Facebook censorship?

[WebSlave]

Not that it will affect me, as I never go there, but perhaps some of you might find this of interest....

Facebook deciding what “fake news” is just means more left-wing censorship

Mike Gwilliam
Rebel Columnist

December 15, 2016

Facebook has announced it will be teaming with Snopes and ABC News to filter out 'fake news'.

According to Business Insider, “the decision comes after Facebook received heated criticism for its role in spreading a deluge of political misinformation during the U.S. presidential election.”

In addition, the report says “Facebook will make it easier to report news stories that are fake or misleading.”

How easily do you think this is going to be abused? Say there's a story about a liberal politician doing something wrong and liberals want to bury it – they'll just keep spamming that report button in an attempt to bury it.

In addition, Snopes is anything but unbiased. Remember the Idaho Migrant sexual assault case in which a little girl was victimized? Snopes labeled that story as false. In fact, it's true. Much to the displeasure of the refugee-loving mainstream media and left-wing individuals.

On a small plus side, fake/spoofed domain names such as washingtonpost.co will be reviewed. Aside from that though, look for legitimate news that the left doesn't want you to see to be filtered.

There's no mention in the article of memes with false quotes being dealt with. I'm sure you've all seen that fake Donald Trump quote where he call Republicans dumb at some point in time.

It's no secret that Mark Zuckerberg is a left-wing globalist who wants open borders. Now, by softly announcing that 'fake news' will be buried, he's essentially saying that censorship is coming. Just expect right-wing outlets to be the primary victims.

Source: http://www.therebel.media/facebook_...ke_news_means_censorship_will_be_even_greater

 

[Lucille]

Not that it will affect me, as I never go there

Censorship affects all of us whether we are on fb or not. Why? FB is so large that policies created there that might sway opinion will do so for a large chunk of people. And that in turn can have an impact on those who have different opinions, because those opinions may be viewed as fringe opinions considered by some to have less weight, when they may actually be quite on the mark.

Just about all information in newspapers, on FB, etc. has a spin on it. Some of the spin is almost imperceptible, as we all see the world through our own eyes, but some groups of eyes have a common norm so may see information in a similar manner.

Sometimes the press can really whip itself into a frenzy, and the various reports tend to egg other reports into even more frenzy. This happens all the time during hurricanes, as a for instance, when each report forecasts even more doom, and people remembering the last hurricane that amounted to just a little rain don't know quite what action to take and some jurisdictions pumped up with frenzied information actually try to mandate evacuations when that may not be necessary.

The problems that the current holders of power may have with encouraging people to think for themselves is that people may then realize that they have been fed disinformation for a long time, and those in power may not actually want people to think for themselves.

All that being said, sometimes one reads news that might affect one, or one's family, and sometimes it isn't always easy to decide whether to rely on that news. That doesn't mean that we should hand over the reins of responsibility to someone we don't know and who may not have our best interests at heart.

 

[JColt]

They can disable all of it and make FB great. Left wing or right wing crappola. If I want news I can get it elsewhere. Take advertising out too.

 

[WebSlave]

I guess I just want news that is unfiltered and unbiased. Just have the reporters relay their observations about what is going on, and let me come to my own conclusions about what it means. Don't tell me what I can or cannot read about via censorship.

Heck, I can easily tell what candidate the news services are for and against by the photos of them that they choose to post. They will usually make a candidate they support look like the savior of the world, and the one or ones they don't care for look like a buffoon or drooling monster.

The news media will also tend to turn a completely blind eye towards any and every transgression concerning their chosen candidate. And in like kind, even the most insignificant faux pas made by the unfavored candidate will be blown up into what appears to be actions made by the anti-Christ.

Sorry, this is just not what I want to see from a source of what is supposed to be bonafide news.

The concept of "fake news" is becoming a really hot topic lately. But seriously, do we really want the government to have the power to tell us what is real and what is fake news? And how are they going to square this sort of thing with the First Amendment? Is a "Ministry of Truth" going to ever be in the best TRUTHFUL interests of us, the people?