| Tech Support
|
[
Tech Support ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
8230 |
|
|
Date: January 01, 2022 at 04:32:34
From: chatillon, [DNS_Address]
Subject: In Court, Facebook Admits ‘Fact Checks’ Are Pure Opinion |
|
|
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
“Fact checks” are nothing but a biased censoring
mechanism, and now we have proof of this fact, thanks
to a lawsuit brought against Facebook by journalist
John Stossel
In court documents, Facebook admits that fact checks
are “statements of opinion” and not factual assertions
Facebook recently censored a whistleblower report
published by The British Medical Journal (BMJ), one of
the oldest and most respected peer-reviewed medical
journals in the world, variably labeling the article as
“False,” “Partly false” or “Missing context.” Some
users reported they could not share the article at all
The fact check inaccurately referred to The BMJ as a
“news blog,” failed to specify any assertions of fact
that The BMJ article got wrong, and published the fact
check under a URL containing the phrase “hoax-alert”
The BMJ calls the fact check “inaccurate, incompetent
and irresponsible.” In an open letter addressed to Mark
Zuckerberg, The BMJ urges Zuckerberg to “act swiftly”
to correct the erroneous fact check, review the
processes that allowed it to occur in the first place,
and “generally to reconsider your investment in and
approach to fact checking overall”
We’ve long suspected that fact checking organizations
are nothing but a biased censoring mechanism more
interested in manipulating opinion than establishing
actual facts, but now we have absolute proof, thanks to
a lawsuit brought against Facebook by journalist John
Stossel.1,2
In 2020, a Facebook fact checker called Science
Feedback slapped “False” and “Lacking context” labels
on two videos posted by Stossel. The videos featured
Stossel’s interviews with experts who discussed the
negligible role of climate change in the 2020
California forest fires. While they did not deny
climate change is real, they proposed there were other,
likely more contributing factors, such as poor forest
management.
Why were his videos flagged as misinformation?
According to Facebook fact checkers, Stossel was
“misleading” people when he claimed that “forest fires
are caused by poor forest management, not climate
change.” But according to Stossel, he never actually
made that claim.
According to Stossel, the labels damaged his reputation
as an investigative journalist and resulted in a loss
of followers. Interestingly, when Stossel contacted
Science Feedback about its fact checks, two reviewers
agreed to be interviewed. With regard to the first
video that got flagged, they admitted they’d never even
watched it. In the case of the second video, a reviewer
explained that they “didn’t like [his] tone.” As noted
by The New York Post:3
“That is, you can’t write anything about climate change
unless you say it’s the worst disaster in the history
of humanity and we must spend trillions to fight it.”
“The problem is the omission of contextual information
rather than specific ‘facts’ being wrong,” the fact
checker told Stossel, who says:4
“What? It’s fine if people don’t like my tone. But
Facebook declares my post ‘partly false,’ a term it
defines on its website as including ‘factual
inaccuracies.’ My video does not contain factual
inaccuracies ... I want Facebook to learn that
censorship — especially sloppy, malicious censorship,
censorship without any meaningful appeal process — is
NOT the way to go. The world needs more freedom to
discuss things, not less.”
Facebook Claims Fact Checks Are ‘Protected Opinion’
So, Stossel sued for defamation, and this is where it
gets good, because to defend Facebook, its lawyers had
to at least temporarily resort to telling the truth. In
their legal brief, they argue that fact checks are
protected under the First Amendment because they are
OPINIONS, not assertions of facts! Commenting on the
case, climate change blogger Anthony Watts writes:5
“Facebook just blew the ‘fact check’ claim right out of
the water in court. In its response to Stossel’s
defamation claim, Facebook responds on Page 2, Line 8
in the court document that Facebook cannot be sued for
defamation (which is making a false and harmful
assertion) because its ‘fact checks’ are mere
statements of opinion rather than factual assertions.
Opinions are not subject to defamation claims, while
false assertions of fact can be subject to defamation
... So, in a court of law, in a legal filing, Facebook
admits that its ‘fact checks’ are not really ‘fact’
checks at all, but merely ‘opinion assertions.’
