FB also removed my share of this as spam — “to keep the community safe” and because it looked like I was just trying to get likes. But even when they don’t remove shared content outright, I’m convinced they simply don’t give traction to anything critical of Trump or the media’s sucking up to him.
I’m playing too. I did a screen capture of the first few paragraphs and posted it as a photo. I don’t think the bots can decipher that. And remind me again, which views is FB supposedly suppressing? Sure doesn’t look like it’s the conservative/magat ones.
OK, gonna try it.....yep, spam. Clearly the algorithm is alert to it: it didn't get as far as showing up on my posts.
So I posted this. So far it has made it to the page:
"There is an interesting Substack article on problems recently with fact checking--many of you may have noticed these when the nits got to small to see but still got picked. I can't post the link--it gets taken down as spam. Go to Substack, look up Public Notice, and check for a post dated August 30.
And see what FB algo's are up to. "
And I got even more curious. So I posted a link to Wednesday's Public Notice Post about trump's love for strongmen. It is currently up--so it isn't just blocking your site.
I suspect that some GOP type complained about the fact checking post as spam and the algorithm just bought it.
Thank you for fact checking the fact checkers. We tend to believe them without thinking or knowing. This is as deceptive and harmful as as the original lying and deception. Trump changes like a chameleon and is not to be believed or trusted in anything he says. Period. But the fact checkers should be loudly criticized.
Cleaning up after Trump is the real objective of corporate run media. That, and tarnishing dems with their "both sides" imperative. "Fact checking" is just another means of accomplishing those goals.
It finally dawned on me while reading this article that these reporters don't distinguish between facts and truth. What we really need is truth checkers - the focus on facts is a distraction and a symptom of our epistemic crisis. The fact checkers should go back to reviewing pre-pub articles. Alas, I fear their job now is to generate clicks and not inform the public. Sad.
thank you for bringing this to our attention. It is sad but it is true. The media and the fact checkers still don't know how to write about anyone with a record of lies and a history of cover-ups which justifies NEVER giving them the benefit of the doubt. The same could be said about the how journalist report what is said by leaders in the Middle East, for both sides of the war. Maybe if they just report what is said and compare it to their past actions relative to what is being said, journalists would get better at this.
I was thinking about the art of interpretation and context even psychology versus relying on word meanings. Also the decision as to what to fact check that is important objectively versus trying to seem unbiased. In the choice.
Something can be true or false depending. I would avoid an AI “opinion” personally. This Robinson piece is very instructive.
I was watching a YouTube video that studied how Brexit was covered in the news. A woman, from the BBC no less, said that the media gave equal weight to facts and misinformation (and I'll include disinformation as well) without context or pushback.
This is heinous. He says A. Then he says not-A. Then he says B (which is very like A). Then those who say A=B are chastised because he used a different word this time. I think these "fact checkers" are using Russian-developed bots, designed to obfuscate and confuse us.
It seems to me MSM is punishing their readers for being critical of their one sided coverage of this election, in favor of Trump. So, now they are sticking it to us with facts. Seems to me every Democrat needs to say, not "Trump says," but "Trump wants to" do... and then go on from there. Then when the fact checkers say he did not say this, they can point to it being implied in Project 2025, which none of these so called journalists seem to have read. I can tell. Even in my Substack I can see people writing that something Kamala said was wrong, but it is not if you have actually read P2025, it is just named differently in their, so an AI search will not net you what you want. You need to actually read the damn plodding, redundant, lying, whining document to know what it says. I am not just slogging through it, I am doing this with a group as a book club. My group is a political group, Democrats Abroad. We are discussing it online so across countries. It helps. Still, even if you read it, there is so much subtext you need to be really informed on the particular department, the issues, Trump's personal beefs with the department, and the Heritage Foundations personal beefs with it, to understand what you are reading. I have chucked the MSM. I did not watch the interview, and won't be watching the debate. I find all of this dog and pony show irrelevant to figuring out who I am voting for. There is no doubt. I am not fence sitting, or a swing voter, for whom this dog and pony show applies. Also, I am not into the gladiator arena nature of it, and I have no respect for US news media organizations. They need to do what is done in some or many European countries. In Germany, where I live most of the time, every household is billed ~18€ a month, and that covers broadcast news whether or not one has a radio or television, not that you need them to stream anyway. With the written word you have a lot more choices, but those you have to pay for. In addition to the Supreme Court, we need to overhaul our media situation. Also, I hope that the Harris campaign takes to using dating app sites to get their ads in. I recommended it. Then, I read an article that the military was sending messages in Arabic to the middle east via dating apps, where they are telling people that they better not escalate the war and that if US military/citizens? or our allies are harmed, we would retaliate, and it was showing the weapons systems that would be used. So, clearly the Pentagon, or someone in DOD feels that dating apps are a good way to get a message across to youth in general.
This is so beyond pathetic. P.S. I just posted the link to my FB profile. Will let you all know what happens to it. P.P.S. One minute later: FB removed it as "misleading" and "an attempt to get clicks," etc. I filed a complaint.
I've tried, I've really tried... to keep my self control when I think about the mainstream media's pro-Trump bias. But you know, I just, I just can't....AAAAAAARRRGGGHHHHHHH! That feels better. No, wait -- just a little more left. AAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH! All right, I'm okay now. Thanks, Steven Robinson, for letting me unburden myself.
