Media Bias

[Cunt]

Lol. Judging an article by its title. I guess "Archipelago" must be about geography then. You obviously have not read the article. Or any other I linked to.

You obviously can't forward examples of 'fake news' that both sides would agree on.

Regarding social media banning, a member from Ratskep who's basically a socialist has been suspended multiple times on Facebook for political posts. His next suspension will be a year.

But Facebook is an arm of the leftists...

The claim they make isn't that lefties never get banned, the claim is uneven application of the rules.

[Hermit]

Lol. Judging an article by its title. I guess "Archipelago" must be about geography then. You obviously have not read the article. Or any other I linked to.

You obviously can't forward examples of 'fake news' that both sides would agree on.

Fake news does not depend on the agreement of both sides. I have lost count of the number of news items you dragged in here, thinking they were true. Here's a recent classic:

[Cunt]

Lol. Judging an article by its title. I guess "Archipelago" must be about geography then. You obviously have not read the article. Or any other I linked to.

You obviously can't forward examples of 'fake news' that both sides would agree on.

Fake news does not depend on the agreement of both sides. I have lost count of the number of news items you dragged in here, thinking they were true. Here's a recent classic:

How bravely you offer examples!

That one would do, as it may indeed be fake, but a better example (more widely known) should be available. Not to someone as dumb as me, of course, but you certainly could offer up some.

[Hermit]

Lol. Judging an article by its title. I guess "Archipelago" must be about geography then. You obviously have not read the article. Or any other I linked to.

You obviously can't forward examples of 'fake news' that both sides would agree on.

Fake news does not depend on the agreement of both sides. I have lost count of the number of news items you dragged in here, thinking they were true. Here's a recent classic:

How bravely you offer examples!

That one would do, as it may indeed be fake, but a better example (more widely known) should be available.

Best known fake news summarised in two words: Stolen election.

[Cunt]

Which one? 2016? 2020? Another?

Can you get both sides to agree that it was stolen? Or that it was fake?

[Hermit]

Which one? 2016? 2020? Another?

Can you get both sides to agree that it was stolen? Or that it was fake?

2020.

No, and I don't know why I should. News is neither fake nor genuine because everybody agrees that it is.

[Cunt]

Which one? 2016? 2020? Another?

Can you get both sides to agree that it was stolen? Or that it was fake?

2020.

No, and I don't know why I should. News is neither fake nor genuine because everybody agrees that it is.

You forgot what we were talking about. It's ok. We can just agree that you also can't think of an example of 'fake news' acceptable to both sides, to use as a test.

It's a tough pickle.

[Sean Hayden]

I'm not following your reasoning here Cunt. What is it that makes you believe it is necessary for "both sides" to agree?

--//--

There are independent criteria which might be used to define disinformation, and in fact, are used for that purpose.

I think the "both sides" stipulation is something of a red herring...

[Hermit]

Which one? 2016? 2020? Another?

Can you get both sides to agree that it was stolen? Or that it was fake?

2020.

No, and I don't know why I should. News is neither fake nor genuine because everybody agrees that it is.

You forgot what we were talking about. It's ok. We can just agree that you also can't think of an example of 'fake news' acceptable to both sides, to use as a test.

It's a tough pickle.

I did not forget. We're discussing fake news. You asked me to provide examples, stipulating that

The key characteristic should be that left or right, progressive or conservative, red or blue, both will see it as clearly 'fake news'.

I provided examples, but have yet to see why unanimity needs to be a key characteristic, and you have not explained why you think it is.

[Cunt]

I'm not following your reasoning here Cunt. What is it that makes you believe it is necessary for "both sides" to agree?

--//--

There are independent criteria which might be used to define disinformation, and in fact, are used for that purpose.

I think the "both sides" stipulation is something of a red herring...

If both sides agree that a given item is 'fake news', then it can be used to test which lies can be 'gotten away with', on a given platform.

If one side doesn't think it's fake, then it isn't a good test of 'fake news'.

I think one can get away with lefty lies, easier than righty lies. Trouble is, I don't know how to find a start. What can both agree is a 'lie'? Hermit can suggest one which he insists is true, but would a smart rightie, say, Ben Shapiro, agree that it was a lie?