This strikes me as public relations disaster, and
possibly a looming legal disaster for Facebook,
PolitiFact, Climate Feedback and other left-leaning
entities that engage in biased ‘fact checking.’
Such ‘fact checks’ are now shown to be simply an agenda
to suppress free speech and the open discussion of
science by disguising liberal media activism as
something supposedly factual, noble, neutral,
trustworthy, and based on science. It is none of
those.”
Facebook Censors The British Medical Journal
Stossel is far from alone in being censored these days.
In the video above, he points out other noteworthy
experts who have been censored for their opinions and
educated stances, such as environmentalist Michael
Shellenberger, once hailed by Time Magazine as a “hero
of the environment,” statistician and environmentalist
Bjorn Lomborg, once declared “one of the most
influential people of the 21st century,” and science
writer John Tierney.
As Facebook has now admitted in court, these so-called
fact checks are nothing more than a declaration of
preferred opinion. They’re statements of approved
narrative. They have nothing to do with the
verification of facts.
Of course, I am no stranger to censorship either,
having been falsely labeled as one of the “biggest
misinformation agents” on the entire internet when it
comes to the COVID jab. In these times of Orwellian
Doublespeak, I consider this one of most significant
achievements I have ever achieved.
Think about it for a moment. The entire mainstream
media has agreed that I am the most influential
spreader of the truth about COVID on the internet. Even
my friend and major freedom fighter, Bobby Kennedy, was
only No. 2. I couldn’t be more delighted with their
award. I might even have it inscribed on my tombstone.
Most recently, Facebook even censored The British
Medical Journal (BMJ) over an article that highlighted
potential problems with Pfizer’s COVID jab trial, and
The BMJ is one of the oldest and most respected peer-
reviewed medical journals in the world!
In early November 2021, The BMJ published a
whistleblower report6 that claimed there were serious
data integrity issues in the Pfizer COVID jab trial.
The article was censored by Facebook and labeled
variably as either “False,” “Partly false” or “Missing
context.” Some users reported the article could not be
shared at all.
The Facebook fact check of The BMJ article was done by
Lead Stories, a Facebook contractor. The headline of
its “fact check” rebuttal read: “Fact Check: The
British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying
and Ignored Reports of Flaws in Pfizer’s COVID-19
Vaccine Trials.”7
‘Inaccurate, Incompetent and Irresponsible’ Fact
Checking
In response, The BMJ has slammed the fact check,
calling it “inaccurate, incompetent and
irresponsible.”8,9,10 In an open letter11 addressed to
Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, The BMJ urges Zuckerberg to
“act swiftly” to correct the erroneous fact check,
review the processes that allowed it to occur in the
first place, and “generally to reconsider your
investment in and approach to fact checking overall.”
As noted by The BMJ in its letter, the Lead Stories’
fact check:12
Inaccurately referred to The BMJ as a “news blog”
Failed to specify any assertions of fact that The BMJ
article got wrong
Published the fact check on the Lead Stories’ website
under a URL that contains the phrase “hoax-alert”
Lead Stories refused to address the inaccuracies when
contacted by The BMJ directly. The BMJ also raises “a
wider concern” in its letter:
“We are aware that The BMJ is not the only high quality
information provider to have been affected by the
incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime. To give
one other example, we would highlight the treatment by
Instagram (also owned by Meta) of Cochrane, the
international provider of high quality systematic
reviews of the medical evidence.
Rather than investing a proportion of Meta’s
substantial profits to help ensure the accuracy of
medical information shared through social media, you
have apparently delegated responsibility to people
incompetent in carrying out this crucial task.
Fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for
decades. What has happened in this instance should be
of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources
such as The BMJ.”
Fact Checkers Are as Biased as They Come
When it comes to fact checking, it’s high time everyone
understood that fact checks are not done by
independent, unbiased parties who are sifting through
facts to make sure a given piece is accurate.
As Facebook has now admitted in court, these so-called
fact checks are nothing more than a declaration of
preferred opinion. They’re statements of approved
narrative. They have nothing to do with the
verification of facts. As reported by the New York
Post:13
“The Post has faced this same gauntlet too many times.
