Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Facebook VP admits their fact-checkers "are not necessarily objective"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Facebook VP admits their fact-checkers "are not necessarily objective"

    For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

    Nooooo. Really? who could have guessed



    Source: Facebook VP Admits Fact-Checkers Could Be Biased


    Facebook Vice President Nick Clegg admitted that the tech giant’s “fact-checkers” employed to weed out “fake news” from the platform could be biased.



    Facebook reportedly uses 80 different organizations across the world to flag misinformation.

    The Daily Mail obtained minutes from a meeting between Clegg and a Brussels power-breaker where the former revealed he questions the fact-checkers ability to make an impartial decision on questionable content.

    The document shows that Clegg and Vera Jourova, the vice-president of the European Commission, also discussed how Facebook targeted disinformation during the 2020 US Presidential election.

    Interestingly, the minutes add: “He [Mr Clegg] also stressed that independent fact-checkers are not necessarily objective because they have their own agenda.”

    Former Cabinet Minister David Jones told The Daily Mail that Clegg’s comments are “deeply worrying.”

    “The admission completely destroys the credibility of Facebook's own procedures. It offers news organisations no right of appeal when it censors them, even though it may have acted on the advice of fact-checkers who are motivated by 'their own agenda',” he added.

    Facebook, however, says Clegg never said anything about bias.

    “Nick never suggested there is bias in our fact-checking programme,” a spokesperson said. “He did describe that one benefit of having a range of independent fact-checking partners is the variety of specialisms in different countries and issue areas that they bring.”

    Facebook has acted as an arbiter of truth for COVID-related information since the pandemic began, restricting content that questioned the CDC’s official narrative..

    Congressman Roger Marshall M.D. (R-KS), who is also a licensed physician, was previously censored by Facebook for discussing mortality data the CDC provided.

    “A Facebook post published on Sunday afternoon by U.S. Congressman Roger Marshall, M.D. discussing updated COVID-19 death data released by the CDC was removed Monday night by Facebook without notice or explanation,” KNSS reported at the time. Marshall later said that his earlier post had “discussed the new data published by the CDC showing that only 6% of deaths were due solely to COVID-19, while the remaining 94% of deaths had two or more underlying health conditions.”

    Marshall slammed Facebook’s censorship, saying, “Social media companies should not be allowed to censor science that they disagree with.” He added that content-flagging was “corporate censorship, pure and simple.”

    “As a physician, I believe in discussing all data, options, and research with my patients,” he concluded. “This was data published by the CDC, but unfortunately did not fit the narrative that the left and the liberal media want us to believe. We cannot allow social media companies to determine what we do and not learn about this virus. Americans deserve to be informed.”



    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    One has to wonder how Facebook's "fact checkers" would rate Facebook's claim Clegg never said anything about bias.


    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

  • #2
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

    Nooooo. Really? who could have guessed



    Source: Facebook VP Admits Fact-Checkers Could Be Biased


    Facebook Vice President Nick Clegg admitted that the tech giant’s “fact-checkers” employed to weed out “fake news” from the platform could be biased.



    Facebook reportedly uses 80 different organizations across the world to flag misinformation.

    The Daily Mail obtained minutes from a meeting between Clegg and a Brussels power-breaker where the former revealed he questions the fact-checkers ability to make an impartial decision on questionable content.

    The document shows that Clegg and Vera Jourova, the vice-president of the European Commission, also discussed how Facebook targeted disinformation during the 2020 US Presidential election.

    Interestingly, the minutes add: “He [Mr Clegg] also stressed that independent fact-checkers are not necessarily objective because they have their own agenda.”

    Former Cabinet Minister David Jones told The Daily Mail that Clegg’s comments are “deeply worrying.”

    “The admission completely destroys the credibility of Facebook's own procedures. It offers news organisations no right of appeal when it censors them, even though it may have acted on the advice of fact-checkers who are motivated by 'their own agenda',” he added.

    Facebook, however, says Clegg never said anything about bias.

    “Nick never suggested there is bias in our fact-checking programme,” a spokesperson said. “He did describe that one benefit of having a range of independent fact-checking partners is the variety of specialisms in different countries and issue areas that they bring.”

