Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, October 21, 2019

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

If he's going to ban lying, he may as well say he's banning politicians in toto. The only difference between a bad politician and a good politician is how skilled they are with obfuscations, semantics, omissions, and half-truths.

#1 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-10-21 09:01 AM | Reply

@#1 ... If he's going to ban lying ...

If he is going to ban lying, he should start with himself.

... "I certainly worry about the erosion of truth," said Zuckerberg. ...

Of course he does, but most likely not in the same manner as most honorable people do.


#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-10-21 10:14 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

everyone lies on face book. BFD

#3 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-10-21 11:56 AM | Reply

@#3 ... everyone lies on face book ...

You must have an interesting set of facebook friends. ;)

#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-10-21 12:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

How stupid can you be? Disinformation - i.e. the Russian campaign - helped us get where we are. Allowing Disinformation in ads is just wrong.

I get what Mustang is saying about politicians but that is the game. Outright lies being allowed especially by groups like PACs in addition to the candidates is wrong. And speaking frankly makes your platform look even worse than it already does.

Zuckerburg was right about people sharing data on the internet when he first started. They are stupid for doing it. Now he continues to abuse the information shared and give people seeking to manipulate a platform to do so. Yes people were stupid to trust you and believe that nothing bad could come from sharing harmless posts Mark...

#5 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-10-21 01:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Asking FB to be the arbiter of the truth is not the answer. Ban all political ads...

#6 | Posted by hoser at 2019-10-21 03:57 PM | Reply

-Ban all political ads...

the constitution may have something to say about that.

#7 | Posted by eberly at 2019-10-21 04:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yes it doesn't ebr. Just look at how private industry stops free speech. The first amendment only ties the government's hands.

#8 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-10-21 05:06 PM | Reply

"Asking FB to be the arbiter of the truth is not the answer."

It is if you like the version of the truth that is compatible with Capitalism.

Our entire political process operates according to that principle.

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-21 05:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Lying on the internet? Unbelievable.
Don't have to worry about us ex-astronauts pulling stunt like that.

#10 | Posted by Docman at 2019-10-21 06:17 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

How stupid can you be? Disinformation - i.e. the Russian campaign - helped us get where we are. Allowing Disinformation in ads is just wrong.

#5 | POSTED BY GALAXIEPETE AT 2019-10-21 01:43 PM | FLAG:

You see, what we need to give Trump is a federal agency that acts as the arbiter of truth. This could not possibly go wrong.

#11 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-10-21 06:25 PM | Reply

The oath of office for elected officials should include "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury."

#12 | Posted by TenMile at 2019-10-21 08:00 PM | Reply

The constitution says politicians have to be allowed to lie on Facebook? The POTUS was impeached for lying. How do you square these things?

#13 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-10-21 08:52 PM | Reply

"The constitution says politicians have to be allowed to lie on Facebook?"

Unless someone is talking about the government banning political ads across all media (which is what it sounded like), that's Facebook's call. And Facebook is not going to ban political ads because they are profitable. Trying to find a threshold of truthiness in each political ad would not be profitable.

#14 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-10-22 01:35 AM | Reply

I would bet you dollars to donuts that if a Dem ran an ad saying that Drumpf has been credibly accused of----------, which is the truth, that ad gets rejected by Facebook, but Drumpf can tell any lie he wants and it's all good. Pure ---------!

#15 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2019-10-22 02:56 AM | Reply

So....Today's "outrage" is that FB does not fact check every entry..
I see this kind of screwballery and thank God I'm a sensible Conservative.

#16 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-10-22 08:22 AM | Reply

The POTUS was impeached for lying.

#13 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER AT 2019-10-21 08:52 PM | REPLY

Under oath. I checked the Facebook TOS for ads. No oath.

#17 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-10-22 08:28 AM | Reply

Technically but not literally

#18 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-10-22 09:59 AM | Reply

So....Today's "outrage" is that FB does not fact check every entry..
I see this kind of screwballery and thank God I'm a sensible Conservative.

#16 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE AT 2019-10-22 08:22 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Projectiom

#19 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-10-22 10:01 AM | Reply

So....Today's "outrage" is that FB does not fact check every entry..
I see this kind of screwballery and thank God I'm a sensible Conservative.
#16 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

The "Outrage" is that FB allows incredible lies to be spread and it screws up the country.

No one is asking for FB to fact check every entry. But for the most outrageous stories and ads to be taken down when they are easily demonstrably false.

Why are you against that?

#20 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-10-22 10:53 AM | Reply

The only reason we have this problem is that baby boomers are stupid enough to believe ads. Get rid of the baby boomers, get rid of the problem.

But seriously, Facebook can't be the arbiter of true and false. What we need is TRANSPARENCY. If you want to buy an ad that tells a lie, go for it. But, it should not be anonymous. Make sure it is public knowledge what group bought which ad, and what their affiliations and who their donors are, and it would eventually sort itself out.

