Misinformation

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

Yeah I mean I expected to be called out for hearing on Joe Rogan but that is where he was speaking. I have enough critical thinking to filter out Joes opinions that he speaks as truth. I also went in to hear the justification for the removal of fact checking as I thought and still think its a terrible idea but also understand part of the justification, I also understand how this helps spread misinformation.

Sorry, wasn't meant to be hard on you at all. I easily could have watched the same video and nodded along in agreement. That's why this stuff is so sinister and needs to be called out when it is spotted, which was my only intention.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So you listened to 30 minutes, and now believe Facebook was the one checking. They weren't. He's saying this to make it Perfect example of misinformation.

Speaking of perfect example of misinformation. You don't even need to watch 30 minutes, 5 minutes in he literally says

have this system where there are these third party fact checkers

Did you even watch Pickles? Spreading misinformation in your own misinformation thread? LOL

[Firebot]

Zuckenberg never turned hard right. He did what is best for Meta today as he did in 2016. In 2016 fact checking and virtue signaling was at all time highs as a result of 2016 elections, and Meta was forced to do it after severe backlash and cancelling attempts (mainly from the left, but also from the right who who claimed it promoted fake news).

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ogan-s-podcast

He's also been bashing the Biden administration pretty strongly for trying to control information.

This sudden shift is all about ensuring Tiktok is killed while not going in jail himself and appeasing Trump which is in power for the next 4 years (and Republicans possibly longer). He has gone to Mar-A-Lago a few times now, not coincidentally, lots of rethoric started coming out.

But he himself was never a virtue signaler, He built a girl hotness rating website at first.

Zuckenberg's own post in 2016 should tell you everything you want to know about Zuckenberg's thoughts about it (TLDR he doesn't personally believe fact checking is needed)

This is an area where I believe we must proceed very carefully though. Identifying the "truth" is complicated. While some hoaxes can be completely debunked, a greater amount of content, including from mainstream sources, often gets the basic idea right but some details wrong or omitted. An even greater volume of stories express an opinion that many will disagree with and flag as incorrect even when factual. I am confident we can find ways for our community to tell us what content is most meaningful, but I believe we must be extremely cautious about becoming arbiters of truth ourselves.

https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103253901916271

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Speaking of perfect example of misinformation. You don't even need to watch 30 minutes, 5 minutes in he literally says

Did you even watch Pickles? Spreading misinformation in your own misinformation thread? LOL

Yes he made it so clear that this statement, which is actually factual if you understand how words work So you listened to 30 minutes, and now believe Facebook was the one checking.



So sure, Zuck said the words "third party fact checkers" But if the impression people got from the interview(and not just Raekwon, I've read the general impression in several places) then hasn't he completely failed at communicating the facts properly so he can try to be no some moral high ground with his new policy? And you aren't at all suspicious this choice was made after Trump was elected, and after he went and met with Trump?

[Yamer]

Fact checking is akin to virtue signaling, a term somehow used here with a sense of seriousness.

Lol.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Yes he made it so clear that this statement, which is actually factual if you understand how words work So you listened to 30 minutes, and now believe Facebook was the one checking.



So sure, Zuck said the words "third party fact checkers" But if the impression people got from the interview(and not just Raekwon, I've read the general impression in several places) then hasn't he completely failed at communicating the facts properly so he can try to be no some moral high ground with his new policy? And you aren't at all suspicious this choice was made after Trump was elected, and after he went and met with Trump?

I never got that impression and went back to double check it before i posted. Just because other people missed "third party fact checkers" does not mean he miscomunicated or "completely failed". It could just be an honest mistake on the consumers part.

You read waaaaaaay to much into things Pickles. But man if you want to run a misinformation thread, check your sources !

There are clearly things that are misinformation, earth is flat, climate change isn't a thing, vaccines cause autism ect...but beyond that it seems to be very poltically charged and just another tool of divisivness. There are things that aren't settled that should be out there for civil discussion.

Honestly don't have the answer but you hope that people have a decent BS dectector and don't suffer from confirmation bias.

