Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
Maybe that should have been the question, if the purpose was to demonstrate the value of estimation, instead of inflict frustration.
Don't give me a screw halfway in a 2 by 4 and then subtract points because I didn't use a hammer to drive it the rest of the way.
Its for the same reason you aren't supposed to use the power rule when you first learn how to calculate derivatives, even though the formulas given can allow it. They want you to do the easier problems with the new tools so you have the tools when it comes time to do the harder problems. I'm 100% sure that kid was told the way to do estimations before s/he was given that assignment.
We had this for an informal test at work recently:
"The answer to this question is a) over 100 b) over 200 c) over 500 d) over 850" (the answer was 925 or something)
I had to explain to the person who made the test that even though I knew he wanted d), all of them are technically correct.
--Patrick
re: Facebook, they weren't blacklisting sites for being conservative, it was blacklisting horrible excuses for journalism, that happen to be legitimized lately by presidential candidates that don't really care about facts and people that think Fox News is a tool of the liberal media.
Breitbart and TheBlaze are NOT news. There were also other not-really-news sites on there like world star hip hop
Breitbart and TheBlaze are NOT news. There were also other not-really-news sites on there like world star hip hop
Pray tell us, what makes you or Facebook an authoritative source on what is and isn't a news service?
I would assert that they quack like news services, look like news services, and are used like news services. Breitbart has multiple bureaus, and publishes news, reports, exposés, and opinion pieces. TheBlaze has multiple studios, covers current events, does news recaps, and airs political opinion shows.
Breitbart is known for making shit up and ratfucking. TheBlaze is just a mouthpiece for Glenn Beck. Neither would pass the Wikipedia smell test as "reliable sources."
Gotta side with Charlie on this one.
WP:RS is a very flexible (and arguably low) standard. Breitbart and TheBlaze look like mildly reliable sources to me (per WP:IRS and WP:RS/N).
If you want to argue that Facebook should punish any non-WP:NEWSORG sources, or anything that smells of WP:QUESTIONABLE... Sure, that'd actually make some sense as a standard (as long as it was applied with a heavy hand and liberally).
In the cases of Breitbart and TheBlaze I'm more in favor of a heavy shovel and repeatedly.
if you're gonna seriously stan for Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart, then just lol, go with god
That's more than can be said for Andrew himself. He's dead and rotting in the furthest reaches of Hell.
Rumor was Satan didn't want him. When asked for comment, the Dark Lord was heard to say, "c'mon man! Even I have standards!"
Just because it looks like a mildly reliable source doesn't mean it is.
Facebook isn't the first one to suggest this. Remember recently Google said they would start to have results display by accuracy, not just popularity/relevance. Fox News was the one to pitch a fit then, because they know sometimes they make shit up. I don't know if Google ever implemented that, but it looks like Facebook did. You post bullshit repeatedly, you don't get to be treated like news. Something isn't true just because the person posting it has English skills and can hire someone for website design.
A books author would fail that smell test.[DOUBLEPOST=1462880047,1462879956][/DOUBLEPOST]
I think a better analogy would be if the screw was a Phillips head, and you were subtracted points for using a Phillips head screwdriver instead of a flat head.
That's where I saw it, in the trending section on Facebook.
From the article:
That doesn't sound like what you've said. Please provide your source of information that shows this statement is false and/or your statement is true. Hopefully you aren't just making stuff up to fit your world view...
A reliable source and a reliable news source are different things. If you need me to say that they are mildly reliable sources, I will.
As self-masturbatory as WP can be, at least community consensus and policy are transparent, and can be equally enforced. Trusting Google/Facebook/MyMomLLC to strain my slurry is not everyone's cuppa.
Which is part of Breitbart's whole reason for being. If you don't believe that, check out Death of a Douche.
I'm not going to argue about individual news organizations reliability and credibility - it would take too much time. The vast majority of news is entertainment news - ie, news told in a manner or style meant to entertain and entice readers, rather than to inform and enlighten. There are plenty of organizations that report opinion as news, and many which report lies as news.
The problem with "filtering" based on "credibility" is how transparent the process is to determine credibility. There are inherent biases that will inform this process as well.
So when facebook has a "trending stories" section (notably not named "Trending truths" or "trending scientifically accurate facts") then it's assumed by the users to be the stories the world is sharing, reacting to, commenting on, etc.
What is is, in actuality, is a filtered list of mostly trending topics, with some thrown out due to the biases of those monitoring the list, and some added in due to those same biases. Further, when something is trending, they will choose news sources to highlight which support their biased viewpoint of the news, rather than the most shared version of the story.
It's not what it purports to be, and we now have some small evidence that this is intentional and by design, particularly in terms of reporting on facebook the company and how it operates.
If the world is sharing a lie widely, I want it to show up in the trending stories list primarily so I can understand what other people are incorrectly believing, and, at least within my small sphere of influence, combat it.
Hiding it isn't going to prevent its spread, but it will hinder a counter-response from more responsible parties.
Either Facebook needs to own up to their bias and make sure people know that the trending topics list isn't what it appears to be, or they need to keep their hands off and actually share trending topics.
Lastly, keep in mind that Facebook pays attention to warrants and gag orders. There may well be things they are legally not allowed to permit on the trending topics list no matter how many people are talking about them. If the idea of Facebook controlling this news doesn't bother you because you share their particular perspective, perhaps the knowledge that the government too can influence the situation will help yo understand why this is, at best, problematic.