That is what Dems want... transparency. And it is what conservatives abhor. Mainly because they benefit from lack of transparency. Just look at how much the NRA helps conservative candidates, and how much Russian money and influence went into the NRA. They want the "dark money", because the people who donate it do not want the public to know who they are. And conservatives don't want the public to know who actually bankrolls their elections.

#21 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-22 02:26 PM | Reply

"Facebook can't be the arbiter of true and false."

Oh, they could.
But that would hurt profits.
Thanks, Capitalism!

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-22 03:03 PM | Reply

Oh, they could.
But that would hurt profits.
Thanks, Capitalism!

#22 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

No... they can't. Everyone is biased. If we try to tell them that they can't allow "false" things in ads, then (as hard as they may try not to) they will filter what is "true" and "false" through their biases. Which means that one viewpoint will be elevated while another will be suppressed.

Your problem is you think by having facebook censor their ads it will somehow make conservatives less gullible to lies. The lies will still be there, and will still be consumed. It will just not be on the facebook ads.

You are trying to fight a hydra by cutting off a head at a time. It will do nothing except for waste your effort and energy and distract from the underlying problem.

Give people the information they need to make informed decisions. Conservatives never fact check anyways, they believe the "facts" that they want to be true, and disbelieve anything they find uncomfortable. Regardless of the facts one way or the other. They are a lost cause. But, other people CAN make informed decisions. Those are the ones that we should be concentrating on.

Facebook fills a need. You try to enlist facebook into your own little crusade and you are adding cost and driving people from their platform (that, rightly, feel that facebook is biased against their ideology). That need will still exist. Eventually, you weaken them enough, and a new company takes over their market share and fills the need. And you are back at square one.

We are in a capitalistic society. And that society is driven by profits. Deal with it. If a company fails to maximize profits, it will be replaced by one that can. Learn to use that to your advantage instead of flailing against it. It is not "evil" as long as we structure our society and regulations so that doing the "right" thing ALSO gets you the most profits. So try focusing on how government can incentivize companies to do the right thing instead of demonizing companies that are doing their best to follow the rules and maximize their profits at the same time.

#23 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-22 04:41 PM | Reply

Good points, don't have time to respond now.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-22 05:23 PM | Reply

We lost 58,000 people in the Vietnam war and 4,000 in the Iraq invasion, I don't know haw many died in Afghanistan, y'all can be ok with political lying but count me out. Mark Zuckerberg is a piece of crap, I know it would be impossible for Facebook to censor every ad but that company makes billions of dollars, there is no reason they couldn't try to prevent obvious lying to go on.
And, it is time to break up his monopoly.

#25 | Posted by danni at 2019-10-23 06:47 AM | Reply

When you break up monopolies and encourage competition other voices can be heard, we need to do this across the spectrum of information from the internet, to radio, to newspapers, to television. No corporation or person should be able to own all of the media in any market. Funny thing, when we had enforcement of anti[-trust laws right wing conservatives did not hold so much power in this country and it was a far better country.

#26 | Posted by danni at 2019-10-23 06:51 AM | Reply

Outright lies being allowed especially by groups like PACs in addition to the candidates is wrong...

But for the most outrageous stories and ads [need] to be taken down when they are easily demonstrably false...

The only reason we have this problem is that baby boomers are stupid enough to believe ads..

Tulsi Gabbard is being groomed by the RUSSIANS! - Hillary and The New York Times

#27 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-10-23 07:43 AM | Reply

"Everyone is biased. If we try to tell them that they can't allow "false" things in ads, then (as hard as they may try not to) they will filter what is "true" and "false" through their biases."

Sure sounds like you're saying there's no such thing as objective truth.

"Your problem is you think by having facebook censor their ads it will somehow make conservatives less gullible to lies."

I don't really think that. I think the solution to this issue is public campaign finance. A large number of people don't seem to think the Constitution can permit that, though, including all the GOP appointees to the Supreme Court, with the whole "spending money to purchase slots for political ads on TV and other media outlets equals free speech" thing.

"You are trying to fight a hydra by cutting off a head at a time. It will do nothing except for waste your effort and energy and distract from the underlying problem"

I think the underlying problem is baked in at this point, see above.

"We are in a capitalistic society. And that society is driven by profits. Deal with it."

^
Deal with it how? This is exactly why our political system is broken. Because in a capitalistic society, the winner is the one with the most money. And, as you must have noticed by now, the rich keep winning mroe and more in America, while everyone else keeps winning less and less, and some are actually losing.

I get what you're saying: The game is rigged, but it's the only game in town. Well, that sort of anger at the Democrat's rigged game against Bernie is supposedly one of the reasons Trump won. So, we did deal with it, and I don't think you like the outcome.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-23 02:01 PM | Reply

I know it would be impossible for Facebook to censor every ad but that company makes billions of dollars, there is no reason they couldn't try to prevent obvious lying to go on.
#25 | POSTED BY DANNI

The news and the politians can't agree on what is truth and what is lies.
How could some website with millions of users do it?
To expect it is unrealistic.

#29 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-10-24 09:44 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort