Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

Ok, I'll ask again. You think it should be censored.

How about we do regulate it, but we use Fox, Breitbart and Heritage.org as the arbitrators of truth. How does that sound to you?

You don't understand what a fact checker is, do you?

And how many times are you going to post that same argument?

I suggest using copy and paste.. It will make it easier for you..

[Annoyed]

I understand the fact checkers that Facebook (itself a very liberal-biased site) proposes to use are very heavily biased to the left.

So, again and again I ask: How about we do regulate it, but we use Fox, Breitbart and Heritage.org as the arbitrators of truth.

Or is it only acceptable when the arbitrators of truth agree with your political viewpoint?

Why can't you answer that simple question?

[jelgate]

I understand the fact checkers that Facebook (itself a very liberal-biased site) proposes to use are very heavily biased to the left.

So, again and again I ask: How about we do regulate it, but we use Fox, Breitbart and Heritage.org as the arbitrators of truth.

Or is it only acceptable when the arbitrators of truth agree with your political viewpoint?

Why can't you answer that simple question?

You are suggesting the same thing your against. Just replace liberal bias with conservative bias. Political bias is why the media is in this state to begin with

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

Because your question makes no sense. This isn't a left vs right issue. It's about stopping the made-up fake, false, not real, stories from confusing people and making them believe things are happening when they're not.

Appointing a fascist hate group to fact check is obviously not going to work.

It's about sending people out to where the stories supposedly happened and getting them to ask questions about whether or not it is real.

[Annoyed]

You are suggesting the same thing your against. Just replace liberal bias with conservative bias. Political bias is why the media is in this state to begin with

Didn't you read above where I said I didn't like that idea either?

I'll ask you the same question I posed to jelgate.
How about we do regulate it, but we use Fox, Breitbart and Heritage.org as the arbitrators of truth. How does that sound to you?

As I said to jelgate, I don't like that idea either. Nobody should be censoring it. In order to remain a valuable tool that allows unfettered discussions, it must remain the responsibility of the reader to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

Didn't you read above where I said I didn't like that idea either?

But you keep repeating it!

[jelgate]

Didn't you read above where I said I didn't like that idea either?

Is their nothing you can't do edit button

[Annoyed]

Because your question makes no sense. This isn't a left vs right issue. It's about stopping the made-up fake, false, not real, stories from confusing people and making them believe things are happening when they're not.

Appointing a fascist hate group to fact check is obviously not going to work.

It's about sending people out to where the stories supposedly happened and getting them to ask questions about whether or not it is real.

No better than appointing a bunch of whiny liberal bed-wetters will work.

I know why you can't answer the question; If you say that fox/etc. would be unacceptable, you're admitting that censorship is ok, as long as the left gets to make the decisions. I'm just trying to force you to see that.

My position is that NOBDOY should be censoring it. Let the reader make up their own mind about it.

I'll be back in a while. I have to go remove some round white circles from my driveway before it warms up and they become too slushy for the snowblower to handle.

[jelgate]

But you keep repeating it!

He did it again PH

No better than appointing a bunch of whiny liberal bed-wetters will work.

I know why you can't answer the question; If you say that fox/etc. would be unacceptable, you're admitting that censorship is ok, as long as the left gets to make the decisions. I'm just trying to force you to see that.

My position is that NOBDOY should be censoring it. Let the reader make up their own mind about it.

I'll be back in a while. I have to go remove some round white circles from my driveway before it warms up and they become too slushy for the snowblower to handle.

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

He did it again PH

Indeed.. There really is no point trying to change his mind

[jelgate]

Of course not. That is a liberal brainwashing agenda. The only protection is tin foil

[Womble]

The only protection is tin foil

That's what they want you to think.

[Annoyed]

Indeed.. There really is no point trying to change his mind

Of course not.

And I know I have no chance of changing your mind. In this case, I consider the right of people to speak their minds without interference to be more important than trying to control nut jobs by censoring what they might read, while you appear to favor censorship in order to control nut jobs, with people who generally agree with your political views and disagree with mine as the censors.

Turn that around in your head. Would anyone be able to change your mind?

[garhkal]

Rubio would probably be more tasteful to most if you look purely at people who ran, Ron Paul the left would have few issues with (though that would be a harder sell to Republicans). I think out of all the republicans, the Dems and Repubs could find one that 40 (not 80) of them could live with.

Marco "Gang of 8 for amnesty" rubio? You kidding me?

And on the topic of "fake news"...
Who decides?

I've seen this topic on several sites recently.. Who decides what is "fake news"? Here is one such article.

Facebook’s Fake Fix for Fake News


Oh, yeah. ABC news, AP and the rest of the MSM are qualified to be "unbiased fact checkers". *cough* Bullfeathers! And Facebook itself has a pretty strong reputation for being on the left.

When i saw that Facebook thing, i was like "and who's gonna be the fact checkers? SNoops? A liberal site. Breibart? Same thing.
Then i read into it more and seeing ALL the hate FB is getting on this, i wonder if they will reconsider..
ALL i know is it reinforces my commitment to NEVER having a FB account!!

Strange. I thought it meant how fake news leads a crazy person to shoot up a pizza restaurant

Sort of like the whole hands up-don't shoot mantra of BLM??? Which came about cause of FAKE NEWS about Michael brown, having his hands up rather than going for the cops gun!.. OR the "Don't choke, i can't breath" mantra for Eric Garner in NY?

OR doesn't THAT FAKE news count?

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

Of course not.

And I know I have no chance of changing your mind. In this case, I consider the right of people to speak their minds without interference to be more important than trying to control nut jobs by censoring what they might read, while you appear to favor censorship in order to control nut jobs, with people who generally agree with your political views and disagree with mine as the censors.

Turn that around in your head. Would anyone be able to change your mind?

Why are you talking about censorship? This is about fake news. Made up stories. Things that didn't happen. Stories designed to distract you from what is really happening. You're defending made up bull****.

You're defending The Onion's right to spread misinformation. And other parody sites that you think are real