[Fuzz]

Yes, this new policy is so much better. #freedom.

Users are now allowed to, for example, refer to “women as household objects or property” or “transgender or non-binary people as ‘it,’” according to a section of the policy prohibiting such speech that was crossed out. A new section of the policy notes Meta will allow “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality.”

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/07/tech/...eck/index.html

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Yes, this new policy is so much better. #freedom.



https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/07/tech/...eck/index.html

Don't know what the cure for stupid is?

[troutman]

I heard about this on the Star Talk podcast:

https://ground.news

Ground News is a platform that makes it easy to compare news sources, read between the lines of media bias and break free from algorithms.

Over the past decade, online news and ad-driven algorithms have made it profitable for news outlets to embrace a position on the bias spectrum to target specific consumers.

Bias in the media affects everything from what events receive coverage, to how a news outlet frames those events in their reporting.

As media outlets narrow their perspective and range of coverage, it’s become impossible to consult a single news story for a well-rounded view on important issues.

Every day we process nearly 60,000 news articles from over 50,000 different news sources. Articles from different outlets covering the same event are merged into a single story, making it possible to get multiple perspectives in one place.

I’m interested to hear from Cliff and others is this will help the media landscape.

[CliffFletcher]

I get what they’re trying to do. The idea has merit - media outlets today are largely funded by subscriptions, so they’re incentivized to tell their audience what they want to hear. Sources that present factually correct content can differ dramatically in how they frame that content. For example, the Guardian and the National Post typically frame the same story in very different ways by omitting context that doesn’t accord with their preferred narrative. So you’re going to get a much clearer picture of an issue from three or four sources than from one.

I just don’t know that there’s much of an audience for the service they’re providing. It doesn’t give you access to the content itself that’s behind a paywall. So sure, I guess it’s worth comparing the headline the Globe and Mail has in its story about the digital services tax being scrapped with other outlets. But you can’t read the story itself unless you also have a subscription to the G&M. And you can already get free insights about bias from the media compass sites out there.

Ground News does offer a lot more than just a bias compass. But I don’t see many people outside of communications professionals, academics, and political strategists paying for the service.

[TorqueDog]

I’ve used the free version of Ground News for a few years now. It’s useful but not something I could or would justify paying for unless — as Cliff said — it was related to my job somehow.

[Drak]

Not sure if it’s been mentioned in this thread. But I think there’s a difference between misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation isn’t necessarily intentional. Disinformation is. What we see in the MSM, foreign interference ops, and Republican propaganda, is intentional and it’s disinformation.

[Fuzz]

Net trust in media: Weather Network +59 CBC +53 CTV +51 Global +48 BBC +41 Globe & Mail +40 Canadian Press +39 CNN +31 National Post +30 NYT +29 Star +28 Maclean's +27 Sun +4 Beaverton -2 Rebel -7 Fox -27

https://bsky.app/profile/pollara.bsk.../3ltoytrfj2v2n


Better formatting at the link. Beaverton more trusted than Rebel. CNN more trusted than NP.

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://bsky.app/profile/pollara.bsk.../3ltoytrfj2v2n


Better formatting at the link. Beaverton more trusted than Rebel. CNN more trusted than NP.

Canadian Press being low is just weird. Maybe just lots of neutrals for them, not sure how it was structured.

[troutman]

National Post should be just ahead of Rebel.

‪msmedea.bsky.social‬
‪@msmedea.bsky.social‬
· 1h
The NATPO is backed by a republican hedge fund and is incapable of writing anything critical of conservatives. How Canadians still trust it is beyond me. It doesn't even hide its partisanship anymore.

[Muta]

-2 for the Beaverton lol

[getbak]

I find that an odd way to present that information (trusted - untrusted).

It means something that is trusted by 53% of the population and untrusted by 47% would get a worse score (+6) than one that's trusted by 10% of the population, untrusted by 2%, and unknown to 88% (+8).

Here's the full report: https://www.pollara.com/wp-content/u...-July-2025.pdf