Facebook Changes Feed To Promote Posts That Aren't Fake, Sensational, Or Spam (techcrunch.com) 194
TechCrunch is reporting that Facebook is prioritizing "authentic" content in News Feed with a ranking algorithm change that detects and promotes content "that people consider genuine, and not misleading, sensational, or spammy." The algorithm will also boost stories that are going viral in real-time. From the report: To build the update, Facebook categorized Pages that frequently share inauthentic posts like fake news and clickbaity headlines, or get their posts hidden often. It then used these posts to train an algorithm that detects similar content as its shared in the News Feed. Facebook will now give extra feed visibility to posts that don't show signs of similarity to inauthentic content. Meanwhile, Facebook wants to more quickly surface big stories going viral either because the topic is being posted about by lots of people, or a Page post about the topic is seeing tons of engagement. Facebook will then take that as a signal that you might temporarily care more about the topic, and therefore show it in your News Feed while it's still hot. Facebook says it doesn't anticipate significant changes to most Pages' News Feed distribution, but some might see a small increase or decrease in referral traffic or outbound clicks depending on if they share authentic, timely content vs inauthentic and outdated stories.
Automatically demotes stories (Score:2, Interesting)
From:
Washington Post
Fox
Huffington Post
USAToday
NYT
MSNBC
NPR
Vox
Re:Automatically demotes stories (Score:4, Funny)
Damn. There must be something wrong with my code...
Re:Automatically demotes stories (Score:5, Funny)
Breitbart articles trigger a warning siren and a mechanical hand pops out of the computer to smack the poster with a rolled up newspaper.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People who get their news from Facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think many people go to Facebook to get news, it just comes down their feed because their friends keep clicking "like" and reposting on it. It's then just a case of being too lazy to go to a reputable site to figure out of it's true or not.
Don't underestimate the power of this. Even people who think they are immune are influenced by the endless torrent of stories pushing a particular angle, unless they get a regular dose of counter views.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd be surprised then. True, they don't go to Facebook to lo
Seems likely to fail (Score:5, Insightful)
So it
promotes content "that people consider genuine
Isn't the real problem that people consider anything that matches their confirmation bias to be genuine?
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a bug, it is a feature....
Re:Seems likely to fail (Score:4, Funny)
Didn't you get the memo? We're so democratic now that reality has to bend to the wishes of the majority.
Re: (Score:2)
That includes that notion that there is even a "majority" that actually thinks the same thing. That proposition has always been a bit bullshit in the US. Both factions are entirely too full of themselves and think they have much wider support than they really do.
Re: (Score:2)
So it
promotes content "that people consider genuine
Isn't the real problem that people consider anything that matches their confirmation bias to be genuine?
This AC needs to be at +5 insightful. In the short time I've been on Facebook, what has happened is the feed has adjusted itself to my friends, relatives and those people who I originally got on Facebook for in some groups that I run.
So I get both liberal claptrap and conservative bullshit. Especially because I regularly talk to and interact with both sides.
Now, if a person gets a lot of liberal info that they don't like, they might be associating with people who's political views they aren't in line
Click here (Score:2, Funny)
Facebook changed their feed...CLICK HERE to see what happens next! The results may SHOCK you!
Third-party fact checkers scares the... (Score:5, Informative)
I can point out similar instances with the other sources. I'm not totally against using these sources but I want a balance from the other sources on the other side of the political aisle.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Snopes, FactCheck.org, Politifact, ABC News, and AP can be argued not to be impartial and to have a political agenda.
All humans have personal opinions. What Snopes and the other sites do is investigate and publish with a list of their sources and explanation of them. That allows them to be publicly scrutinised and challenged. Fake news avoids such scrutiny, or accuses it of bias and conspiracy.
I'm not totally against using these sources but I want a balance from the other sources on the other side of the political aisle.
Sorry, there is no "balance" when it comes to facts and the truth. Something is either true or it isn't. Alternate facts are just lies.
Perhaps you want sites with an open conservative bias to also do fact checking. That's reasonable
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to things I have personal knowledge of those sites are total bullshit. They distort just as much as any primary propaganda site. They just try to wrap themselves up in this pompous air of self importance.
They are inferior to something like NPR that will give you enough information to make your own conclusion even if the journalist has his own obvious bias.
