I think it's an extremely difficult position for a content aggregator to be in
sure you can say that falsely attributed quotes are clearly false but for most content it's a lot more complicated than that
A perfect example is the whole 'leninist' quote going around about Bannon-
it happened in an off the record conversation and Bannon denies it - should Facebook ban any references to this story that don't include that little piece of information and just flat out claim that Bannon said it?
Gwen Ifill passed away today, after battling endometrial cancer at 61.
I have watched the News Hour and PBS since I was a child, and she has been a hero for me.
A voice in a dwindling chorus I could go to drown out bullshit and heat.
Rest in peace, Gwen, & thank you for your service.
I've definitely been listening to a ton of the Mountain Goats, lately. They're definitely the band that...most accurately matches where my mood's been since the election, or at least the band who most matches the mood I've been in since the election that I have readily available because I made a playlist for when I went to see them in concert
I think it's an extremely difficult position for a content aggregator to be in
sure you can say that falsely attributed quotes are clearly false but for most content it's a lot more complicated than that
A perfect example is the whole 'leninist' quote going around about Bannon-
it happened in an off the record conversation and Bannon denies it - should Facebook ban any references to this story that don't include that little piece of information and just flat out claim that Bannon said it?
A good chunk of the problem isn't sites like that as much as sites whose MO is entirely, explicitly, about knowingly fabricating fake stories, usually admitted by some disclaimer text buried at the bottom of the page that you need to highlight to see.
I mean, you can't catch all of it, but the "satire" sites that are entirely about simply lying without any attempt at satire are pretty identifiable. Ditto the ones that don't use that defense, but which like doing things like copying an actual news site's layout and presenting articles coming from www.[normal news site url].com.co or something like that. There are really unambiguous things that should be taken care of, and even that will help some.
I just wanna say, this is not the end of the story. This is at worst Revenge of the Sith (end of a story, not the story), but more this is Empire. This is just one chapter of one part of the whole story.
Don't give up. I changed my mind, the wife and I are gonna double down, work hard, and raise a little progressive of our own, because the future of this country depends on it.
Soooo, you're saying we have to look forward 20 years of historical revisionism and then 30 years later we'll get a the progressive sequel we've been waiting for.
The new star wars movie comes out in 4 weeks. Be the rebels you always wanted to be and get good shit done for the future of mankind :snap:
Maybe we can use this whole fucking shit show.. maybe we can be the anvil and forge a better future.
Or it all gets even worse, but fuck, what have we got to lose.
Fascism is spreading over the globe like a disease. It needs an antidote, strong and fast.
I think it's an extremely difficult position for a content aggregator to be in
sure you can say that falsely attributed quotes are clearly false but for most content it's a lot more complicated than that
A perfect example is the whole 'leninist' quote going around about Bannon-
it happened in an off the record conversation and Bannon denies it - should Facebook ban any references to this story that don't include that little piece of information and just flat out claim that Bannon said it?
A good chunk of the problem isn't sites like that as much as sites whose MO is entirely, explicitly, about knowingly fabricating fake stories, usually admitted by some disclaimer text buried at the bottom of the page that you need to highlight to see.
I mean, you can't catch all of it, but the "satire" sites that are entirely about simply lying without any attempt at satire are pretty identifiable. Ditto the ones that don't use that defense, but which like doing things like copying an actual news site's layout and presenting articles coming from www.[normal news site url].com.co or something like that. There are really unambiguous things that should be taken care of, and even that will help some.
Good point. I agree that the worst offenders are easy enough to detect, but I'm just highlighting why Facebook would be reluctant to take on the role of policing fake content.
I think it's an extremely difficult position for a content aggregator to be in
sure you can say that falsely attributed quotes are clearly false but for most content it's a lot more complicated than that
A perfect example is the whole 'leninist' quote going around about Bannon-
it happened in an off the record conversation and Bannon denies it - should Facebook ban any references to this story that don't include that little piece of information and just flat out claim that Bannon said it?
A good chunk of the problem isn't sites like that as much as sites whose MO is entirely, explicitly, about knowingly fabricating fake stories, usually admitted by some disclaimer text buried at the bottom of the page that you need to highlight to see.
I mean, you can't catch all of it, but the "satire" sites that are entirely about simply lying without any attempt at satire are pretty identifiable. Ditto the ones that don't use that defense, but which like doing things like copying an actual news site's layout and presenting articles coming from www.[normal news site url].com.co or something like that. There are really unambiguous things that should be taken care of, and even that will help some.
Good point. I agree that the worst offenders are easy enough to detect, but I'm just highlighting why Facebook would be reluctant to take on the role of policing fake content.
I dunno. I'd say it would be more highlighting how Facebook would rationalize not wanting to take on the role.
Most sites already (well, in theory) police things like fraudulent ads. Given that it's their deals and algorithms pushing promoted posts and the people-also-read links, I see handling fake content sites - at least the ones where it's incredibly clear that convincing fakery is the intent, and there's a whole ecosystem of those - as something they need to step up about as well.
