7 ms·

>And Huff constantly publishes stories telling gender doesn't exist. They definitely don't do this. It seems like you have a significant misunderstanding of th

>And Huff constantly publishes stories telling gender doesn't exist. They definitely don't do this. It seems like you have a significant misunderstanding of the literature being discussed. >Look mate I'm not interested in arguing who is more wrong. No, it's about who is wrong _more often_ and who reports fake stories _more often_. When the standard for one set of sources is consistently absurdly low then you can't just pretend all sources are equal. Again, it's a false equivalency.

talmand 10y ago
So your standard for trustworthy news is an outlet that is wrong "less often" than their competition you likely already dislike?
- popmystack 10y ago
  I definitely didn't say anything remotely like that, so I'm really not sure how to respond to this. I'm really tired of the one-off pedantic and disingenuous posts people seem to be okay with posting on these topics. In the context of facebook "censoring" conservative media outlets, there's an observable trend that major conservative news sources are more apt to post false or misleading content that tickle's their audiences expectations, than it is for major liberal sources. This is an observable trend. Take something as scientifically sound as global warming or evolution. Fox News or Breitbart will consistently misreport on these issues, just to be in harmony with the overall conservative narrative in the U.S. It is highly unlikely you will find equivalent liberal sources that do anything remotely like that. Liberal sources are not perfect nor are they immune from criticism. It's just _more_ likely that an editor will find reason to deny a story from a conservative source than a liberal one. Again, this doesn't seem like a problem for facebook to solve by removing editors, it seems like a problem conservatives should strive to fix. No news source is going to be perfect. They're never going to report everything accurately, and sometimes they might jump the gun to just get a story out. But there is a line when you can consistently observe a set of news sources being dishonest, or even worse, malevolent. With all this mind, keep in mind the stories that were falsely trending. It's coming from the same set of sources, with the same political idealogies that Facebook got lambasted for "censoring." You have to be blatantly ignoring what's going on at this point to admit that maybe, just maybe, the problem wasn't with the editors. And as a side note, I really have never labeled myself one way or another, but I've found over the years I'm consistently labeled as a "liberal" so I've picked it up. The only thing I've ever done is looked at the evidence, been skeptical about claims, and tried my best to form opinions around an ever revolving set of information. If that means my opinions happen to be more consistently liberal than conservative then so be it, but screaming "bias" just because one side of the U.S. political spectrum consistently has absurdly low standards is the worst kind of false equivalency.

talmand 10y ago

So your standard for trustworthy news is an outlet that is wrong "less often" than their competition you likely already dislike?

popmystack 10y ago
I definitely didn't say anything remotely like that, so I'm really not sure how to respond to this. I'm really tired of the one-off pedantic and disingenuous posts people seem to be okay with posting on these topics. In the context of facebook "censoring" conservative media outlets, there's an observable trend that major conservative news sources are more apt to post false or misleading content that tickle's their audiences expectations, than it is for major liberal sources. This is an observable trend. Take something as scientifically sound as global warming or evolution. Fox News or Breitbart will consistently misreport on these issues, just to be in harmony with the overall conservative narrative in the U.S. It is highly unlikely you will find equivalent liberal sources that do anything remotely like that. Liberal sources are not perfect nor are they immune from criticism. It's just _more_ likely that an editor will find reason to deny a story from a conservative source than a liberal one. Again, this doesn't seem like a problem for facebook to solve by removing editors, it seems like a problem conservatives should strive to fix. No news source is going to be perfect. They're never going to report everything accurately, and sometimes they might jump the gun to just get a story out. But there is a line when you can consistently observe a set of news sources being dishonest, or even worse, malevolent. With all this mind, keep in mind the stories that were falsely trending. It's coming from the same set of sources, with the same political idealogies that Facebook got lambasted for "censoring." You have to be blatantly ignoring what's going on at this point to admit that maybe, just maybe, the problem wasn't with the editors. And as a side note, I really have never labeled myself one way or another, but I've found over the years I'm consistently labeled as a "liberal" so I've picked it up. The only thing I've ever done is looked at the evidence, been skeptical about claims, and tried my best to form opinions around an ever revolving set of information. If that means my opinions happen to be more consistently liberal than conservative then so be it, but screaming "bias" just because one side of the U.S. political spectrum consistently has absurdly low standards is the worst kind of false equivalency.