Re: (Score:2)
My bad, he did say "herself". Time for new glasses.
Re: (Score:2)
Negative. Alternate facts *are* facts, just from a different lens.
That is true. It's well-known in political debate for "alternative facts" to play a significant role. Pro-Choice folks might give stats on how many women aren't forced to give birth to unwanted babies, or how many single mothers (and children) aren't forced into a life a poverty to try to struggle to support a kid. Pro-Life folks might give similar stats, except noting the number of "babies who were killed."
Both of these are arguably "facts" -- they are just told from different perspectives. (Yes, the
Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, there's a simpler explanation. Maybe fact-checking is a more "left-leaning and liberal" preoccupation. The same way fake news appears to be favored by the alt-right.
http://www.npr.org/sections/al... [npr.org]
Facts are not "balanced", nor should you expect them to be. The molar mass of nitrogen is 14.0067 g/mol. I don't need to consult someone from the "other side" to tell me that nitrogen doesn't really exist, it's only a liberal conspiracy, or to give me the molar mass in units of fetal souls.
Fact-checking sources provide citations I can check. Remember what happened when "Conservapedia" came out? It was going to be a "conservative" alternative to Wikipedia. They beshat themselves so badly that the only people who visited that site were those seeking to ridicule it. Remember the president's spokesperson giving us "alternative facts"?
Remember which power structure is ascendant during this Age of Alt-Facts. Do you believe it is coincidental that it coincides with an effort to make people believe that nothing is true, no information can be trusted?
Re: (Score:2)
Facts are not "balanced", nor should you expect them to be. The molar mass of nitrogen is 14.0067 g/mol. I don't need to consult someone from the "other side" to tell me that nitrogen doesn't really exist
Bullshit. It's not nitrogen, it's phlogisticated air. Don't believe me? Try burning something in it. It won't burn because the so-called "nitrogen" is already full of phlogiston and can't take up any more.
And what's that liberal claptrap about it having a positive mass? If you fill a very large, very light
Re: (Score:3)
That's mostly irrelevant. It still means that "fake news" which conforms to left-leaning biases is more likely to slip through the fact-checking.
e.g. Every major media outlet calling it Trump's ban on Muslim immigrants, when it's actually a 120 day freeze (not that I agree with with it). By their definition, Obama banned pay raises for government workers [nytimes.com] (2 years > 120 days). Or how the
Re: (Score:2)
No, because well-known fact-checkers can still be relied upon to call out fake news no matter the bias.
http://www.snopes.com/trump-cr... [snopes.com]
Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, you could "easily" argue that, but you would be factually wrong. The photos I saw were taken within 5 minutes of the exact same time on their respective inauguration day.
This is by design. Again, you have to remember which power structure is ascendant in an age when "many people don't know what to believe". It is not a coincidence and it is not accidental.
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/art... [vice.com]
Re: (Score:2)
> one could easily argue that the Trump photo was taken at a different time
> Yes, you could "easily" argue that, but you would be factually
> wrong. The photos I saw were taken within 5 minutes of the
> exact same time on their respective inauguration day.
Actually no. The "media narrative" photo was taken later. There is even a clock tower in that photo that you can zoom into. That picture has a physical world time stamp.
This is is why there is a mismatch between "narrative photos" form behind and
Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... (Score:5, Informative)
The two most famous of these side-by-side pictures show times of 11:19am and 11:22am.
Re: (Score:3)
The two most famous of these side-by-side pictures show times of 11:19am and 11:22am.
Stop using facts. It isn't fair.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's instructive in a discussion of "fake news" that you had to go to "www.icetrend.com" to find a copy of the photos that were literally everywhere in the media.
Re: (Score:2)
Having a bias is not the same thing as presenting "alt-facts" (aka "lies").
I expect journalists to have bias. Journalists have always had bias, because people have bias. That's why it's important to have multiple sources for news, and why fact-checkers are important.
Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... (Score:4, Insightful)
I can point out similar instances with the other sources. I'm not totally against using these sources but I want a balance from the other sources on the other side of the political aisle.
Here's the interesting thing AFAIAC. People want, people want.
Don't want - do!
If you want conservative fact checking and conservative media and conservative teachers in schools - become one. Have so many conservative fact checkers that the liberal ones are just reduced to the noise background, so that their lies are laughable among the truth that the conservatives hand out.
