HorrorMovieFans.com

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism ... fake-news/

1. Run with unvetted and dubious claims
2. Get caught in lies
3. Suppress news about the lies by redirecting the public to liberal allies to explain it

And you use Breitbart???? Lmao. Both sides lie. Congrats.

Jmac Attack wrote:And you use Breitbart???? Lmao. Both sides lie. Congrats.

Breitbart reported the flagging of their content and redirect to liberal sources. When possible, I source the horse's mouth, and they are the one reporting the story.

When your star accuser gets caught fabricating evidence, that even in the best case scenario is not evidence of a crime or even bad behavior, the whole thing kinda stinks. Now pile on it by suppressing expose articles with redirects to friendlier versions is super sketchy.

Foo wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:And you use Breitbart???? Lmao. Both sides lie. Congrats.

Breitbart reported the flagging of their content and redirect to liberal sources. When possible, I source the horse's mouth, and they are the one reporting the story.

When your star accuser gets caught fabricating evidence, that even in the best case scenario is not evidence of a crime or even bad behavior, the whole thing kinda stinks. Now pile on it by suppressing expose articles with redirects to friendlier versions is super sketchy.

I gotcha. I will actually read the article when I get home. I was just laughing at your Breitbart link. You don't usually use those.

Jmac Attack wrote:

Foo wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:And you use Breitbart???? Lmao. Both sides lie. Congrats.

Breitbart reported the flagging of their content and redirect to liberal sources. When possible, I source the horse's mouth, and they are the one reporting the story.

When your star accuser gets caught fabricating evidence, that even in the best case scenario is not evidence of a crime or even bad behavior, the whole thing kinda stinks. Now pile on it by suppressing expose articles with redirects to friendlier versions is super sketchy.

I gotcha. I will actually read the article when I get home. I was just laughing at your Breitbart link. You don't usually use those.

Yup, I rarely read breitbart unless they are the source of the news. I am not taking their word on the Roy Moore stuff, but I am taking their word on the redirect because they have shown evidence.

I’m 100% ok with this. Breitbart shouldn’t be allowed to publish lies because it suits them. Fact checking seems valid and Facebook are doing the right thing.

showa58taro wrote:I’m 100% ok with this. Breitbart shouldn’t be allowed to publish lies because it suits them. Fact checking seems valid and Facebook are doing the right thing.

Yeah, but you are ok with liberal lies.

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:I’m 100% ok with this. Breitbart shouldn’t be allowed to publish lies because it suits them. Fact checking seems valid and Facebook are doing the right thing.

Yeah, but you are ok with liberal lies.

Not really. I just know a lot of places like the BBC, Reuters, DN, and the other places I tend to get my news have a rigorous process that is at least intended to get rid of outright lies. They report what sources they have and how they know or claim to know what they know. That’s a big step. Breitbart just outright lies and publishes false stories.

I don’t read the “Occupy Democrats” and I the ultra-left sources for the same reason I don’t read Breitbart.

Opinion pieces in NYT and WaPo I fully accept have a strong bias. I think I read enough to discern those slants from their sources.

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:I’m 100% ok with this. Breitbart shouldn’t be allowed to publish lies because it suits them. Fact checking seems valid and Facebook are doing the right thing.

Yeah, but you are ok with liberal lies.

Not really. I just know a lot of places like the BBC, Reuters, DN, and the other places I tend to get my news have a rigorous process that is at least intended to get rid of outright lies. They report what sources they have and how they know or claim to know what they know. That’s a big step. Breitbart just outright lies and publishes false stories.

I don’t read the “Occupy Democrats” and I the ultra-left sources for the same reason I don’t read Breitbart.

I guess you are missing the big picture here. Facebook has always been about peer to peer interaction. Suddenly when the politics are not going their way, they interject themselves as a middle person into a discussion, suggestion partisan sources for more information.

The liberal brainwashing is getting pretty extreme and it worries me as it can fuel violence. The hatred and vitriol I see from people is scary.

