As Twitchy reported earlier today, CNN’s Oliver Darcy wondered how Facebook could claim it was committed to dealing with “fake news” and yet allow InfoWars to have a Facebook page.
Facebook is hosting an event about how committed they are to fighting fake news, but they have no good answer when I ask as to why they permit InfoWars to have a page on their platform. https://t.co/eeuqOWyuDE
— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) July 11, 2018
Conservatives pointed out to Darcy that 1) he works for CNN, which has spread its fair share of fake news on social media, and 2) banning InfoWars would be a slippery slope with no clear endgame in sight.
Facebook wasn’t tagged in Darcy’s tweet, but it did respond to his tweet about InfoWars Thursday afternoon, citing “the basic principles of free speech.”
We see Pages on both the left and the right pumping out what they consider opinion or analysis – but others call fake news. We believe banning these Pages would be contrary to the basic principles of free speech.
— Facebook (@facebook) July 12, 2018
Instead, we demote individual posts etc. that are reported by FB users and rated as false by fact checkers. This means they lose around 80% of any future views. We also demote Pages and domains that repeatedly share false news.
— Facebook (@facebook) July 12, 2018
We’d like to interject here with a rhetorical question: When, exactly, did Facebook become a hard news site responsible for fact-checking posts by its users? The answer, obviously, is after Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election and someone stumbled upon the term “fake news” to explain why.
Regardless, Darcy — who, again, works for CNN — wasn’t satisfied with Facebook’s answer. Does this guy turn around all the gossip magazines in the checkout aisle too to protect people from all the fake news?
It seems Facebook wants it both ways.
No outright ban, because free speech.
On the other hand, Facebook wants to claim it effectively demotes pages into oblivion, which sounds to me sort of like a ban without calling it a ban. So what happened to the whole free speech thing?
— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) July 12, 2018
Yes, what did happen to the whole free speech thing — like letting InfoWars have a page on Facebook without a reporter of all people questioning why it’s allowed. Again, when did Facebook become responsible for policing the news?
https://twitter.com/Gray_Wolfs76/status/1017493062891851782
Or you could trust Facebook’s users to decide for themselves what’s worthy of following and what sources to trust.
Which side are you arguing here, Oli? A few tweets ago you were FOR the ban. https://t.co/ZfwVaeKqE1
— Tommy Schlessinger (@SchmeckleTV) July 12, 2018
I agree with him here.
Why not just be honest and either:
Outright ban conservatives
Or
Leave algorithms alone, let speech be free. https://t.co/kKahlgxbMa
— vegetal ?? (@dale_gribbs) July 12, 2018
It seems neither you, or @facebook actually understands what Free Speech is.
You're bitching about Facebook not banning those you disagree with, yet criticising them for actively suppressing those *without* removing said speech, which in itself goes against Free Speech.
Tut tut https://t.co/WsWGWplWXs
— T-Bag ? (@TeaBag2017) July 12, 2018
Facebook tries a middle-of-the-line approach to punish those who spread fake news without stripping them of their voice.
I personally think Facebook shouldn't demote any pages based off the SPLC +Co.
Mr. Darcey doesn't want that. He wants complete annihilation.
Remember that. https://t.co/jcft1oFcex
— Steven Dunlap ?? (@stevenjdunlap) July 12, 2018
We did mention that most of the social media giants, including Facebook, cite the Southern Poverty Law Center as a source to flag “hate speech,” right?
Lefties are up in arms because Darcy used InfoWars as an example of fake news, and they can’t possibly think of an equivalent Facebook page on the Left — not that most people on the Right consider Alex Jones a trusted news source.
Not surprisingly, Obama bro Tommy Vietor seems to be for censoring speech he doesn’t like.
Alex Jones sending his minions to harass Sandy Hook families or promising civil war to sell supplements isn’t analysis what the hell is wrong with you? https://t.co/NHAL26cOmy
— Tommy Vietor (@TVietor08) July 12, 2018
It not analysis, but it is opinion — a vile opinion in many cases, but an opinion nonetheless. Why do so many people want social media to police the news when, say, ABC News can tank the stock market with a bogus report on Trump, and an NBC News reporter can leave up a debunked tweet for more than 24 hours before deleting it? And PolitiFact can take something that is 100 percent correct and rate it “Mostly True”?
And don’t get us started on CNN.
Oh, and P.S.: Hillary still lost, and it wasn’t Facebook’s fault.
Related:
DUDE, you work for CNN! Oliver Darcy scolds Facebook for not removing Infowars because they're 'FAKE NEWS' https://t.co/PVSHiUiSGI
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) July 12, 2018
Join the conversation as a VIP Member