Censorship

Guy Chamberlin said:
Eh, not really. If enough partisan people don't like a nonpartisan fact, they can make it go away. Apparently the metric is users voting on whether facts are considered "helpful" or "not helpful."  That's not how facts work. Crowdsourcing facts is not better than what we were subjected to previously. And where will these brave new influencers be getting their facts? The same media with boots on the ground experts that half the people chose to ignore? 
Click to expand...
It’s actually way better by a large margin.  Those who aren’t tied to an antiquated system of “fact checking” are now also agreeing. 
 

Community Notes isn’t tied to what a “fact checker” deems worthy of being fact checked.  A big problem with the traditional fact check community.  
 

Community Notes generally doesn’t get a fact check wrong like we see time after time with traditional “fact checkers”.  
 

 
Archy1221 said:
It’s actually way better by a large margin.  Those who aren’t tied to an antiquated system of “fact checking” are now also agreeing. 
 

Community Notes isn’t tied to what a “fact checker” deems worthy of being fact checked.  A big problem with the traditional fact check community.  
 

Community Notes generally doesn’t get a fact check wrong like we see time after time with traditional “fact checkers”.  
 
Click to expand...
I find it comical that for about 300 years we just read the newspaper and watched the news and never ever cried about "fact checking", we just read it and watched it and went on with our day.

All of a sudden, I guess lying was invented, in the last 5-10 years, and BEFORE that, no one ever lied or stretched the truth or fabricated things.  

This is just like when people go "The divorce rate is so high now because of lack of morals and people can't keep their promises!"

Ummm, no, it is because until about 40 years ago women were basically f#&%ed in the job market and were totally reliant to their f#&%wad hubby who paid for everything.  

All us dongs are not getting "lied to more" now, it is just that a lot us dongs do not like the lies we are getting told now and it is easier to fact check now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
teachercd said:
I find it comical that for about 300 years we just read the newspaper and watched the news and never ever cried about "fact checking", we just read it and watched it and went on with our day.

All of a sudden, I guess lying was invented, in the last 5-10 years, and BEFORE that, no one ever lied or stretched the truth or fabricated things.  

This is just like when people go "The divorce rate is so high now because of lack of morals and people can't keep their promises!"

Ummm, no, it is because until about 40 years ago women were basically f#&%ed in the job market and were totally reliant to their f#&%wad hubby who paid for everything.  

All us dongs are not getting "lied to more" now, it is just that a lot us dongs do not like the lies we are getting told now and it is easier to fact check now.
Click to expand...
The problem with the news is, nobody vets their sources anymore. It's been a huge problem for quite a while.

 
The traditional fact checking community always responded to fact-checking requests and current rumors. It did not sit around a table and deem what facts were worthy of being checked --- which you are keen to imply came with a liberal bias. FactCheck.org was funded by the Walter Annenberg foundation, a longtime ally of Ronald Reagan.

If you care to visit any of them and run through their archives, you'll find they exposed plenty of liberal misinformation, confirmed the handful of times when Donald Trump got something right, and always showed their homework. As with anything subject to peer review, they corrected misinformation if reliable evidence became available. 

Weirdly enough, I trust Wikipedia more than many sources. It's also subject to public review and revision, but doesn't rely on an algorithm that searches for partisan percentages because facts aren't always partisan, just inconvenient.  

 
teachercd said:
It has been what "they" wanted it to be for 300 years!

Then talk radio become "it"

Then 24/7 news stations became "it"

Now social media is "it"

It has all been the same for 300 years!
Click to expand...
Social media is not news.  The sad thing is, a very large number of people think it is.  That is why leaving it unvetted and uncensored is dangerous.  Not because my fragile ears will be offended. But because our kids and American voters are going to be mainlined a bunch of bulls#!t that will have a huge effect on the fabric of society.

People are betting on the commonsense and decency of the everyday person.  These are also the same folks that say no one has commonsense or decency anymore.  This is why I’m not very stoked about all of this crap.  My opinion: it all needed to be “censored” even more.  One could say moderated.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
funhusker said:
Social media is not news.  The sad thing is, a very large number of people think it is.  That is why leaving it unvetted and uncensored is dangerous.  Not because my fragile ears will be offended. But because our kids and American voters are going to be mainlined a bunch of bulls#!t that will have a huge effect on the fabric of society.