The election was stolen in 2016.
The election was stolen in 2020.

Both together might work...

[Hermit]

I'm not following your reasoning here Cunt. What is it that makes you believe it is necessary for "both sides" to agree?

--//--

There are independent criteria which might be used to define disinformation, and in fact, are used for that purpose.

I think the "both sides" stipulation is something of a red herring...

If both sides agree that a given item is 'fake news', then it can be used to test which lies can be 'gotten away with', on a given platform.

If one side doesn't think it's fake, then it isn't a good test of 'fake news'.

I think one can get away with lefty lies, easier than righty lies. Trouble is, I don't know how to find a start. What can both agree is a 'lie'? Hermit can suggest one which he insists is true, but would a smart rightie, say, Ben Shapiro, agree that it was a lie?

The election was stolen in 2016.
The election was stolen in 2020.

Both together might work...

I still don't know on what grounds you regard unanimity a key characteristic of fake news.

Just for the record, I regard neither the 2016 nor the 2020 election as stolen, but while proponents of stolen elections regarding the latter rely on tons of fake news to make their case, proponents of stolen elections regarding the former base theirs on the delusion that presidential elections are run on democratic principles.

[Sean Hayden]

I'm not following your reasoning here Cunt. What is it that makes you believe it is necessary for "both sides" to agree?

--//--

There are independent criteria which might be used to define disinformation, and in fact, are used for that purpose.

I think the "both sides" stipulation is something of a red herring...

If both sides agree that a given item is 'fake news', then it can be used to test which lies can be 'gotten away with', on a given platform.

If one side doesn't think it's fake, then it isn't a good test of 'fake news'.

I think one can get away with lefty lies, easier than righty lies. Trouble is, I don't know how to find a start. What can both agree is a 'lie'? Hermit can suggest one which he insists is true, but would a smart rightie, say, Ben Shapiro, agree that it was a lie?

The election was stolen in 2016.
The election was stolen in 2020.

Both together might work...

I don't understand what you're trying to achieve here. Have you considered that you can't define both sides such that you could even use your own supposedly necessary test? What percentage of side A as defined by you must agree? If not enough of side A agrees, do you plan to create a 3rd side? And having 3 sides now, must they all agree?

But forget it, it's really not obvious how this requirement relates to fake news at all.

--//--

The problem you're having with the election claims is that they are really a box of claims. Unpack them and look at the individual claims.

It will be easier to identify fake news at this level.

[Cunt]

I was trying to figure out how to show a media bias, based on what lies one could 'get away' with, in various media channels.

Facebook stops fake medical stuff, and vigorously, so one would think looking at how they attack the rona wrongpologists, but how much ad money do they take from chiropractors?

I think a good clear example is the 'very fine people' fake news. Viewing the whole speech, you KNOW he excluded the white supremacists, but the news repeated the lie (accompanied by edited video) suggesting that he said the white supremacist's were 'very fine people'.

That would do for me, as a test subject, but some Dem supporters still might insist (despite the video recording) that Turnip did it anyway.

[Brian Peacock]

Prayer cloth sellers, crystal healers, and homeopaths don't think the medical news they post on Facebook are lies. They might even say that Facebook wants to silence the truth because it's in league with the Big Pharma firms that pay for lots of ad space. Who's to say which party is good-biased or bad-biased by seeing what kind of lies they're trying to get away with - when at least one side's truth is that the other side are lying? Where do we find a proper judge to wrangle that one flat?

Seems to me that when conspiracy theorists are thwarted by reality, as they often are, they don't just change their minds and go away. Being thwarted probably makes absolute sense to them, because they're the down-trodden hero and reality is the evil villain. All I'm saying is, that even when their ideas and claims are discredited modern day quacks and conspiracy theorists are still a 'side'.

If we provisionally cast medical science and modern quackery as 'biased sides', and say that because both sides are unfairly prejudiced (biased) then the 'truth' must be found somewhere in the middle, or not at all, then what have we really gained, and what might we already have lost?

[Cunt]

I was talking about using 'lie enforcement' on social media, as a test. I'm not surprised that it is not easy to find an agreed-upon lie (agreeable to both reps and dems, for example) to use.