Because if we allow liberals to run these things, we'll just turn out more liberals that listen to more liberal lies.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but fact checking is hard work. If you're going to do it, do it right.
You'll know when you are doing it right - because when you do, both sides will accuse you of being the other side.
The concept of fact checking will always have accusations thrown at it. Let's say I was a flaming liberal, saying some ridiculous Pro Hillary Clinton things, and a fact checker showed that as usual, I was a lying liberal. What would be my defense? Attack the fact checker. Call them a tool of the RNC, or something like that.
And it is true - most fact checkers tend toward the liberal side of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> When you fear independent corroboration of things, it means you're sold on bullshit. Yeeeah I'm sure Snopes is all woolly liberals - unless it agrees with you of course.
It disagrees with my first hand knowledge of events. That's a problem you can't wriggle out of. It dissembles and dismisses key relevant details to support liberal narratives.
Re: (Score:2)
I dream of the day we will have again an honest, reality-based right. Say whatever you want about Thatcher and Reagan, at least they had no fight against established science and peddle "alternative facts".
It's confusing because we're framing this wrongly. (Score:2)
It's not a matter of protecting people from exposure to falsehood: that's a fool's errand. The real problems are intellectual laziness, parochialism, and moral cowardice. It's views becoming widespread because they've been seriously challenged, and then intractable because they're what "everyone" believes, and most people are conformists.
You should focus on the achievable, which is achieving the maximum justifiable certainty.
The very notion of "balance" is broken; it is profoundly wrong-headed. You can't
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I'll be praying for you, and not randomly.
Re: (Score:2)
I just imagine you kneeling down next to your bed and praying to <god> to bless 0xdeadbeef.
Re: Third-party fact checkers scares the... (Score:2)
Maybe 02deadbeef20, but that is the fallback...
Re: (Score:2)
That's not actually true. To understand why, you have to look at the parable of the three blind men and the elephant.
Three blind men enter a room and are asked to tell what the object in the room is. One man walks up to a leg and says that the object is a tall, leathery post. The second man walks up to the tusk and says that the object is a hard rocklike statue. The third man walks up to the talk and says that the objec
Wait... what? (Score:2, Insightful)
How do they decide "what isn't fake"?
"ranking algorithm [...] that detects [...] 'that people consider genuine [...]'"
Ah, OK. Mob expertise. But that's a game Slashdot & Reddit have learnt to play *much* better.
Somehow they want the advantages of traditional media (control, reputation, gated communities, branding) without paying the price (a small army of professionals). Typical parasitic behavior. I sincerely hope they shrivel up and die, victims of some self-defense mechanism society at large invents.
Don't get your news from fb (Score:2, Interesting)
Simple solution is to read multiple news sources. Anyone who uses only one source be it FB or the NYT will have a skewed perspective and miss things.
What about the rest of the BS? (Score:4, Interesting)
5 minutes with Google will pull up that mercury was used as a preservative, had some correlation to autism, and hasn't been used since the Gov banned it in the 70's or 80's. And those research papers everyone pulls up? They all reference 1 paper, done in the 60's.
I can't wait for the braindead, unwashed masses to actually have a few braincells capable of independent thought. Since these same idiots believe everything they read on the internet (primarily Facebook), changes like this may actually help.
Re:What about the rest of the BS? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not that hard;
No publication date -1,
No Author -2,
No links to supporting articles -2,
verbatim copying of other site without quote, or a blockquote -2,
tries to get your Email address -3,
tries to get you to like page with a popup -3,
tries to get you to like page with a popunder -4,
dingus.tv or dear hughesnet subscriber popunder -5,
autoplay video -6,
any adds about herbal viagra, why a celeb doesn't talk about an offspring, or pictures being banned or embarassing -5,
Re: (Score:2)
I am just waiting for the day that we discover that vaccinations do actually cause autism but not for the reasons anybody knew about. Not that I think it will happen, but it could, you never know.
Everyone in their camp. Vaxxers vs. Anti-Vaxxers, Trump vs. Anti-Trump, Global Warming vs. Anti-Global Warming. Each side so vocal and so adamant that the other side conform to their views. Each side digging in the more they come under assault. Doubling down on their beliefs. The critical voices actually confirming
Re: (Score:2)
I can't wait for the braindead, unwashed masses to actually have a few braincells capable of independent thought. Since these same idiots believe everything they read on the internet (primarily Facebook), changes like this may actually help.
