as the US does. Our alliance held off opponents like fascism and Russia for awhile. It seems to be breaking down. Nobody appreciates the value of the alliance or why it was made.
>Well guess what, Europe gets to be more liberal because it doesn't need to invest in as big a military as the US does. Our alliance held off opponents like fascism and Russia for awhile. It seems to be breaking down. Nobody appreciates the value of the alliance or why it was made.
/r/ShitAmericansSay
There's so much wrong here I don't know where to begin. First off, that's not the subject at hand, your point has _literally_ nothing to do with free speech in the US. But if you want to go into that, sure, let's go.
America's oversized army and its need to wag its dick around is nothing to be proud of. The US military is as big as the combined 25 next countries, and they're all allies. Do not disguise american imperialism under the guise of protecting the world.
America threatened to pull out of NATO, and Europe reacted immediately, pushing for a european army. The biggest threat around is Russia, and it would be crushed by an european army. It's nobody's wish, but that's what would happen.
You held off fascism? Where? WW2? Yeah, so did Canada, the UK, Russia, etc. It's callied the Allied side, not the American side. Every european is grateful for the US presence, but let's not pretend the US is the sole reason for victory.
You held off Russia? On the threat of nuclear weapons? Good, we're all grateful. But that was the only threat, as the russian army was in shambles after WW2.
So what? Most of the internet runs on ads.
> Facebook is one hundred percent to blame. By reaching so many users and being so prominent in all those users' lives, they are directly responsible if they choose to stuff trash quality articles, which directly influence opinions, in there because it's the more profitable option.
I think you underestimate how difficult it is to define "trash". Once you begin censoring "garbage", you introduce bias.
This is the reason our country has free speech. It's the only practical way to keep us from revolting.
Imagine if Facebook were owned by Trump or Bannon and they were removing "fake news". You would be even more upset, right?
> People are dumb, and faillible. It's incredibly easy to sway their opinion one way or the other. You are, I am, we all are easily influencable. All that's different is the amount of fact checking that's done after.
I agree. Do you learn better through your own experience or when someone tells you what to do all the time?