The problem with "filtering" based on "credibility" is how transparent the process is to determine credibility. There are inherent biases that will inform this process as well.
So when facebook has a "trending stories" section (notably not named "Trending truths" or "trending scientifically accurate facts") then it's assumed by the users to be the stories the world is sharing, reacting to, commenting on, etc.
What is is, in actuality, is a filtered list of mostly trending topics, with some thrown out due to the biases of those monitoring the list, and some added in due to those same biases. Further, when something is trending, they will choose news sources to highlight which support their biased viewpoint of the news, rather than the most shared version of the story.
It's not what it purports to be, and we now have some small evidence that this is intentional and by design, particularly in terms of reporting on facebook the company and how it operates.
If the world is sharing a lie widely, I want it to show up in the trending stories list primarily so I can understand what other people are incorrectly believing, and, at least within my small sphere of influence, combat it.
Hiding it isn't going to prevent its spread, but it will hinder a counter-response from more responsible parties.
Either Facebook needs to own up to their bias and make sure people know that the trending topics list isn't what it appears to be, or they need to keep their hands off and actually share trending topics.
Lastly, keep in mind that Facebook pays attention to warrants and gag orders. There may well be things they are legally not allowed to permit on the trending topics list no matter how many people are talking about them. If the idea of Facebook controlling this news doesn't bother you because you share their particular perspective, perhaps the knowledge that the government too can influence the situation will help yo understand why this is, at best, problematic.
I'm surprised at some of the stances I'm seeing. People I thought would have the opinion of "Facebook owns the site, they can run it as they please" seem to be the ones taking an issue with Facebook doing things this way.
andrew breitfart
Yeah, I'm a little befuddled as well.[DOUBLEPOST=1462897111,1462897073][/DOUBLEPOST]
Classy.
GasBandit
Staff member
And that's the kind of erudite, issues-based discussion we all come to GBPT to see!
There's a different standard, I think, for things that purport to be purveyors of public information. Otherwise, would you guys agree that Fox News shouldn't be criticized no matter what or who it puts on the air, because it is privately owned?
In both cases, though, I don't think anybody's calling for government intervention in facebook or anything, just rather getting the word out that they, too, have their biases and are not impartial - they have an agenda to push, same as anyone else.
It's a particularly important thing to be known, given that they pretty much have a monopoly/captive audience in the form of all the non-tech-savvy people who are online, and probably were trusting it to be a simple algorithm without human bias and intervention because that's how it presents itself.
I don't think people should base their news resource as either Facebook or Fox News, but I've never said "Fox News needs to do ___". They can run things how they please and I don't think I've ever said otherwise. But I've always told people they're unreliable and not worth watching. Likewise, Facebook. Not to mention, those trending topics are often skewed to whatever info about you Facebook can glean, which is why most of the time my trending topics involve video games. I doubt those are the same trending topics my mom sees when she goes on Facebook.
But without the doxxing, trying to get people fired, and death threats! Andrew would be soooo disappointed.
sorry i didn't post "nigger" in an image macro, what was i thinking
GasBandit
Staff member
What do you want, a cookie?
Maybe if it was called Facebook News or it purported to be a news site I'd equate the two, but I really don't find it to be the same. I understand why you do, though.
But that's neither here nor there, really. This is about some of us being surprised that the free market people are upset a private company is being biased in their distribution of what they share on their platform.
But that's neither here nor there, really. This is about some of us being surprised that the free market people are upset a private company is being biased in their distribution of what they share on their platform.
I don't see any conflict with people believing in the free market and criticizing a private company. Wouldn't it make sense that part of that very free market system is allowing customers to complain about policies? Now, if any of them had actually said what Facebook was doing should be illegal, THAT would be hypocritical.
I dunno. Maybe I'm missing something from your argument?
Forgive me, perhaps being a little under the weather is making me miss the discussion at hand. I guess I wasn't sure how supporting one business and it's right to display biases was different than opposing another business and it's right to display biases. Considering how hard people have pushed in the past to support certain sites/businesses in the face of criticism, I guess I was surprised at the sudden turn displayed here.[DOUBLEPOST=1462900202,1462900068][/DOUBLEPOST]
I really try not to join in the bashing you receive, Charlie, but you make it very difficult sometimes. Try bringing it down a couple notches and people are more likely take what you say seriously.
My (probably poor) understanding of that perspective is that businesses are encouraged to display their biases so customers are better informed as to the consequences of their patronage. Facebook shouldn't be forced to be fair about what they call news, but not being up-front about their biased actions should lead to accusations of underhandedness and suspicion on where else they might be interfering with otherwise fair-looking systems.
Well, this:
Which likes and brofists, but I gotta ask, they need to? Why do they need to? Need to, or else what? This suggests necessity.
Like Fox News calling themselves fair and balanced?
To go back to Gas's example, it'd be like if I said "Fox News needs to either stop telling people they're fair and balanced or start reporting the full account of the news without editorial slant." They don't need to do that. They seem to be surviving just fine without listening to me.
This refrain is so common on this forum, it's basically a square on Halforums Bingo cards.
I think you are thinking of the vitriolic STFU comment. I'm being serious here, and really mean him no ill will.