Social media controls the world


#986

Is that yesterday’s most famous auction paddle off to the right?


#987

#988

I have to say the Google Glass was the first thing I noticed in that photo.


#989

Alex jones - what a sniveling douchebag


#990

It appears that the Weekly Standard was added to Facebook’s roster of “fact-checking” outlets as part of a deliberate effort to pander to conservatives. A source told the news outlet Quartz that Facebook’s partnership with The Weekly Standard was part of an effort to “appease all sides.”

Earlier this year, Facebook also hired Republican Sen. John Kyl of Arizona to lead an “audit” of alleged “liberal bias at the expense of conservative voices” at the social media juggernaut. Kyl, according to Vice, “was regularly ranked among the country’s most conservative senators when he served from 1995 to 2013.” He was recently appointed to serve out the remainder of the late Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) term in office.


#991

Think progress’s article was in fact factually inaccurate, as much as they want to pretend it wasn’t.

Kavenaugh didn’t say what they suggested.

He said other stuff, which could be interpreted as having that meaning, but he didn’t actually say what they said he did, in the title of their article.

Having a conservative outlet fact checking stuff on the left isn’t bad. And that article’s title is objectively false.


#992

Given how vague a term “said” is, your post is objectively false. They didn’t claim to be quoting him; they were paraphrasing accurately.


#993

He did not have texual relations with that quotation.


#994

But it’s not really.

When you are talking about a guy’s confirmation hearing, then it means he actually said something.

Not, “he said things which I believe can be interpreted to mean x”.

Those two things are not equivalent.

One is a statement of fact, the other is a subjective opinion.

Heaven forbid they be dissuaded from clickbait headlines.

“Said” is not vague at all. It’s just false. You are giving the author a pass, and saying that she didn’t actually mean what she literally wrote, because you happen to agree with her opinion.


#995

Just like Facebook uses left leaning fact checkers to check conservative sources.
Except they aren’t.

And you’re splitting hairs. They were making a logical inference from his statements and writings.
It’s academic anyway, of course he’d vote to overturn Roe.

He’s a political operative masquerading as a judge.


#996

Again, it’s not going to hurt to have someone fact checking the stuff from a conservative irrespective. You don’t benefit from having a partisan blind spot. The other fact checkers that Facebook has have, and will continue to call right wing sources or when they lie.

No.
This is not something as simple as a transitive property.

They were expressing a subjective opinion. Kavanaugh didn’t say what they said he did.

They were saying something which was false, as clickbait. They can do better.


#997

Your argument is silly. Those same fact checkers can check liberal sources too. They are pandering to conservatives screaming how they are victims. They do that shit constantly.

Kavanaugh cited in his confirmation hearing the “ Glucksberg test” — which refers to Washington v. Glucksberg , a 1997 Supreme Court decision establishing that the Constitution does not protect a right to physician-assisted suicide. Under Glucksberg , courts should determine which rights are protected by the Constitution by asking which rights are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”

Kavanaugh also said in 2017 that “even a first-year law student could tell you that the Glucksberg ’s approach to unenumerated rights was not consistent with the approach of the abortion cases such as Roe vs. Wade in 1973, as well as the 1992 decision reaffirming Roe , known as Planned Parenthood vs. Casey .”

That right there tells you that in the context of his view on settled law, vs “correctly” settled law that there is no compulsion for the Supreme Court to uphold settled law that is not “correctly” settled law, and that in fact he would rule to overturn Roe.

Now ThinkProgress is often guilty of exaggerating their headlines and even their analysis, so in many cases they are wrong. In this case, “factually inaccurate” isn’t well accurate. That said they could have said “strongly implied.”


#998

And what happens when the Weekly standard is lying? What then?


#999

I understand their opinion. I’m not even arguing that it’s wrong.

But it’s an OPINION. It is not a fact. They stated, in the clickbait title of their article, that he said something. He didn’t. It’s factually inaccurate.

This is a major problem with “news” these days. That article’s title was trash. Don’t give them a pass on it.


#1000

Presumably they would get called as such by the other fact checkers?


#1001

The point is Timex the Weekly Standard shouldn’t be used as a fact checker just to appease “aggrieved” Conservatives. Those other fact checkers could have been used on the TP piece. But no, conservatives need to have a conservative fact checker when there is no liberal or left leaning fact checker.

Congress did this same shit with the IRS and despite that turning out to be a pile of bullshit it’s still cited as proof of bias against conservatives.

I agree that clickbait headlines are bad regardless of the partisan leaning of the source.


#1002

If they Mark something as false that’s not, then there can be criticism.

But this wasn’t it. Think progress made a false statement in the headline of their article. And being called on it isn’t bad. It’ll make them better.


#1003

I’ve been thinking about this.
I think the point of the title is irony. Of course if BK had actually literally said that, then that would be headline news and of course “no one noticed” wouldn’t apply. BK "all but said’ or “drew direct inference” is a clunky headline for a piece that otherwise had validity.

But bad headlines are bad, so I’ll concede that.

Edit:
I still think it’s bullshit they feel the need to use a conservative fact checker. Why? Why aren’t the four other fact checkers sufficient?


#1004

#1005

Facebook said the article is false. It’s not. The headline is false.
There doesn’t seem to be a difference to them. Now I agree TP should change the headline.

These writers have done a lot of good work. But in this case, they’re mistaken. This is a matter of fact, not ideology. On Facebook, headlines are far more visible and widely read than articles are. The headline on the ThinkProgress article was false. Kavanaugh didn’t say he would kill Roe . And the Standard was right to point this out.

The Standard has offered to withdraw the “false” rating if ThinkProgress changes its headline