Intelligence is not required for reproduction. In fact, the stupid people are winning.
Some people think that the movie Idiocracy is predictive of the future. I think Mike Judge was on the right path, but he's way too optimistic.
I give this at most a week (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure that people will come up with circumvention techniques but FB is not exactly going to be sitting idle either. It's a cat-and-mouse game like everything else.
If you are saying that it only lasts for a week in it's current form as implemented today, I might agree with you.
If you are saying that they scrap the whole thing at the first sign of trouble... I disagree.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook Changes Feed (Score:4, Funny)
And you won't guess what happened next!
Prioritize advertisers (Score:2, Interesting)
They will prioritize their advertisers, while links to competitors will be down graded.
Links to HuffPo, CNN and WaPo will get priority while Fox, Breitbart and Drudge will get marked down.
If you can't shift the perspective, what is the point of being a billionaire, except to own a Hawaiian Island?
Re:Prioritize advertisers (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesus - I just paid a visit to CNN, and their front page "news" article about Trump nominating a Supreme Court justice was full of shit like this:
"It was a sweet moment of vindication for the Republican Party -- especially its social conservative and evangelical wings who had defied expectations that they would desert Trump over his three marriages and often vulgar tone.
Whatever he said, and whatever he did, conservatives clung on to the tiger's tail, convinced Trump would deliver them a Supreme Court pick they could get behind. Looking on were Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan, savoring their reward."
"But the President is also known to place great value in someone's appearance and might have concluded that Gorsuch, tall, fit with a square jaw and immaculately cropped gray hair looks the part of a Supreme Court Justice."
That's why I consider CNN to be as fake news-y as anyone else. I want to read fucking NEWS. I don't want interpretations of what the people might have been thinking, or derogatory assumptions, or portrayals of any sort. I just want news.
Not fake, sensationalist or spammy? (Score:2)
Guess Fakebook will no longer be celebrities' love child, then?
It works, indeed! (Score:2)
Well .... (Score:2)
"Facebook Changes Feed To Promote Posts That Aren't Fake, Sensational, Or Spam"
I noticed, they chose 'Stupid' instead.
Perhaps a silly question. . . (Score:3)
. . .but why not let the USERS decide what they see and don't see ?
Ooops, I forgot, on Facebook, the "users" are the PRODUCT. . . . because (insert the deity or deities of your parents' choice here) forbid we don't deliver vaguely-targeted irritating advertising with a patina of user sharing to make it look like "social media". . .
Show us the algorithm (Score:2)
Based on the description alone, it would seem that the only way to detect this is by majority vote. Things could get past the filter and still be wrong or misleading if enough people were misled.
Re: (Score:2)
that sounds correct. I remember a case where a Microsoft AI experimenter was made to scan the internet and use frequency and then later discussions with human beings to determine 'truthfulness'. It was shut down for the 'opinions' is stated expressing about race, women etc.
That might have been because the users thought it was fun to mess with it.
Hmmmm (Score:3)
Arbiters of what is real or what is fake?!!
And the only "problem" anyone sees in this is that they might not find all the "real" fake stuff.
The real problem is we've given control of information and news to people who cannot be unbiased because no human can.
You will see what they let you see. What they let you see will be "correct".
The terrifying thing is not that "there's incorrect stuff on Facebook!!!" The terrifying thing is "Facebook" is actively monitoring and controlling what you see in an effort to get you to believe the "correct" things.... (note any interpretation of correct, that is not one you make yourself, is coercion, manipulation, and propaganda by definition).
The commitment to "cleanse" fake news from the world is one of the most totalitarian efforts I've seen undertaken on a mass scale in my entire life...
So that is the reason? (Score:2)
In other news (Score:2)
"Facebook Changes Feed To Promote Posts That Aren't Fake, Sensational, Or Spam"
In other news, "Facebook Feeds Dropped By 99.7%"
Steem (Score:3)
Recommend taking a look at steem.io and steemit.com. Steem offers financial reward for writing, curating, mining and other positive activities. FB has zero cost to post and very little incentive for liking or disliking, so c**p has no resistance to propagation.