    Facebook has acted as an arbiter of truth for COVID-related information since the pandemic began, restricting content that questioned the CDC’s official narrative..

    Congressman Roger Marshall M.D. (R-KS), who is also a licensed physician, was previously censored by Facebook for discussing mortality data the CDC provided.

    “A Facebook post published on Sunday afternoon by U.S. Congressman Roger Marshall, M.D. discussing updated COVID-19 death data released by the CDC was removed Monday night by Facebook without notice or explanation,” KNSS reported at the time. Marshall later said that his earlier post had “discussed the new data published by the CDC showing that only 6% of deaths were due solely to COVID-19, while the remaining 94% of deaths had two or more underlying health conditions.”

    Marshall slammed Facebook’s censorship, saying, “Social media companies should not be allowed to censor science that they disagree with.” He added that content-flagging was “corporate censorship, pure and simple.”

    “As a physician, I believe in discussing all data, options, and research with my patients,” he concluded. “This was data published by the CDC, but unfortunately did not fit the narrative that the left and the liberal media want us to believe. We cannot allow social media companies to determine what we do and not learn about this virus. Americans deserve to be informed.”



    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    One has to wonder how Facebook's "fact checkers" would rate Facebook's claim Clegg never said anything about bias.
    Your source is NewsBusters citing the Daily Mail, so it needs to be take with a grain of salt.

    I know plenty of liberals that have been banned, or put in Facebook jail.

    I think a lot of it is bots. I had one meme taken down of a smiling Hitler reading a newspaper. The caption read “ Oh, Garfield, you can’t eat all that lasagna.” No human would not have recognized that as a gag. I also had a cheesecake, 50s-style pinup cartoon flagged. It was for a Halloween party, and hardly offensive.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Backup View Post

      Your source is NewsBusters citing the Daily Mail, so it needs to be take with a grain of salt.

      I know plenty of liberals that have been banned, or put in Facebook jail.

      I think a lot of it is bots. I had one meme taken down of a smiling Hitler reading a newspaper. The caption read “ Oh, Garfield, you can’t eat all that lasagna.” No human would not have recognized that as a gag. I also had a cheesecake, 50s-style pinup cartoon flagged. It was for a Halloween party, and hardly offensive.
      Name a prominent one. Then look at the number of conservative U.S. Representatives and Senators that have been banned at different times. They even permanently banned a sitting president (FWICT they now made it a 2 year ban).

      As for the story itself, the fact that Facebook went into full spin mode in response to what Clegg was reported to have said more than adequately serves to verify it

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #4
        “A Facebook post published on Sunday afternoon by U.S. Congressman Roger Marshall, M.D. discussing updated COVID-19 death data released by the CDC was removed Monday night by Facebook without notice or explanation,” KNSS reported at the time. Marshall later said that his earlier post had “discussed the new data published by the CDC showing that only 6% of deaths were due solely to COVID-19, while the remaining 94% of deaths had two or more underlying health conditions.”

        That one was a good call.

        Comment


        • #5
          Facebook's "fact checkers" are not objective? Really, you'd have to be as stupid as a liberal to find that surprising.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            Facebook's "fact checkers" are not objective? Really, you'd have to be as stupid as a liberal to find that surprising.
            But Facebook is putting all their eggs in the basket that he never used the word "biased." I wonder how else they would describe someone who is "not necessarily objective"?

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              But Facebook is putting all their eggs in the basket that he never used the word "biased." I wonder how else they would describe someone who is "not necessarily objective"?
              They're not liars, they're just not necessarily truthful.
              Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

              Beige Nationalist.

              "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

              Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

              Comment


              • #8
                I've seen some posters use that tactic. They can imply stuff all day long, but until they explicitly say x, it has nothing to do with them, and how dare you infer that it does.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  Name a prominent one. Then look at the number of conservative U.S. Representatives and Senators that have been banned at different times. They even permanently banned a sitting president (FWICT they now made it a 2 year ban).

                  As for the story itself, the fact that Facebook went into full spin mode in response to what Clegg was reported to have said more than adequately serves to verify it
                  I can’t think of any prominent Democrat that has posted dangerous anti-science misinformation about the pandemic, called for violence, made racist comments, claimed the American election system is rigged, or incited insurrection.

