PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Mase on December 22, 2016, 08:41:34 PM
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4042194/Facebook-fact-checker-arbitrate-fake-news-accused-defrauding-website-pay-prostitutes-staff-includes-escort-porn-star-Vice-Vixen-domme.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4042194/Facebook-fact-checker-arbitrate-fake-news-accused-defrauding-website-pay-prostitutes-staff-includes-escort-porn-star-Vice-Vixen-domme.html)
One of the websites Facebook is to use to arbitrate on 'fake news' is involved in a bitter legal dispute between its co-founders, with its CEO accused of using company money for prostitutes.
Snopes.com will be part of a panel used by Facebook to decide whether stories which users complain about as potentially 'fake' should be considered 'disputed'.
But the website's own troubles and the intriguing choice of who carries out its 'fact checks' are revealed by DailyMail.com, as one of its main contributors is disclosed to be a former sex-blogger who called herself 'Vice Vixen'.
Snopes.com will benefit from Facebook's decision to allow users to report items in their newsfeed which they believe to be 'fake'.
It is asking a number of organizations to arbitrate on items which are reported or which Facebook staff think may not be genuine, and decide whether they should be marked as 'disputed'."
-
When it comes to trusting sources, it should really not matter the "who."
It should only matter whether the "who" has provided traceable references that can be independently authenticated.
And anyway, it's good to see Elyssa Young ("Erin O'Bryn") a fellow Libertarian in the, um, flesh making the news.
-
When it comes to trusting sources, it should really not matter the "who."
It should only matter whether the "who" has provided traceable references that can be independently authenticated.
And anyway, it's good to see Elyssa Young ("Erin O'Bryn") a fellow Libertarian in the, um, flesh making the news.
Sources don't matter; it's the message and whether they agree with it that is the only determinant of its veracity.
-
Sources don't matter; it's the message and whether they agree with it that is the only determinant of its veracity.
unless the message comes from Russians... I guess.
-
unless the message comes from Russians... I guess.
If you don't believe the Directors of the CIA and FBI and 15 other government intelligence agencies, I guess no source other than Breitbart meets your strict requirements for unbiased intelligence.
-
If you don't believe the Directors of the CIA and FBI and 15 other government intelligence agencies, I guess no source other than Breitbart meets your strict requirements for unbiased intelligence.
Well then, I guess there really were WMDs in Iraq.
Oh, or do you only believe then when they agree with your parties agenda.
-
If you don't believe the Directors of the CIA and FBI and 15 other government intelligence agencies, I guess no source other than Breitbart meets your strict requirements for unbiased intelligence.
non sequitur
-
I see witmo is playing both sides of the field, again.
On the one hand, there were no WMD's in Iraq even though US Intelligence said so and on the other US Intelligence is infallible, never has its message massaged by the politics of progressive traitors like Obama and if you disagree you are stupid.
Got it (not so) big fella.
-
I see witmo is playing both sides of the field, again.
On the one hand, there were no WMD's in Iraq even though US Intelligence said so and on the other US Intelligence is infallible, never has its message massaged by the politics of progressive traitors like Obama and if you disagree you are stupid.
Got it (not so) big fella.
Intelligence agencies were tasked to find evidence of WMDs in Iraq by Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials, they did. BUT they also said the only evidence they could find was from known to be from unreliable sources such Curveball and the Iraqi National Congress, anti-Saddam Iraqi exiles who were known to make crap up as long as it fit their agenda of ridding Iraq of Saddam. The administration chose to disregard any and all intelligence from more reliable sources that indicated there was no significant WMD remaining in Iraq and publicize the crap intelligence with no stipulation as to reliability. Intel didn't fail, the intel was there but the Bush Administration refused to use it if it didn't fit their WMD bias.
Call me a traitor because I am against Russia messing with us--that's really laughable. You're the patriot because Vladmir Putin is now our best buddy and you trust his good intentions. Talk about the bizarro world we live in today.
-
I see witmo is playing both sides of the field, again.
On the one hand, there were no WMD's in Iraq even though US Intelligence said so and on the other US Intelligence is infallible, never has its message massaged by the politics of progressive traitors like Obama and if you disagree you are stupid.
Got it (not so) big fella.
One thing I give you, #7, you're consistent. You consistently spout drivel with no real indication of an intelligent analysis of both sides of any argument. It is what it is, what I say it is and if you disagree you are a stupid progressive liberal. It really gets old hearing the same old saw under your screen name.
-
Call me a traitor because I am against Russia messing with us--that's really laughable. You're the patriot because Vladmir Putin is now our best buddy and you trust his good intentions. Talk about the bizarro world we live in today.
I don't think you are a traitor because you are against Russia. So am I.
In fact, I don't think you are a traitor.
But I do question you when you vehemently defend idiotic Democratic lies merely because they are mouthed by Democrats.
-
I don't think you are a traitor because you are against Russia. So am I.
In fact, I don't think you are a traitor.
But I do question you when you vehemently defend idiotic Democratic lies merely because they are mouthed by Democrats.
And they're lies because you say they're lies? And yet when DT flat out lies I'm supposed to cut him some slack 'cuz why?
-
And they're lies because you say they're lies? And yet when DT flat out lies I'm supposed to cut him some slack 'cuz why?
No. You are not supposed to cut him slack when he lies. If you limited yourself to that, we would have not problem.
Just like you are not supposed to cut Democrats any slack when they lie.
-
The new marching orders for progressives is to turn a blind eye to the corruption in their party that cost them hundreds of elections this year and blame Trump.
Hey, it almost worked for Obama.