In February 2020, we published a column by Steven W.
Mosher asking if COVID-19 leaked from the Wuhan Lab.
This was labeled ‘false’ by Facebook’s fact-checkers.
Of course, those supposed ‘independent’ scientific
reviewers relied on a group of experts who had a vested
interest in dismissing that theory — including
EcoHealth, which had funded the Wuhan lab.
When Twitter ‘fact checked’ and blocked The Post’s
stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop as ‘hacked
materials,’ what was the basis? Nothing. It wasn’t
hacked; the company’s staff just wanted an excuse.
Guess they didn’t like our tone. In both these cases,
our ‘fact checks’ were lifted, but only after it no
longer mattered.”
The New York Post also points out that “The fact-check
industry is funded by liberal moguls such as George
Soros, government-funded nonprofits and the tech giants
themselves.”14 Science Feedback, for example, received
seed funding from Google.15
Journalism’s icon, the Poynter Institute — which runs
the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) — also
funded Science Feedback to build what Poynter describes
as “a database of fact checks and of websites that
spread misinformation the most.”
In a round robin of circular funding, IFCN’s revenues
come from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google,
Facebook and government entities such as the U.S.
Department of State.16 To top it off, Science
Feedback’s crowdfunding is run through the University
of California, Merced, so they can avoid taxes in the
United States.17
Fact Checkers Protect the Technocratic Agenda
One of the primary funders of the fake fact checking
industry that The Post failed to mention is the drug
industry. NewsGuard and other fact checking
organizations are loaded with Big Pharma conflicts of
interest, and their bias in favor of the drug industry
is undeniable.
Fact checking organizations are also clearly influenced
by technocratic organizations such as the World
Economic Forum, which is leading the call for a Great
Reset. NewsGuard, for example, is partnered with
Publicis,18 one of the world’s largest PR companies
that has a huge roster of Big Pharma clients, and
Publicis in turn is a partner of the World Economic
Forum.
NewsGuard also received a large chunk of its startup
capital from Publicis. No doubt, Big Pharma and The
Great Reset are tightly intertwined and work together
toward the same goal, which is nothing less than world
domination and the enslavement of the global population
under a biomedical police state.
PR Posing as Free Press Has Unleashed Fake News
Pandemic
Publicis actually appears to be coordinating the global
effort to suppress information that runs counter to the
technocratic narrative about COVID-19, its origin,
prevention and treatment — suppression and censorship
that has been repeatedly aimed at this website
specifically.
It is part of an enormous network that includes
international drug companies, fact checkers and
credibility raters like NewsGuard, Google and other
search engines, Microsoft, antivirus software companies
like Trend Micro, public libraries, schools, the
banking industry, the U.S. State Department and
Department of Defense, the World Health Organization
and the World Economic Forum.
Mind you, this is not a comprehensive list of links.
It’s merely a sampling of entities to give you an idea
of the breadth of connections, which when taken
together explain how certain views — such as
information about COVID-19 and vaccines — can be so
effectively suppressed and erased from public
discourse.
To understand the power that PR companies such as
Publicis wield, you also need to realize that PR has,
by and large, replaced the free press. This has had a
devastating effect, and I don’t think I’m overstating
the matter when I say that it is PR masquerading as
news that gave birth to the whole “fake news”
phenomenon.
However, in true Orwellian double-speak, these same
fake PR-news pushers claim everyone else is peddling
fake news. They want us to believe their PR is the
truth, even though its typically devoid of data and
flies in the face of verifiable facts.
China’s Hidden Influence
In addition to fact checkers doing the bidding of Big
Pharma and the technocratic elite, the public is also
being deceived and manipulated by Chinese propaganda.
In a December 20, 2021, New York Times article,19 Muyi
Xiao, Paul Mozur and Gray Beltran details how China
manipulates Facebook and Twitter to further its own
authoritarian aspirations.
According to Xiao, Mozur and Beltran, China’s
government has “unleashed a global online campaign” to
bolster its image and suppress accusations of human
rights abuses. To that end, it hires companies to flood
social media with fake accounts that are then used to
advance China’s agenda worldwide.