                  The liberals I know that were banned called for violence, sometimes tongue-in-cheek, but they still broke the rules and deserved it.

                  Maybe the right-wingers that were banned are just bad people, who can’t play nice.

                  Admittedly, I am uncomfortable with a sitting president being banned.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    Name a prominent one. Then look at the number of conservative U.S. Representatives and Senators that have been banned at different times. They even permanently banned a sitting president (FWICT they now made it a 2 year ban).
                    But have they banned anyone who didn't deserve to be banned?


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Backup View Post

                      I can’t think of any prominent Democrat that has posted dangerous anti-science misinformation about the pandemic, called for violence, made racist comments, claimed the American election system is rigged, or incited insurrection.
                      You would have been better off stopping after "prominent Democrat." The rest has so much wrong in it that it is difficult to know where to start.

                      I guess we'll start at the beginning and just focus on the "lowlights."
                      • The censoring of conservatives started long before the Chicom coronavirus reared its ugly head. Typically, the would apologize, muttering about algorithms and bots, but much like how every single "glitch" that was detected election night happened to favor Biden, they too all went one way. Only Conservative Congressman.

                        And as I recently noted Social Media would ban a conservative for merely quoting what a liberal said because it was offensive while the liberal who originally said it is not sanctioned or even has their post censored.
                      • As for "dangerous anti-science misinformation" would that including discussing the possibility that the pandemic originated in a lab. Because those who did were censored and had their accounts suspended. Or maybe those who kept saying that your typical mask was useless, which Fauci's email's now reveals that he agreed they were worthless. This was a two-way street with misinformation flowing from all-sides -- including from the self-appointed arbitrators of what is factual.
                      • Called for violence? If that were the case Mad Max[ine] Waters would have been permanently banned years ago. If you're interested I can provide a litany of examples of calling for or encouraging violent acts from more than a few of the leaders of the Democrat Party, right up to and including old Joe himself.
                      • If racist comments got you banned then old Joe has been nothing short of a full-on racist gaffe machine since he's been elected, zinging one out on a nearly monthly basis which the MSM has been dutifully and studiously ignoring.

                        First it was that blacks are monolithic in their thinking (they all think alike) in contrast to Hispanics (and as his keepers were saying he "misspoke" old Joe went and repeated it a little later in the day).

                        Then it was how blacks aren't smart enough to figure out how to get a photo I.D. or get on the, you know ... the thing (internet).

                        And I'll bet you never heard about old Joe telling a bunch of black leaders during a zoom conference that the country is doomed and "not just because of African Americans"

                        According to old Joe, blacks are only part of the reason the country is doomed[1].

                        And just a few days ago old Joe informed us that blacks

                        "are just as capable of succeeding given the chance as white entrepreneurs are, but they don't have lawyers, they don't have accountants"


                        That's right. Old Joe doesn't think that blacks are smart enough to hire a lawyer or CPA.

                        And those are just his recent remarks. Old Joe has a long history of being pretty darn racist -- something his own VP eviscerated him for during the primaries.
                      • The election was rigged. Isn't that precisely what those on the left had claimed about the 2016 election? Hillary regularly groused how she was "cheated" and the election was "illegitimate" -- and she was followed by a lot of top level Democrats in those sort of remarks.

                        And let's not forget about the whole "Not My President" and #Resist movements. And how, even after the much anticipated Mueller Report and his testimony before Congress revealed no real evidence of any sort of collusion, 30-40% of Democrats rejected the conclusions and keep maintaining that Trump was in cahoots with Putin -- including folks like Adam Schiff, who conducted the impeachment circus in the House and drove the clown car over to the Senate.






                      1. See it here because you'll NEVER see it on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, Bloomberg...



                      the country is doomed and "not just because of African Americans"

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        You would have been better off stopping after "prominent Democrat." The rest has so much wrong in it that it is difficult to know where to start.

                        I guess we'll start at the beginning and just focus on the "lowlights."
                        Are your examples from social media? Because it seemed we were talking about social media banning people that they should not have banned, or (in the case of Democrats) not banning people that they should have.