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:I’m 100% ok with this. Breitbart shouldn’t be allowed to publish lies because it suits them. Fact checking seems valid and Facebook are doing the right thing.

Yeah, but you are ok with liberal lies.

Not really. I just know a lot of places like the BBC, Reuters, DN, and the other places I tend to get my news have a rigorous process that is at least intended to get rid of outright lies. They report what sources they have and how they know or claim to know what they know. That’s a big step. Breitbart just outright lies and publishes false stories.

I don’t read the “Occupy Democrats” and I the ultra-left sources for the same reason I don’t read Breitbart.

I guess you are missing the big picture here. Facebook has always been about peer to peer interaction. Suddenly when the politics are not going their way, they interject themselves as a middle person into a discussion, suggestion partisan sources for more information.

The liberal brainwashing is getting pretty extreme and it worries me as it can fuel violence. The hatred and vitriol I see from people is scary.

They have no requirement to allow hate speech or propaganda. This seems fine to me as Policy.

Any violence is on its own merit or demerits to me separate from Facebook. If Facebook removing lies makes the right run over more people with a car that’s on the right, not on Facebook.

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:I’m 100% ok with this. Breitbart shouldn’t be allowed to publish lies because it suits them. Fact checking seems valid and Facebook are doing the right thing.

Yeah, but you are ok with liberal lies.

Not really. I just know a lot of places like the BBC, Reuters, DN, and the other places I tend to get my news have a rigorous process that is at least intended to get rid of outright lies. They report what sources they have and how they know or claim to know what they know. That’s a big step. Breitbart just outright lies and publishes false stories.

I don’t read the “Occupy Democrats” and I the ultra-left sources for the same reason I don’t read Breitbart.

I guess you are missing the big picture here. Facebook has always been about peer to peer interaction. Suddenly when the politics are not going their way, they interject themselves as a middle person into a discussion, suggestion partisan sources for more information.

The liberal brainwashing is getting pretty extreme and it worries me as it can fuel violence. The hatred and vitriol I see from people is scary.

They have no requirement to allow hate speech or propaganda. This seems fine to me as Policy.

Any violence is on its own merit or demerits to me separate from Facebook. If Facebook removing lies makes the right run over more people with a car that’s on the right, not on Facebook.

Those muslims are running people over in big cities all over the world because of Some Lady Committing Fraud to try to influence an Alabama election?

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:I’m 100% ok with this. Breitbart shouldn’t be allowed to publish lies because it suits them. Fact checking seems valid and Facebook are doing the right thing.

Yeah, but you are ok with liberal lies.

Not really. I just know a lot of places like the BBC, Reuters, DN, and the other places I tend to get my news have a rigorous process that is at least intended to get rid of outright lies. They report what sources they have and how they know or claim to know what they know. That’s a big step. Breitbart just outright lies and publishes false stories.

I don’t read the “Occupy Democrats” and I the ultra-left sources for the same reason I don’t read Breitbart.

I guess you are missing the big picture here. Facebook has always been about peer to peer interaction. Suddenly when the politics are not going their way, they interject themselves as a middle person into a discussion, suggestion partisan sources for more information.

The liberal brainwashing is getting pretty extreme and it worries me as it can fuel violence. The hatred and vitriol I see from people is scary.

They have no requirement to allow hate speech or propaganda. This seems fine to me as Policy.

Any violence is on its own merit or demerits to me separate from Facebook. If Facebook removing lies makes the right run over more people with a car that’s on the right, not on Facebook.

Those muslims are running people over in big cities all over the world because of Some Lady Committing Fraud to try to influence an Alabama election?

Not a clue what you’re suggesting. What did your link to Facebook have to do with extremist terrorist s? No terrorist is attacking people because of Facebook either way? So your point seems irrelevant if that’s your concern.