This includes creating content on demand, identifying
and tracking critics that live outside of China,
running bot networks to flood social media with
tailored propaganda messages to steer discussion and
more — strategies referred to as “public opinion
management.”
Disturbingly, while the Chinese government has long
hunted down dissenting voices inside the country and
forced them to recant, they’re now hunting Chinese
dissenters worldwide.
Any user who has connections to the mainland can find
themselves in a situation where their family members in
China are detained or threatened until or unless they
delete the offending post or account. People of Chinese
descent who live in other countries may also be
detained by police if they return to mainland China,
based on the opinions they’ve shared online.
China Aims for More Sophisticated Propaganda
According to the documents the trio obtained, the
Chinese police are also working on more sophisticated
propaganda maneuvers. For example, rather than relying
on bot farms and fake troll profiles to create an
appearance of public opinion, they’re looking to grow
popular accounts that have an organic following, so
that these accounts can later be taken over by
government to push whatever propaganda is desired at
that time.
These are known as “profiles for hire.” As explained in
the article, “The deeper engagement lends the fake
personas credibility at a time when social media
companies are increasingly taking down accounts that
seem inauthentic or coordinated.”
Facebook Itself Is an Opinion Management Tool
Of course, Facebook and Twitter lend themselves to this
kind of manipulation because they are essentially
“public opinion management” tools. Even if they didn’t
start out that way (and that’s a big if), they’ve
certainly grown into it. There can be no denying that
both platforms have been instrumental in censoring
information about COVID-19 on behalf of the drug
industry and global technocracy.
As reported by The National Pulse,20 email
correspondence between Dr. Anthony Fauci and Facebook
CEO Mark Zuckerberg reveals Zuckerberg even agreed to
send Fauci reports on Facebook users’ sentiments to
“facilitate decisions” about COVID-19 lockdowns. An
April 8, 2020, email from Zuckerberg reads in part:21
“... If we’re looking at a prolonged period of
tightening and loosening shelter restrictions around
the country, then if there are aggregate, anonymized
data reports that Facebook can generate to facilitate
these decisions, for example, we’d be happy to do this
...
We’ve kicked off a symptom survey, which will hopefully
give a county-by-county leading indicator of cases to
inform public health decisions. If there are other
aggregate data resources that you think would be
helpful, let me know ...”
As noted by The National Pulse, this is a “stark
example” of how Big Tech corporations and government
agencies collude and use user data to restrict our
freedoms and liberties.22
Government Colludes With Big Tech to Circumvent
Constitution
Indeed, aside from this, we’ve also had clear examples
of politicians colluding with Big Tech to censor on
behalf of the government, in clear violation of the
U.S. Constitution. This is why I sued U.S. Sen.
Elizabeth Warren.
In early September 2021, Warren sent a letter23 to Andy
Jassy, chief executive officer of Amazon.com, demanding
an “immediate review” of Amazon’s algorithms to weed
out books peddling “COVID misinformation.”24,25,26
Warren specifically singled out my book, “The Truth
About COVID-19,” co-written with Ronnie Cummins,
founder and director of the Organic Consumers
Association (OCA), as a prime example of “highly-ranked
and favorably-tagged books based on falsehoods about
COVID-19 vaccines and cures” that she wanted banned.
As a government official, it is illegal for her to
violate the U.S. Constitution, and pressuring private
businesses to do it for her is not a legal workaround.
Since she willfully ignored the law, Cummins and I,
along with our publisher, Chelsea Green Publishing, and
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who wrote our foreword, sued
Warren,27 both in her official and personal capacities,
for violating our First Amendment rights.
The federal lawsuit, in which Warren is listed as the
sole defendant, was filed November 8, 2021, in the
state of Washington.
‘Fact Checks’ Are Brainwashing Attempts
Is there a fact checking organization you can rely on?
The simple and direct answer is no. They all exist for
a single purpose — to metaphorically “shout over”
anyone whose views differ from the officially
sanctioned narrative on a given topic and suppress the
truth that interferes with the implementation of their
agenda.
It’s like two people trying to have a conversation
about something while a third person keeps
interjecting, screaming at the top of their lungs
“THINK THIS! SAY THIS!”
