The Straight Pride Parade Was A Joke, But Antifa Took It Seriously And Injured Several Cops https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcmvFxyFNpE

Facebook is next. Then Twitter.

Zuckerberg is a different case in the sense that he hadn't been born into the Silicon Valley world at the start. He was grandfathered in. imo.

It's a distinction that I think comes into focus when comparing/contrasting Google to Facebook.

I want to redefine political bias again, here. When it comes to banning people from the site, let's think about it in a business sense.

They're doing it for the sake of efficiency.

When it comes to the Sargons, the Loomers, and the Milos of the world, Facebook sees them as the mouth of a river of shit they have to moderate as a company.

Which means resources need to be devoted to it. https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2019/snopes-pulls-out-of-its-fact-checking-partnership-with-facebook/

But I know what you people want. You want the bloody PATTERNS. Ok.

As I begin taking a direct look at what's going on with Facebook, I'm seeing similarities between Twitter and Google.

1.) There's a rift between employees and management at all three companies. This is normal, usually. But here it's exacerbated by post-2016 politics.
2.) All the problems we're seeing today started off with good-intentioned people trying to solve what they thought to be a genuinely nasty problem.

But the bad actors within their ranks decided to take advantage of that moment of emotional weakness, take the reins, and drive us all to HELL.

"are you pulling that "good-intentioned" shtick out of your ass?"

No. http://archive.is/P40PZ#selection-2151.164-2151.460

dunno if this is real. it says The Guardian on it, so that's close enough for me.

Chinese social credit system.

Peak Weimar.

A question posed by Tim Pool has been: "WHY do the fact checkers of Facebook et. al. do it for PARODY stories? (aka Babylon Bee, etc.)"

I found the answer. The fact checkers seem to be in a situation where they are forced to do it. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/13/they-dont-care-facebook-fact-checking-in-disarray-as-journalists-push-to-cut-ties

also here's the impact of being rated false.

However there's caveats to that, as with everything in life. "When Facebook’s new fact-checking system labeled a Newport Buzz article as possible “fake news”, warning users against sharing it, something unexpected happened. Traffic to the story skyrocketed, according to Christian Winthrop, editor of the local Rhode Island website."

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/16/facebook-fake-news-tools-not-working

When it comes to Big Tech I'm thinking there needs to be some kind of separate focus into ADVERTISERS specifically. They're a different class in of themselves but a crucial factor of this whole discussion.

case in point. Facebook made a response SOLELY to fight back against an assertion.

"Contrary to a claim in the story, we absolutely do not ask fact-checkers to prioritize debunking content about our advertisers." https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/12/guardian-fact-check/

Something I'm being hit over the head with is the fact that Facebook PAID fact checkers.

Facebook PAID media outlets.

It creates a conflict of interest.

I'm pretty sure most of you already knew this, but I think this is a talking point that needs more spotlight. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/13/way-too-little-way-too-late-facebooks-fact-checkers-say-effort-is-failing

Something that makes Facebook different from Google is FB's ability to do shit like this and fuck with people bbc.com/news/technology-41900877

"We found that, while most posts in the top 10 are from mainstream news sites, misinformation, dubious satire and hyperpartisan content still broke through."

That's an important sentence that changes EVERYTHING here.

EVERY
THING https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2018/we-asked-19-fact-checkers-what-they-think-of-their-partnership-with-facebook-heres-what-they-told-us/

Because it refers to, as you see in the previous sentences beforehand: POLITICALLY HOT TOPICS.

Stuff that has been at the CENTER of debates on social media for one reason or another.

That means the chance for bias and partisanship from these fact-checker types is at a MAX. Who's to say they won't play favorites there?

**I mean in a general sense and not referring to the stories mentioned in the article specifically.

But the article itself goes on to demonstrate exactly HOW the topics became disputed.

But I love this article because it allows me the opportunity to pose a question on to you. The reader.

Also society.

Have we created this belief that "fake news" is a Trump thing? As in, something impossible for anti-Trump outlets to fall privy to?

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2018/we-asked-19-fact-checkers-what-they-think-of-their-partnership-with-facebook-heres-what-they-told-us/

put that question in the back of your head and just mull it over.

It'll come up later on in life for you. And i hope when you hear the "fake news" buzzword you think back to this moment and consider it further.

Shout out to The Right Opinion who covers YouTube drama in such an in-depth way. i love it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTSgYhl6O4U