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:I’m 100% ok with this. Breitbart shouldn’t be allowed to publish lies because it suits them. Fact checking seems valid and Facebook are doing the right thing.

Yeah, but you are ok with liberal lies.

Not really. I just know a lot of places like the BBC, Reuters, DN, and the other places I tend to get my news have a rigorous process that is at least intended to get rid of outright lies. They report what sources they have and how they know or claim to know what they know. That’s a big step. Breitbart just outright lies and publishes false stories.

I don’t read the “Occupy Democrats” and I the ultra-left sources for the same reason I don’t read Breitbart.

I guess you are missing the big picture here. Facebook has always been about peer to peer interaction. Suddenly when the politics are not going their way, they interject themselves as a middle person into a discussion, suggestion partisan sources for more information.

The liberal brainwashing is getting pretty extreme and it worries me as it can fuel violence. The hatred and vitriol I see from people is scary.

They have no requirement to allow hate speech or propaganda. This seems fine to me as Policy.

Any violence is on its own merit or demerits to me separate from Facebook. If Facebook removing lies makes the right run over more people with a car that’s on the right, not on Facebook.

Those muslims are running people over in big cities all over the world because of Some Lady Committing Fraud to try to influence an Alabama election?

Not a clue what you’re suggesting. What did your link to Facebook have to do with extremist terrorist s? No terrorist is attacking people because of Facebook either way? So your point seems irrelevant if that’s your concern.

You mentioned people running over others in cars. Muslim extremists have been doing that a lot.

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:I’m 100% ok with this. Breitbart shouldn’t be allowed to publish lies because it suits them. Fact checking seems valid and Facebook are doing the right thing.

Yeah, but you are ok with liberal lies.

Not really. I just know a lot of places like the BBC, Reuters, DN, and the other places I tend to get my news have a rigorous process that is at least intended to get rid of outright lies. They report what sources they have and how they know or claim to know what they know. That’s a big step. Breitbart just outright lies and publishes false stories.

I don’t read the “Occupy Democrats” and I the ultra-left sources for the same reason I don’t read Breitbart.

I guess you are missing the big picture here. Facebook has always been about peer to peer interaction. Suddenly when the politics are not going their way, they interject themselves as a middle person into a discussion, suggestion partisan sources for more information.

The liberal brainwashing is getting pretty extreme and it worries me as it can fuel violence. The hatred and vitriol I see from people is scary.

They have no requirement to allow hate speech or propaganda. This seems fine to me as Policy.

Any violence is on its own merit or demerits to me separate from Facebook. If Facebook removing lies makes the right run over more people with a car that’s on the right, not on Facebook.

Those muslims are running people over in big cities all over the world because of Some Lady Committing Fraud to try to influence an Alabama election?

Not a clue what you’re suggesting. What did your link to Facebook have to do with extremist terrorist s? No terrorist is attacking people because of Facebook either way? So your point seems irrelevant if that’s your concern.

You mentioned people running over others in cars. Muslim extremists have been doing that a lot.

Then you didn’t get my point. Because my point was that violence is not linked to Facebook policy.

Bringing it back, the thing this is suggesting to me is that Facebook are implementing a more rigorous standard for widely shared content given the revelations that fake news stories about Clinton were spread by Russian operatives in an effort to undermine the US election and get Donald Trump into the White house. Facebook are clearly starting to realize they can impose better standards by forcing some content to meet certain standards. This is a good thing. You can still be a Republican who believes in fiscal responsibility, smaller government and guns, without reading Breitbart lies and misinformation.

I also want to add that in100% support the far left propaganda going through the same hoops and standards, and removing some of the obvious fslsehoods they spread about Trumpnand the Republicans.

But Facebook will allow allegations from unnamed sources masquerade as news on their pages...

See the problem?

Foo wrote:But Facebook will allow allegations from unnamed sources masquerade as news on their pages...

See the problem?

I don’t know about that story. That sounds as fake as Breitbart and could do with being clamped down I guess.