Who needs that? They’re useless. By reading them and
giving them any credence, all you’re doing is filling
your head with propaganda and increasing your
likelihood of falling into the pervasive mass
delusional psychosis we’re seeing all around us. It’s
just one big brainwashing attempt. With any amount of
luck, Facebook’s court admission that fact checks are
mere opinion pieces will end up triggering the fact
blockers’ demise.
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/202
2/01/01/fact-checkers-misinformation.aspx?
ui=88c729f009f7e8f70c63ab24e169e0818c779d286ee6097380c7
6654775f096b&sd=20140327&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=emai
l&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20220101_HL2&mid=DM1080076&rid
=1366988259
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8237] [8242] [8253] [8254] [8260] [8255] [8261] [8247] [8251] [8267] [8245] [8246] [8256] [8258] [8262] [8243] [8244] [8239] [8241] [8240] [8238] |
|
8237 |
|
|
Date: January 02, 2022 at 09:35:53
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: In Court, Facebook Admits ‘Fact Checks’ Are Pure Opinion |
|
|
says "Mercola"?? who has one of the worst fact checking
records?
Go figure lololol
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8242] [8253] [8254] [8260] [8255] [8261] [8247] [8251] [8267] [8245] [8246] [8256] [8258] [8262] [8243] [8244] [8239] [8241] [8240] [8238] |
|
8242 |
|
|
Date: January 02, 2022 at 14:28:31
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and is this post an example of trolling? |
|
|
So here Redhart responds to chatillion's post by saying:
"says "Mercola"?? who has one of the worst fact
checking records?
Go figure lololol"
No link to the media bias dude or anything.
Is this an example of trolling? I think it is.
chatillion often uses sources with horrible track
records, no doubt about that. But in this case the claim
is about something Facebook said in a court filing,
something that is very easy to validate. We don't need
to take Mercola's word for it or rely on some biased
"fact checker". It is a public court filing. Facebook's
parent Meta says their fact checkers are giving opinions
that are protected as free speech.
So Redhart's post was basically trolling chatillion as
the subject was something that was very easy to find if
it was true or false without the need for any fact
checking. Another sign it is trolling is that when ao
posted something on Health that was true but came from a
sketchy source Redhart responded by pointing out the
sketchy source and providing a link to a good source.
If source trolling was really about using valid sources
wouldn't that mean it should be consistent regardless if
it is done to Red's friends or foes? Instead of a
helpful link to friends and "Go figure lololol" to foes?
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8253] [8254] [8260] [8255] [8261] [8247] [8251] [8267] [8245] [8246] [8256] [8258] [8262] [8243] [8244] |
|
8253 |
|
|
Date: January 03, 2022 at 12:37:44
From: chatillon, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and is this post an example of trolling? |
|
|
"Horrible track records" according to those whose only
sources tend to be from corporate media or some
discredited 'fact-checker'.
Which initiates a kneejerk reaction that doesn't
address the subject--acting as an attempt to chase off
the poster.
Sad to say, many times those sites are bringing to
light info which the corpmed helps hide yet are quite
often found to be true and were exposed early. Material
that exposes something(s)/someone(s) that/who the
corpmed was/is determined to protect.
Sad also that some folks are too afraid to go 'free-
looking' for themselves and must rely on someone else
to tell them what to believe and how to think.
Never will some accept that there's always another side
to the story?
Laziness? Entrainment? Indoctrinated? Hive minds?
Temerity? Who knows.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8254] [8260] [8255] [8261] |
|
8254 |
|
|
Date: January 03, 2022 at 12:59:31
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and is this post an example of trolling? |
|
|
Hi chatillion,
Yes, horrible track records according to me. And I'm not
one to use those corporate fact checkers, they are
useless and untrustworthy in my opinion.
But horrible track records doesn't mean everything they
publish is false as in this example. In fact there have
been many examples where the source trolls went after
you on what were true stories. There is value in these
horrible sources but people are not going to believe
this stuff without verification. I know, because quite
often I read your posts and am interested enough to see
if the story can be validated. This post on Facebook
fact checkers is an example of that. Other times I find
nothing credible to verify the story and move on.
