>it seems like what you are trying to say is that alternative and conservative news is "fakes news", and they should receive algorithmic censorship.
That's an incredibly disingenuous if not an outright idiotic comprehension on what was stated. If a source continually propagates blatantly false news it doesn't matter what the political bent is. It's going to lose credibility. Just like if someone is continually caught in a lie, you might stop listening to them, regardless of what race, religion, sex, or gender they are. You're not censoring them, you just know taking them at their word is a losing gamble.
The fact that a host of popular conservative sources continually participated in spreading false and misleading information isn't the fault of any content aggregator, and in this case Facebook certainly wasn't at fault. In fact, it seems like a problem that should be earnestly addressed within the conservative sphere, instead of conveniently using it to bolster a political platform and help with general ad revenue.
If you want to spit out little pathetic buzzwords and engage in intellectual lukewarmness, that's your prerogative. But you're going to have a hard time attempting to cry victim, or censorship, and engage in false equivocations when other people or organizations stop taking these sources seriously and choose to stop lending them a platform to spread lies and conspiracy theories.
> yet on the left I have to literally invert what they are saying to get at the truth.
Okay, well. I didn't realize I was dealing with unmitigated idiocy here. I'd have saved myself the key presses.
With all due respect, your post contains some content, but this isn't behavior for HN and I'm really surprised it's being tolerated, let alone upvoted. Do you somehow expect to change any opinions with an insult-riddled comment like that?
So two things. You quoted three things, all 3 five words or less. At most that leaves 15 words across 3 paragraphs. Hardly worth drawing attention to.
Not that it really matters, because everything that was stated was pretty justified. It's curious that you take issue with my post or its tone, and not that out right dishonest response I was negating.
Looking at your posting history, and your continually false and misleading statements regarding all things geopolitical, I can only assume you're here to cause a stir. With all due respect.
I agree with your content but completely disagree with your delivery.
Did you come here from reddit? It's unnecessary and inappropriate, and I don't think that kind of behavior is 'justified' in response to someone you consider uneducated.
As for my (respectful) posting history: I only post when I feel that something has yet to be pointed out by anyone else, which will naturally be the more uncommon opinions and/or devil's advocate type of questions.
No it's pretty appropriate. I didn't say anything uncalled for. Especially when someone is being dishonest. Congratulations on not being able to discuss the subject matter in your attempt to completely derail the conversation.
That's an incredibly disingenuous if not an outright idiotic comprehension on what was stated. If a source continually propagates blatantly false news it doesn't matter what the political bent is. It's going to lose credibility. Just like if someone is continually caught in a lie, you might stop listening to them, regardless of what race, religion, sex, or gender they are. You're not censoring them, you just know taking them at their word is a losing gamble.
The fact that a host of popular conservative sources continually participated in spreading false and misleading information isn't the fault of any content aggregator, and in this case Facebook certainly wasn't at fault. In fact, it seems like a problem that should be earnestly addressed within the conservative sphere, instead of conveniently using it to bolster a political platform and help with general ad revenue.
If you want to spit out little pathetic buzzwords and engage in intellectual lukewarmness, that's your prerogative. But you're going to have a hard time attempting to cry victim, or censorship, and engage in false equivocations when other people or organizations stop taking these sources seriously and choose to stop lending them a platform to spread lies and conspiracy theories.
> yet on the left I have to literally invert what they are saying to get at the truth.
Okay, well. I didn't realize I was dealing with unmitigated idiocy here. I'd have saved myself the key presses.