                        I think your best example is the "lab leak" hypothesis, though to be fair that wasn't entirely the fault of the social media companies. Conspiracy theorists were claiming that the virus had been engineered in the lab as a bioweapon, and scientists were pushing back hard on that idea. Insisting that we should investigate the possibility that the virus was accidentally released from a lab should certainly have been allowed, but that idea got mixed up with the conspiracy theory, which can reasonably be considered misinformation.

                        (To be clear, I'm not saying the social media companies didn't screw up, just that we should "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.")

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                          Are your examples from social media? Because it seemed we were talking about social media banning people that they should not have banned, or (in the case of Democrats) not banning people that they should have.

                          I think your best example is the "lab leak" hypothesis, though to be fair that wasn't entirely the fault of the social media companies. Conspiracy theorists were claiming that the virus had been engineered in the lab as a bioweapon, and scientists were pushing back hard on that idea. Insisting that we should investigate the possibility that the virus was accidentally released from a lab should certainly have been allowed, but that idea got mixed up with the conspiracy theory, which can reasonably be considered misinformation.

                          (To be clear, I'm not saying the social media companies didn't screw up, just that we should "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.")
                          As even some of those on the left have reluctantly admitted, the reason that asking questions about the lab were banned wasn't because of conspiracy theories about deliberate releases. That was just the excuse[1]. The reason was because OMB. Since Trump had suggested the idea, it was to be summarily rejected since Trump could not be allowed to be right about anything. And Social Media went right along with it. You can still see the attitude expressed in the MSM as many of those in it are still struggling to find a way for Trump to be wrong even though the evidence now strongly indicates he was right.

                          And the malice/stupidity argument would be valid except for one niggling detail. Stupidity would not result in such overwhelming one-sidedness. We could expect it to be far more random. It certainly wouldn't censor and suspend the accounts of conservatives for offensive content who merely quoted what a liberal said while the liberal who said it remains uncensored. Maybe once. Conceivably twice. But not repeatedly. And if due to stupidity/incompetence, we should expect to see liberals getting in trouble for quoting what a conservative said while the conservative remains untouched. But AFAICT, we don't.





                          1. They aren't completely stupid. They can tell the difference between someone saying accident and someone saying deliberate

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            As even some of those on the left have reluctantly admitted, the reason that asking questions about the lab were banned wasn't because of conspiracy theories about deliberate releases. That was just the excuse[1]. The reason was because OMB. Since Trump had suggested the idea, it was to be summarily rejected since Trump could not be allowed to be right about anything. And Social Media went right along with it. You can still see the attitude expressed in the MSM as many of those in it are still struggling to find a way for Trump to be wrong even though the evidence now strongly indicates he was right.
                            I don't think that's the reason for Tom Cotton being banned, because he was banned before Trump made his claim.

                            And the malice/stupidity argument would be valid except for one niggling detail. Stupidity would not result in such overwhelming one-sidedness. We could expect it to be far more random. It certainly wouldn't censor and suspend the accounts of conservatives for offensive content who merely quoted what a liberal said while the liberal who said it remains uncensored. Maybe once. Conceivably twice. But not repeatedly. And if due to stupidity/incompetence, we should expect to see liberals getting in trouble for quoting what a conservative said while the conservative remains untouched. But AFAICT, we don't.
                            Examples?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                              I don't think that's the reason for Tom Cotton being banned, because he was banned before Trump made his claim.



                              Examples?
                              Here's one I mentioned a week or so back: Conservative commentator Candace Owens was banned by Twitter for re-tweeting some of the racist comments Sarah Jeong has posted in the past while Sarah Jeong was never banned or censored for posting them in the first place. Twitter was forced to apologize and reinstate her 12 hours later due to the backlash for doing so, but as Owens herself noted, others who aren't as prominent as her received no such apology and were still censored and suspended.

                              Twitter called it a "mistake" but the fact that, as Owens indicates, they didn't reverse their sanctions on less prominent people who also merely quoted Jeong, puts the lie to that story.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 07:03 PM
                              5 responses
                              40 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Gondwanaland, Yesterday, 12:34 PM
                              18 responses
                              130 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Gondwanaland, Yesterday, 10:21 AM
                              2 responses
                              42 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                              Started by Ronson, 09-17-2021, 08:16 PM
                              10 responses
                              81 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Started by Cow Poke, 09-17-2021, 05:33 PM
                              19 responses
                              113 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Working...
                              X