But they are horrible sources none the less and they
have said and done things to deserve that reputation.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8260] [8255] [8261] |
|
8260 |
|
|
Date: January 03, 2022 at 16:01:24
From: chatillon, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and is this post an example of trolling? |
|
|
Thank you for your courteous reply.
In any of our disagreements, I have never once found you
discourteous.
Besides not liking some of my views, perhaps what bothers
some folks about my posts is that I'm willing to go out
into what most consider the weeds and underbrush. Lots of
trash out there, but also some real gems that would
ordinarily never see the light of day--sometimes there's
a little gem that points out a dot begging to find a
connection to which leads to something otherwise lost,
passed over, dismissed, distorted or falsely reported.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
8255 |
|
|
Date: January 03, 2022 at 13:16:34
From: Nevada, [DNS_Address]
Subject: two kind of folk out there... those that seek TRUTH everywhere... |
|
|
...and those good folk that DEFINE TRUTH for the rest of
us.
I've always favored the concept that TRUTH will find us
if that's really our goal in life.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8261] |
|
8261 |
|
|
Date: January 03, 2022 at 16:02:52
From: chatillion, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: two kind of folk out there... those that seek TRUTH everywhere... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
8247 |
|
|
Date: January 02, 2022 at 22:04:27
From: JimW, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and is this post an example of trolling? |
|
|
This a good example of the BS you post.
Just my opinion
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8251] [8267] |
|
8251 |
|
|
Date: January 03, 2022 at 11:46:02
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and is this post an example of trolling? |
|
|
lol It is..I've moved on.
Happy new year, JimW
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8267] |
|
8267 |
|
|
Date: January 03, 2022 at 22:01:37
From: JimW, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and is this post an example of trolling? |
|
|
|
May next year be the very best year for you!
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
8245 |
|
|
Date: January 02, 2022 at 20:50:56
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and is this post an example of trolling? |
|
|
You don't have the link by now?
Explaining why I'm not going to bother reading it.
You seem to believe trolling is doing something you
don't like. You want to argue..? I don't want to argue,
just telling you what I'm not going to do and why.
Others can make their own decision.
You have a problem with that?
Too bad, no longer care. Whine away.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8246] [8256] [8258] [8262] |
|
8246 |
|
|
Date: January 02, 2022 at 21:25:44
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and is this post an example of trolling? |
|
|
Hi Redhart,
> You seem to believe trolling is doing something you
don't like.
No, I'm good with the actual definition of trolling. The
problem is by that definition you were trolling. You
didn't engage on the topic and were simply being
inflammatory, badmouthing the source and laughing. On a
true item! Even your typical source trolling is a form
of trolling. But this time you just mocked chatillion's
post, regardless of it being true.
Now you write "Explaining why I'm not going to bother
reading it."
But you don't have to explain why you aren't going to
bother to read something. In fact if like most adults
you would have just moved on from chatillion's post to
reading things you do want to read there would not have
been any trolling.
Don't worry, ryan will support your right to continuing
trolling people who aren't of your political
orientation. I just took the opportunity since we have
recently been discussing the definition of trolling and
the trolling several of you do on a regular basis. Not
picking on you Red, you just provided a good example of
trolling.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8256] [8258] [8262] |
|
8256 |
|
|
Date: January 03, 2022 at 13:17:42
From: Dan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and above post an example of trolling? |
|
|
Actually, what YOU do is trolling. How better to deflect
it than to point the finger at someone else. LOL
You're not fooling anyone Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8258] [8262] |
|
8258 |
|
|
Date: January 03, 2022 at 13:47:02
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and above post an example of trolling? |
|
|
Hi Dan,
I see even though several definitions of trolling have
been shared you still don't understand what trolling is.
And trolling isn't someone posting things you don't
like.
A troll doesn't want to discuss the topic while I am
always happy to engage in discussing the topic. Who
around here posts inflammatory or irrelevant material to
distract from the topic and then avoids discussing the
topic? Sound oddly familiar Dan?