I think it's an extremely difficult position for a content aggregator to be in
sure you can say that falsely attributed quotes are clearly false but for most content it's a lot more complicated than that
A perfect example is the whole 'leninist' quote going around about Bannon-
it happened in an off the record conversation and Bannon denies it - should Facebook ban any references to this story that don't include that little piece of information and just flat out claim that Bannon said it?
A good chunk of the problem isn't sites like that as much as sites whose MO is entirely, explicitly, about knowingly fabricating fake stories, usually admitted by some disclaimer text buried at the bottom of the page that you need to highlight to see.
I mean, you can't catch all of it, but the "satire" sites that are entirely about simply lying without any attempt at satire are pretty identifiable. Ditto the ones that don't use that defense, but which like doing things like copying an actual news site's layout and presenting articles coming from www.[normal news site url].com.co or something like that. There are really unambiguous things that should be taken care of, and even that will help some.
Good point. I agree that the worst offenders are easy enough to detect, but I'm just highlighting why Facebook would be reluctant to take on the role of policing fake content.
I dunno. I'd say it would be more highlighting how Facebook would rationalize not wanting to take on the role.
Most sites already (well, in theory) police things like fraudulent ads. Given that it's their deals and algorithms pushing promoted posts and the people-also-read links, I see handling fake content sites - at least the ones where it's incredibly clear that convincing fakery is the intent, and there's a whole ecosystem of those - as something they need to step up about as well.
Yeah okay I just googled some of these sites and you've convinced me. You're right. It would make facebook a better service for everyone if links to these were removed
I guess Facebook is just reluctant to because they don't want to push right wingnuts off their site
I think it's an extremely difficult position for a content aggregator to be in
sure you can say that falsely attributed quotes are clearly false but for most content it's a lot more complicated than that
A perfect example is the whole 'leninist' quote going around about Bannon-
it happened in an off the record conversation and Bannon denies it - should Facebook ban any references to this story that don't include that little piece of information and just flat out claim that Bannon said it?
A good chunk of the problem isn't sites like that as much as sites whose MO is entirely, explicitly, about knowingly fabricating fake stories, usually admitted by some disclaimer text buried at the bottom of the page that you need to highlight to see.
I mean, you can't catch all of it, but the "satire" sites that are entirely about simply lying without any attempt at satire are pretty identifiable. Ditto the ones that don't use that defense, but which like doing things like copying an actual news site's layout and presenting articles coming from www.[normal news site url].com.co or something like that. There are really unambiguous things that should be taken care of, and even that will help some.
Good point. I agree that the worst offenders are easy enough to detect, but I'm just highlighting why Facebook would be reluctant to take on the role of policing fake content.
I dunno. I'd say it would be more highlighting how Facebook would rationalize not wanting to take on the role.
Most sites already (well, in theory) police things like fraudulent ads. Given that it's their deals and algorithms pushing promoted posts and the people-also-read links, I see handling fake content sites - at least the ones where it's incredibly clear that convincing fakery is the intent, and there's a whole ecosystem of those - as something they need to step up about as well.
Yeah okay I just googled some of these sites and you've convinced me. You're right. It would make facebook a better service for everyone if links to these were removed
I guess Facebook is just reluctant to because they don't to push right wingnuts off their site
Also one of those wingnuts owns 10% of the company
I think it's an extremely difficult position for a content aggregator to be in
sure you can say that falsely attributed quotes are clearly false but for most content it's a lot more complicated than that
A perfect example is the whole 'leninist' quote going around about Bannon-
it happened in an off the record conversation and Bannon denies it - should Facebook ban any references to this story that don't include that little piece of information and just flat out claim that Bannon said it?
A good chunk of the problem isn't sites like that as much as sites whose MO is entirely, explicitly, about knowingly fabricating fake stories, usually admitted by some disclaimer text buried at the bottom of the page that you need to highlight to see.
I mean, you can't catch all of it, but the "satire" sites that are entirely about simply lying without any attempt at satire are pretty identifiable. Ditto the ones that don't use that defense, but which like doing things like copying an actual news site's layout and presenting articles coming from www.[normal news site url].com.co or something like that. There are really unambiguous things that should be taken care of, and even that will help some.
Good point. I agree that the worst offenders are easy enough to detect, but I'm just highlighting why Facebook would be reluctant to take on the role of policing fake content.
I dunno. I'd say it would be more highlighting how Facebook would rationalize not wanting to take on the role.
Most sites already (well, in theory) police things like fraudulent ads. Given that it's their deals and algorithms pushing promoted posts and the people-also-read links, I see handling fake content sites - at least the ones where it's incredibly clear that convincing fakery is the intent, and there's a whole ecosystem of those - as something they need to step up about as well.