How is "The Onion" categorized? (Score:3)
It'll be interesting to see how this works - what is the definition of "fake" news. Will CNN drop from view? What about The Onion? (which is the definition of Fake news - although considered highbrow satire). Posts about SNL mocking Trump?
Will this stop the those who embrace alternate facts? Or fuel the conspiracy that liberal media is controlling the story? Look at FB who is now "blocking" access to the stories that people want to read - and the reason will be defined as attempting to hide the real story!!! Or hiding the stories that the media doesn't want you to read. The "Go do your own research!" movement will not die on the vine because their favorite stories are harder to find on FB. I predict that people will move to alternate sites to get their fix.
Times - they are a changing.
"Authentic" (Score:2)
Re:"get their posts hidden often" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not news.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You realize #fakenews wasn't invented till AFTER the democrats lost the election, right?
Don't believe me? Check Google Trends for fakenews.
Re: (Score:2)
You realize #fakenews wasn't invented till AFTER the democrats lost the election, right?
Don't believe me? Check Google Trends for fakenews.
I don't know about #fakenews (like a hashtag means anything) but fake news [cnn.com] was all over the media prior to the election.
Re: Better late than never (Score:2)
Not only is it true, but you'd have to be living under a rock to not remember that. It was called memogate, and CBS's lead anchor for 30 years, Dan Rather, got fired over it because he kept insisting that it was authentic on the air even though CBS's own document examiners were essentially calling BS.
There were similar other attempts at pushing fake news to try to derail that election, including a false accusation of Bush supposedly trash talking the Constitution (that one landed on slashdot by the way, IIR
Re: (Score:2)
I bet they still publish the shit that comes out of the Daily Mail that won the Brexit vote in the UK. The Mail basically advocates killing immigrants and scroungers like the unemployed and disabled because fuck them eh?
Re: Better late than never (Score:5, Insightful)
Only idiots read anything facebook. Fake holy hillary stories obviously weren't fake enough.
Ads upon ads, the reason I gave up stupid facebook centuries ago.
Newsflash matey. We are fucking drowning in idiots. What they think matters, sorry to say.
Re: Better late than never (Score:5, Insightful)
What they think matters
Only to them. But since it is easier to scream "Trump is banning immigrants!!!!!" than it is to say "Trump has suspended travel for 120 days from seven countries" all we get are the idiot posts because that is what people parrot.
Keep in mind, Obama banned immigrants just last month, and nobody cared.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
If you look at the details in this case there is a vast difference between the 2 bans, I recommend looking at the details, then you'll understand why people are so pissed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You make my case for me. I would suggest to you, that the ban from Cuba was essentially worse, because it wasn't telegraphed at all and was completely out of the blue. You cannot say the same thing about Trump, who telegraphed it from the primaries through the general election.
I do know the details, but my outlook values certain details over others. Of course, I am a racist nazi for thinking the brown/black skin people of Cuba deserve to be refugees more than the brown skin people of states that foster radi
Re: (Score:2)
Since the rapprochement between Washington and Havana began in 2015, Cubans have been bracing themselves for the policy to be cancelled and the past two years have seen a sharp rise in the numbers of people seeking to move to the US while they still can.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-38617615
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
This is where you start calling me names: Racist, bigot, homophobe... or the generic "Hater". That always works!
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's where I walk away from this, bye!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I get that, but how does THAT fact make Obama's ban "worse?" that's why I just walked away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How can you say Trumps was "unannounced" when he campaigned on it?
It was unexpected because you thought he was a politician and no politician would ever do such a thing? That is your mistake for assuming he is like everyone else before him. That is a lot of people's mistake. And that is part of the reason why he actually won (popular vote yeah yeah ... not how we elect presidents).
Re: (Score:3)
Orange Buffoon vs Pantsuit Buffoon. PotAto - Potato
Oh remind, what's the word used to describe something not true
Actually it was quite true. Cuba ban and change of the wet foot/dry foot policy was essentially worse because there were people literally on the way who got turned away by change in policy. Yeah, facts are universal. Alternative facts are those that you dismiss because they don't suit your narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
Orange Buffoon vs Pantsuit Buffoon. PotAto - Potato
Yeah no. Hillary may have been many things, but a buffoon was not one of them. So, basically, you're completely divorced from reality.