And how about the topic? What are your thoughts on
Facebook's parent company Meta saying in a court filing
that Facebook fact checkers are giving their opinions?
That is actually an interesting topic that chatillion
posted but because of the trolling it hasn't been
discussed at all. Which I guess that means the trolling
was successful.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8262] |
|
8262 |
|
|
Date: January 03, 2022 at 16:56:39
From: Dan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and above post an example of trolling? |
|
|
"Who around here posts inflammatory or irrelevant
material to distract from the topic and then avoids
discussing the topic"
Ahem! YOUUUUU do! LOL LOL
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
8243 |
|
|
Date: January 02, 2022 at 15:22:29
From: ao, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and again, is THIS post an example of trolling? |
|
|
Really, is it?
Isn't anything but shutting up when you don't like something, and have
nothing to contribute otherwise, trolling?
Mama said to say nothing if I ain't got nothing nice to say.. and I always do
what mama says.. except sometimes. Like now, for instance. As I, rather
than doing what would be appropriate and say nothing, am taking the
opportunity to point out..
Hey dude.. you're trolling again.
;)
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8244] |
|
8244 |
|
|
Date: January 02, 2022 at 16:14:02
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and again, is THIS post an example of trolling? |
|
|
Hi ao,
LOL so you still don't understand what trolling is. But
this situation does provide a good example. In Redhart's
post she merely laughed at the source of a true news
item distracting from the topic while I was specific
about how Redhart's behavior constituted trolling.
Here is the definition of trolling that etc. shared
which is a bit more specific than the short definition
Akira provided:
"A troll is Internet slang for a person who
intentionally tries to instigate conflict, hostility, or
arguments in an online social community. ... Trolls
often use inflammatory messages to provoke emotional
responses out of people, disrupting otherwise civil
discussion."
I realize ryan has used the word troll to describe
anyone who you guys don't want to hear from but that
just isn't what a troll is. Trolling is someone who
responds and doesn't making any effort to focus on the
topic, such as:
"says "Mercola"?? who has one of the worst fact
checking
records?
Go figure lololol"
Just snarky and inflammatory to provoke a response. And
what did I post? I shared a link to the Meta court
filing where they said that, then pointed out Red was
trolling.
Don't worry, ryan will rule it is fine and "the few"
will be able to continue to troll people with impunity.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
8239 |
|
|
Date: January 02, 2022 at 13:08:26
From: Nevada, [DNS_Address]
Subject: fact checking in a world of "delusion" is an oxymoron Red |
|
|
...one person's fraud is anothers Bible.
This rabbit hole is way deeper than all of us combined.
Maybe we should pursue world peace instead?
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8241] [8240] |
|
8241 |
|
|
Date: January 02, 2022 at 14:13:54
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: go fish :)(NT) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
8240 |
|
|
Date: January 02, 2022 at 13:53:03
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: fact checking in a world of "delusion" is an oxymoron... |
|
|
Hi Lee,
I tend to agree. Probably the most famous failure of the
fact checkers thus far is that the fact checkers labeled
the Wuhan lab leak theory as fringe conspiracy theory.
Social media removed posts and banned users who talked
about the lab leak theory and then President Trump was
labeled as promoting a fringe conspiracy theory by all
the media no matter their political orientation.
Of course as 2021 progressed it became clear that the
lab leak was a viable origin theory all along. In May
President Biden asked the intelligence community to
investigate the lab origin theory. We found out this was
because intelligence reports which Trump also saw had
showed 3 Wuhan lab employees had been hospitalized weeks
before the first publicly acknowledged case.
Fact checking on the surface sounds like a good thing,
but as they say the road to hell is paved intentions and
the so called fact checking has become a tool used by
some to validate opinions.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
8238 |
|
|
Date: January 02, 2022 at 11:09:59
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: In Court, Facebook Admits ‘Fact Checks’ Are Pure Opinion |
URL: https://www.scribd.com/document/546236728/Facebook-admits-its-fact-check-is-opinion-page-2 |
|
Hi Redhart,
> says "Mercola"??
Nope, says Facebook themselves. See link for the court
filing from parent company Meta.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
Tech Support ] [ Main Menu ] |