Meta ends fact checking - Zuch promises free speech

We can both play that game:


mainstream media
noun [ S, + sing/pl verb ]

US

/ˌmeɪn.striːm ˈmiː.di.ə/ UK

/ˌmeɪn.striːm ˈmiː.di.ə/

(abbreviation MSM)

forms of the media, especially traditionalforms such as newspapers, television, and radio rather than the internet, that influence large numbers of people and are likely to represent generallyaccepted beliefs and opinions

 

See, I knew you could do it. Unfortunately, your question still has a logical flaw that you already demonstrated: many sources that fit under that definition have differing positions on a variety of topics, making agreeing with them all the time a logical impossibility.

But it is a bit interesting that you are opposed to generally accepted beliefs and opinions.

 

I don’t expect you to understand that you can listen to information and then come to your own conclusion. You can’t do that, you are a sheep. That is my point. I don’t expect you to understand that and because of that we will keep going round and round.

 

It is funny that you use that word so often. Almost like a bleating...

But it is a fascinating argument given that I showed you a logical error in your attempt to utilize a classification system that you likely took from somebody else.

 

And round and round we go.

 

That is the problem with utilizing name calling as a form of argumentation. It is shallow enough so as not to allow continued elucidation. But I don't think that is the goal, is it?

 

Is there a better nomenclature for someone that is stuck following what they are told.

 

How about the time that the Washington Post fact checkers gave Carly Fiorina's life story of rising from Secretary to CEO 3 Pinocchio's because she actually had jobs and additional education between those two positions?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ceo-career-trajectory-fact-checker-biography/
https://archive.ph/zrqmd

If you want more examples like this, happy to provide them.

 

It is interesting that your reaction to a criticism of name calling as a form of argumentation is to ask if there is a better name that you could call people...

 

Talk about not being able to feel the room:



Meta Says Fact-Checkers Were the Problem. Fact-Checkers Rule That False.

 

And that means?

 

Listen, on my list of things I care about, mdgator05 ranks at the bottom. If you don’t like being called a sheep, I couldn’t care less. I will always think that you are and nothing that you have said so far has made be believe any different. I don’t care about you or your views. I call ‘em as I see ‘em and you are a sheep. Maybe one day you will wake up. Good bye.

 

Was Fiornia a secretary and was she a CEO? If so, why does that need to be fact checked? Does anyone seriously think that Fiornia was picked to be the CEO of HP out of the secretary pool?

 

Actually, it seems like you care quite a bit. You have immutable opinions about me. A strange thing to have for somebody that you claim doesn't matter to you. I have no such opinions on you, which is why I am discussing the logical fallacies and how your reactions are interesting rather than claiming to have immutable opinions about you.

 

so now that Zuck has went all Elon, would it be a good time to short FB ? I'm sure Im not the only one that was looking for a reason to close the account as we are tired of the maga crowd before the new rules. as membership fades, advertising revenue should follow....

how will this impact the number of people on FB, instagram, etc? how will advertisers feel about their ads posting next to hate speech and other maga madness?

 

"Interesting" is one word for it. Personally, I'm going with unhinged. Or maybe just ret...ed.

Imagine making the argument that "fact checking" is inherently liberal (and, thus, bad). And then doubling and tripling down on that. Never stop being you MAGA.

 

Depends on your definition of "believe what they say". Does that mean buy the narrative they're selling (as most are just PR outlets for one of the two parties)? Or, believe the facts being presented?

On the latter, I'd believe most if not all they're saying because of these people known as "fact checkers". There is noting more embarrassing to a major news organization than being called out for publishing things that are clearly wrong factually. That said, are they giving you all the facts? How are they presenting said facts? What facts are included and what are left out or maybe just buried deeper in the story? This is typically where they play their games and why I don't watch any of the listed networks.

 

There is a delicious irony between his screen name and what you just did to him here. LOL!

 

Zuckerberg could have used the largest social media platform in the world to inform its users that the government was strong-arming him into stifling free speech.

He could have become a folk hero. Instead he rolled over and multitudes are praising him for coming out well after the fact.