Cuba ban and change of the wet foot/dry foot policy was essentially worse because there were people literally on the way who got turned away by change in policy.
Literally worse for causing the same thing? Even if your claim of equivalence is true (it's not), you can't even get your facts straight about what happened.
I think I
Re: (Score:2)
Crowd size is literally a distraction, and irrelevant. But make a big deal out of it because says "yuge deal" like crowd sizes.
Women's March on DC was "YUGE" and yet there was no message to the march. It was and wasn't everything, depending on who you talked to. That muddled message was read loud and clear by me, "were protesting to protest". Here is an example. It was about "countering the rape culture" (and Trump's "grab her by the pussy" comment) until it is pointed out that one of the keynote speakers w
Re: (Score:2)
Crowd size is literally
It's relevant because the Trump camp lied about it, then called the lie an "alternative fact".
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Trump camp made a big deal about it, to distract you from the other thing he did yesterday, And tomorrow, it will be another distraction.You think this is ego, when it is about distracting idiots who make big deals about stupid Crowd Sizes. Keep in mind, it was the Press that started it with the stupid crowd size comparisons. Trump just took advantage of the situation the press set him up with.
The problem is, you think it is about "crowd sizes" when the reality is, it is about distraction. But go ahead
Re: (Score:2)
Ever watch a master illusionist? If you have, he is making you watch what he wants you to watch, while he does his thing where you aren't watching. The act, is just that, and part of the distraction. You're being played .
Re: (Score:2)
So? Idiots get to vote. This stuff matters.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like Star Trek: The Next Generation is 'fake news'. C'mon, man.
Re:I saw an algo change TWO DAYS AGO. (Score:5, Funny)
e.g. "Cardassians ATTACKED! (1k views)" - there are ALWAYS 1k+ talking about the Cardassians being attacked, so the entire thing is a GIMMICK.
I kind of lost track of what the Cardassians were up to after all that Dominon shit they got mixed up in. Have they still got beef with the Federation?
Incidentally, you think it's more likely that you didn't 'notice' an algo change. But hey, maybe you did, maybe you can just sniff the bits.
Re: (Score:2)
> Then think about how stupid the average person is. Then half of them are stupider than that.
And then there is the set of people who don't know the difference between the median and the average.
Re:Better late than never (Score:5, Insightful)
But.... All the media was against Trump. Where could you find FAKE news benefiting him if there were NONE telling anything good about him?
It doesn't make any sense.
Trump won, despite all Media trying to make him lose. Do yo mean that only news from cnn, fox, etc. are the real ones and everything else is fake?
Wake up and don't pretend people are stupid.
most news consumed by Trump voters were by way of facebook. Tomi Lahren posts garnered more views per episode than Bill O'Reilly. That's the tip of the iceberg though. Fake sensentional articles written by pro Russian sponsored trolls were shared at an ungodly rate. Think I'm wrong, ask a Trump voter if their timelines are now devoid of Hillary killed X person posts or Obama secret something posts. Same as how they were bombarded with these fake articles, progressive peoples timelines now look like an anti Trump site. You're right that traditional news sources were all against Trump. Traditional news sources are subject to higher standards, verifications and/or editing. Those same sources aren't going to turn pro Trump because hes president now. The shitshow we have been seeing for the past 12 days is what they wrote about all along and will continue to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most news consumed by Obama voters was from the Daily Show. News masked as .... "Comedy". When caught in a lie, it was "comedic license" but the idiots believed it anyway.
Excellent slight of hand there.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Daily Show *is* comedy, it's not news. As a viewer, I can quite easily separate the two. Jokes are made regularly against both parties, that's part of the skit. Jabs really hit home when there's an element of truth behind them.You'll see republicans (and Trump most recently) as the target of most skits because the targets are well known (people know them and have even formulated opinions) and many are full of material--some are walking jokes, lets face it.
This comedic polarization is due to the current
Re: (Score:3)
Some of us view "conspiracy sites" as primarily entertainment, even those of us that didn't vote for Hillary.
Re: (Score:2)
Well whoever decides what is "authentic" or not, hopefully it would be someone who'd take the time to read the summary before agreeing or disagreeing with it.
Re: (Score:3)
"So who decides what's "sensationalist" or "false"?"
The herd decides. Or rather, they decided. Hehe.
Re: (Score:2)