People are betting on the commonsense of the everyday person.  These are also the same folks that say no one has commonsense anymore.  This is why I’m not very stoked about all of this crap.  My opinion: it all needed to be “censored” even more.  One could say moderated.
Click to expand...
Why isn't it news?  Not trying to argue with you, just curious.  Like, when a reporter covering the fires in Cali streams or whatever, using social media, why is that not news?

I guess the question is, what is news?

And who should "moderate" it?  Like, whoever is the President at the time?

My last question on this is...Do you think most Americans are dumb?  I don't, I think that is some common belief though.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
teachercd said:
Why isn't it news?  Not trying to argue with you, just curious.  Like, when a reporter covering the fires in Cali streams or whatever, using social media, why is that not news?

I guess the question is, what is news?

And who should "moderate" it?  Like, whoever is the President at the time?

My last question on this is...Do you think most Americans are dumb?  I don't, I think that is some common belief though.  
Click to expand...
It is a medium for news.  Most of the stuff on TV isn’t news either.  News is updated “factual” info from around the community and world.

Talk radio is also generally  not news.

 
teachercd said:
I agree, so what is "news" then?  Just literally live reporting from an event as it is happening?
Click to expand...
Tv is a medium for news that has regulations on what can be aired.  Print is a medium that has rules for what can be sold to minors.  Radio is a medium that has standards for broadcast.  Even though a majority of things on these mediums is opinion-based and entertainment, those things have to follow the standards.  Posting on Huskerboard has to be within board rules.  Social media is a medium that that is used by more folks than any of the above, and we want it to be entirely  “free speech”.  I don’t get why.

Again, News is any factual information about people and events.

 
funhusker said:
Tv is a medium for news that has regulations on what can be aired.  Print is a medium that has rules for what can be sold to minors.  Radio is a medium that has standards for broadcast.  Even though a majority of things on these mediums is opinion-based and entertainment, those things have to follow the standards.  Posting on Huskerboard has to be within board rules.  Social media is a medium that that is used by more folks than any of the above, and we want it to be entirely  “free speech”.  I don’t get why.

Again, News is any factual information about people and events.
Click to expand...
I guess that as usual I am confused.

When you are talking about what can be aired or sold to minors...are you talking about swear words and nudity?  Is that what you want taken out of social media?

I guess I thought we were talking about "fake news"

 
teachercd said:
I guess that as usual I am confused.

When you are talking about what can be aired or sold to minors...are you talking about swear words and nudity?  Is that what you want taken out of social media?

I guess I thought we were talking about "fake news"
Click to expand...
I entered this conversation because of the issues like allowing hate speech for all users to see would be in the same category as swearing and nudity in my opinion.  I guess that's my big hang up with it all.

Making up ridiculous claims about politicians or famous people isn't really any different than the National Enquirer which is available to all and sadly some take as newsworthy....

My posting history here would actually show I'm generally supportive of social media companies picking and choosing what opinions can be posted on their forums.  I have also generally though social media was doing more harm than good in our society.  I just thought we could all agree that not allowing hate speech would be something most normal folks would be okay with.  Now that FB is okay with it people are saying "it's about time!"  To me, it's really messed up.

But Twitter allowing users to post actual porn with an easy bypass by clicking a "warning" is actually kind of messed up.  And I know people "laughed" at my original post, but I wasn't joking.  Yes, Twitter has videos like this easily available. So if your kids are on Twitter, I'd do more than just see who their follows are if you are truly checking computers and phones.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
funhusker said:
I entered this conversation because of the issues like allowing hate speech for all users to see would be in the same category as swearing and nudity in my opinion.  I guess that's my big hang up with it all.

Making up ridiculous claims about politicians or famous people isn't really any different than the National Enquirer which is available to all and sadly some take as newsworthy....

My posting history here would actually show I'm generally supportive of social media companies picking and choosing what opinions can be posted on their forums.  I have also generally though social media was doing more harm than good in our society.  I just thought we could all agree that not allowing hate speech would be something most normal folks would be okay with.  Now that FB is okay with it people are saying "it's about time!"  To me, it's really messed up.
Click to expand...
Got it!  That makes way more sense.

With that said, I am 100% fine with hating on nazis, nazi lovers, hamas and pro hammy bros.  

 
Back
Top