Yeah okay I just googled some of these sites and you've convinced me. You're right. It would make facebook a better service for everyone if links to these were removed
I guess Facebook is just reluctant to because they don't to push right wingnuts off their site
Considering a quarter of the world's population have accounts on the site I suspect losing a few hundred thousand won't kill them. Still, ugh.
0
Options
UnbrokenEvaHIGH ON THE WIREBUT I WON'T TRIP ITRegistered Userregular
So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers.
Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.
Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.
Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”
The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.
So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers.
Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.
Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.
Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”
The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.
So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers.
Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.
Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.
Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”
The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.
So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers.
Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.
Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.
Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”
The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.
a business that just lets people come in and flip tables. flip tables all they want. charge like $50 an hour just to have a room to yourself filled with tables, where you can flip them to your heart's content.
I'm 100% sure she's had to deal with a WHOLE LOT OF SHIT working at FOX News. I'm not discounting the things she's no doubt been through, but she's in it for her pocket book at the end of the day, and she's a horrible person.
Posts
A perfect example is the whole 'leninist' quote going around about Bannon-
it happened in an off the record conversation and Bannon denies it - should Facebook ban any references to this story that don't include that little piece of information and just flat out claim that Bannon said it?
https://medium.com/@alascii
I mean he's gonna be helping Dad with the cyber anyway so
I have watched the News Hour and PBS since I was a child, and she has been a hero for me.
A voice in a dwindling chorus I could go to drown out bullshit and heat.
Rest in peace, Gwen, & thank you for your service.
A good chunk of the problem isn't sites like that as much as sites whose MO is entirely, explicitly, about knowingly fabricating fake stories, usually admitted by some disclaimer text buried at the bottom of the page that you need to highlight to see.
I mean, you can't catch all of it, but the "satire" sites that are entirely about simply lying without any attempt at satire are pretty identifiable. Ditto the ones that don't use that defense, but which like doing things like copying an actual news site's layout and presenting articles coming from www.[normal news site url].com.co or something like that. There are really unambiguous things that should be taken care of, and even that will help some.
The new star wars movie comes out in 4 weeks. Be the rebels you always wanted to be and get good shit done for the future of mankind :snap:
Maybe we can use this whole fucking shit show.. maybe we can be the anvil and forge a better future.
Or it all gets even worse, but fuck, what have we got to lose.
Fascism is spreading over the globe like a disease. It needs an antidote, strong and fast.
apparently she's not included
he really doesn't seem to care for her!
that's uhh yeah
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
I would like to second this.
Good point. I agree that the worst offenders are easy enough to detect, but I'm just highlighting why Facebook would be reluctant to take on the role of policing fake content.
https://medium.com/@alascii
Comin' straight out the Underdark.
I dunno. I'd say it would be more highlighting how Facebook would rationalize not wanting to take on the role.
Most sites already (well, in theory) police things like fraudulent ads. Given that it's their deals and algorithms pushing promoted posts and the people-also-read links, I see handling fake content sites - at least the ones where it's incredibly clear that convincing fakery is the intent, and there's a whole ecosystem of those - as something they need to step up about as well.
Yeah okay I just googled some of these sites and you've convinced me. You're right. It would make facebook a better service for everyone if links to these were removed
I guess Facebook is just reluctant to because they don't want to push right wingnuts off their site
https://medium.com/@alascii
Considering a quarter of the world's population have accounts on the site I suspect losing a few hundred thousand won't kill them. Still, ugh.
http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
Republican strategists have been stockpiling for some time, haven't they?
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
So much for not having baggage. Jesus that bill to ship nuclear waste from Vermont to Texas is pretty fucked.
Ouch.
One of the many benefits of facing an opposition party whose entire bench consisted of Hillary Clinton, a Reagan Republican and an obscure socialist
Meanwhile it was impossible for the Democrats to anticipate or build up a convincing case against all 17 of the possible GOP candidates
edit: god that "perform sex with yourself" line is really fucking cringey and Eichenwald needs to stop using it
She can fucking burn at this point.
???
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
probably cause he wants sec state
Clinton ran a bad campaign
...
you know what would probably make a lot of money?
a business that just lets people come in and flip tables. flip tables all they want. charge like $50 an hour just to have a room to yourself filled with tables, where you can flip them to your heart's content.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
I don't think she ever really reconciled with the fact that she was campaigning against the wind in some ways
they must have underestimated the fact that she was one of the most unpopular Democratic nominees in decades
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/14/media/megyn-kelly-donald-trump-dr-phil/
I'm 100% sure she's had to deal with a WHOLE LOT OF SHIT working at FOX News. I'm not discounting the things she's no doubt been through, but she's in it for her pocket book at the end of the day, and she's a horrible person.
Yeah, that random statistic posted completely out of context sure has me convinced.
Like, her social team was brilliant. Fucking brilliant.
I don't think that resonates with most people.
I don't think that's a statement you can make about a race that was this close
what indication is there that a single one of trump's supporters would care about him exploiting the system
that's a badge of honor for him