Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.3K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 28 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 355 Fun & Games
- 80 BA Predictor Threads
- 27 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 277 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 105 Current West Ham
- 196 Men's First Team
- 3 Women's Team
- 10 PL2 & Academy
- 31 Management & Board
- 15 Stadium & Training Ground
- 22 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 375 Match Threads
- 50 MOTM
- 8 West Ham Nostalgia
- 34 Former Players and Staff
- 4 Past Games & Glories
- 34 Transfers
- 45 Transfer Speculation
- 85 Completed Transfers
- 51 Internationals
- 44 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 103 Football Chatter
- 41 Football Chatter
- 257 Other Teams & Matches
- 23 Other Players & Staff
Comments
How does Facebook govern what is fake and what is not ?
In that Channel 4 link Grey posted Leave.EU accuse Channel 4 of fake news ? so who is right and who is wrong, does someone investigate it ? therefore whilst it is being investigated does the news from any accusation of "Fake news" then get removed until it has been investigated.
There's no doubt it's complex, but I don't think that is an excuse for doing nothing.
For example, in the case you give, LeaveEU's 'evidence' against Ch4 is simply an allegation, with nothing to back it up. I don't call that fake news as long as it is clear that the statement is just an allegation and LeaveEU don't try to claim it is 'fact'.
On the other hand, some things are simple to prove/disprove and can be done so without a big debate.
I don't disagree that some issues/reports might be not clear cut.
My gripe is mainly with the FB decision simply not to remove fake news... and the justification for it.
As the existence of God cannot be proven (or disproven) it is a "belief" not a fact.
Fake news is when someone publishes outright lies.
The fact that quote is 2000 years old shows that we've been struggling with similar issues for a long time. I suddenly have a strange amount of sympathy for Facebook...
I suspect education, critical reading and challenging will be more effective countermeasures than censorship. It's certainly what I'm going for with my son, rather than rely on outside protection.
It it's made as a statement of fact, and it's not true, it's false.
No debate, no quibbling.
When we talk about 'fake news' we are referring to something is deliberately made up and shared/published/promulgated with the intent of misleading and deceiving.
It's absolutely NOT the same as an expression of faith-based (or any other) belief. Nor is it the same as a view held or position taken.
I don't disagree with you about the importance of critical reading. Sadly so many people can't or won't.
And the bible is.....................?
Fake news for one is gospel to another. I wholeheartedly agree with you in regards to fake news, by the way, faking photos, publishing false facts/figures etc etc etc. But the lines are very blurred and, well, see Valiant above. :ok:
It is an utterly different discussion, as I am sure you are well aware.
Otherwise they are just a group who believes something which has no science behind it. Same as people who say eating a teaspoon of turmeric will cure diabetes, or standing in a barrel of newts at the full moon will cure cancer.
Note 'deliberately made up'
and
'with intent to deceive'
Not the same thing at all. You are trying to shoehorn something in where it doesn't belong.
Headline: MAN FEEDS 5000 WITH TWO FISH AND A LOAF.
It`s how power and control systems (belief systems) operate. The internet has made this situation worse, and "fake news" can be spread worldwide within a matter of hours. But this is nothing new.
If it's a lie, it's a lie.
It it's made as a statement of fact, and it's not true, it's false.
No debate, no quibbling.
seems irrefutable, but:
JEREMY CORBYN IS AN ANTI SEMITE.
Fake news?
Who is telling the truth in the Jussie Smollett case?
I get the fact that fabricating a video to show a fake assault by a fake refugee on a fake WW2 hero (for instance) would shock most people. But at the same time all of us will happily sit and watch a ten minute party political broadcast by the Change UK party.
Yes, there are a lot of historical inaccuracies but then the gospels were written about 50-100 years after the events by people who weren't actual eyewitnesses and there's plenty written today about events in recent history that is inaccurate.
We all have beliefs, call it religion, philosophy or politics and we are all manipulated by what we read.
For example there are currently people gluing themselves to trains, they believe that will raise awareness of climate change and will convince more people to demand a more vigorous approach in environmental policy from government/s. I happen to think it won't make one iota of difference, that its childish adolescent rebellion and might actually alienate more people than it will convince but hey, I'm just a train driver.
Opinion, belief, call it what you will.
They don't refuse to remove fake news because deciding what is fake news 'is complicated'.
In fact, they are happy to accept that certain things are indeed fake news.
'Yep, right, that's fake all right' - they say. 'The picture was photoshopped to show Megan Marke marching in an IRA funeral procession, and it deffo never happened.'
Then what do they do about it? They use an algorithm that simply moves the fake news down the priority list a bit.
Never thought I would do that but can't trust this Parlement...
It might be difficult to work out what is fake and what isn't but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be dealt with. It isn't a difficult position to take.
So what? Does it matter who gets elected MEPs in May if we leave the EU in October?
Also a lot of talk from Rees-Mogg & co about the UK using the veto as a bargaining tool while we're still in the EU but as the latest Private Eye reveals there are only three issues we could use the veto on this year.
Sanctions on Russia which the UK supports, the European Defence Fund which the UK wants to have access to after Brexit and EU common defence projects which have already been agreed.
The big one, the EU 7-year budget, won't be up until next year by which time we'll have either left or will have given up on leaving.
As technology advances we have to advance with it, not just accept what it throws at us.
I was also being a little flippant in an earlier comment in regards to technology. I, personally, would quite happily see the internet crash and burn. I am not sure whether some of the latest technology can be classified as "advances" and our struggle to "advance" with it sounds a bit of a misnomer to me. I do realise I am in a very small (but growing) minority with this view, but, (imo) the majority of technological "advances" produce the exact opposite. Instead of enriching our lives and advancing civilized society (which imo is the point) it appears to alienate and fracture.
The drive for technological advance should be to improve peoples lives. I think this has got lost, we are producing pointless technology, technology for profit. Rather than "advancing" with technology and looking for solutions to the problems it throws at us, why not take a step backwards and ask if the whole damn thing is worth it at all. Do the benefits of the internet outweigh the negatives?
As this is the brexit thread: Leave Means Leave.
I must dash, I have an Amazon delivery due.
I wouldn’t trust channel 4 news at all. It’s even worse than the BBC