So if we cannot just depend on fact checkers where does that leave us? Having to pay attention and think lest we just fall back on our original perceptions misperceptions misconceptions and prejudices.
At the very least, when trump has been flip flopping around, the rating should simply be "inconclusive." If he said in 2016 that he would not cut Social Security and then submitted budgets doing so and now says he won't again, the rating should be "inconclusive" or "you figure it out for yourself."
It is getting to depend on the time of DAY when a fact check is done. Trump said was in favor of the Florida abortion amendment. Then he flipflopped and says he opposes it. How the hell is a fact checker going to operate. They need to stress the completely ephemeral nature of any statement on policy he makes.
Shared on FB for my republican friends. FB deleted it. That tells me all I need to know which I already knew.
Facebook isn't letting me post it either. Very weird.
FB also removed my share of this as spam — “to keep the community safe” and because it looked like I was just trying to get likes. But even when they don’t remove shared content outright, I’m convinced they simply don’t give traction to anything critical of Trump or the media’s sucking up to him.
I love that one, “looked like I was just trying to get ‘likes’.’ Isn’t that what FB is all about?
Seriously!
And time to delete FB!
Just posted this link. FB deleted it within a minute.
Reposted it to FB as a comment on a new post. Let's play.
I’m playing too. I did a screen capture of the first few paragraphs and posted it as a photo. I don’t think the bots can decipher that. And remind me again, which views is FB supposedly suppressing? Sure doesn’t look like it’s the conservative/magat ones.
AND... deleted. WTH.
OK, gonna try it.....yep, spam. Clearly the algorithm is alert to it: it didn't get as far as showing up on my posts.
So I posted this. So far it has made it to the page:
"There is an interesting Substack article on problems recently with fact checking--many of you may have noticed these when the nits got to small to see but still got picked. I can't post the link--it gets taken down as spam. Go to Substack, look up Public Notice, and check for a post dated August 30.
And see what FB algo's are up to. "
And I got even more curious. So I posted a link to Wednesday's Public Notice Post about trump's love for strongmen. It is currently up--so it isn't just blocking your site.
I suspect that some GOP type complained about the fact checking post as spam and the algorithm just bought it.
Thank you for fact checking the fact checkers. We tend to believe them without thinking or knowing. This is as deceptive and harmful as as the original lying and deception. Trump changes like a chameleon and is not to be believed or trusted in anything he says. Period. But the fact checkers should be loudly criticized.
Cleaning up after Trump is the real objective of corporate run media. That, and tarnishing dems with their "both sides" imperative. "Fact checking" is just another means of accomplishing those goals.
They are hastening their obsolescence. No one under 40 pays any attention to the MSM, and they are not giving anyone a reason to.
It finally dawned on me while reading this article that these reporters don't distinguish between facts and truth. What we really need is truth checkers - the focus on facts is a distraction and a symptom of our epistemic crisis. The fact checkers should go back to reviewing pre-pub articles. Alas, I fear their job now is to generate clicks and not inform the public. Sad.
Trump: Immigrants are taking 107 percent of the new jobs
Fact checkers:
Trump: There were multiple trans women boxing in the Olympics
Fact checkers:
Trump: Women in six states are legally executing their babies
Fact checkers:
Exactly! And you could come up with enough examples from one Trump speech to keep the fact-checkers busy for a week.
thank you for bringing this to our attention. It is sad but it is true. The media and the fact checkers still don't know how to write about anyone with a record of lies and a history of cover-ups which justifies NEVER giving them the benefit of the doubt. The same could be said about the how journalist report what is said by leaders in the Middle East, for both sides of the war. Maybe if they just report what is said and compare it to their past actions relative to what is being said, journalists would get better at this.
I noticed that the other day. Fact checking is an art and not a science, and these buffoons of jackal journalism do not know the difference.
Fact checking is an art and a science at the same time.
Yes, but if you could on AI (science) to do your fact checking, you had better at least use your head to think it through (the art).
Fact checking maybe should be categorized as opinion as opposed to an assumption of authority.
I was thinking about the art of interpretation and context even psychology versus relying on word meanings. Also the decision as to what to fact check that is important objectively versus trying to seem unbiased. In the choice.
Something can be true or false depending. I would avoid an AI “opinion” personally. This Robinson piece is very instructive.
The problem is worse than that. Fact-checking is inherently flawed as it misses the broader context.
Also, it is easy to mislead with factually true statements. For instance, making a huge uproar when an immigrant commits a crime.
Trump's Made Up 'Kamala Crime Wave' is a good example of what is really needed:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/22/opinion/kamala-harris-trump-crime.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Fk4.iAXl.d-ywX8Lhj9vc&smid=url-share
As opposed to simple fact-checking, he: 1) put it in broader context 2) noted that lying is a campaign strategy 3) called it out as racist.
We need more of that.
I was watching a YouTube video that studied how Brexit was covered in the news. A woman, from the BBC no less, said that the media gave equal weight to facts and misinformation (and I'll include disinformation as well) without context or pushback.
And now look at them.
The irony of so called fact-checkers using double-speak. If only it could reanimate George Orwell.
This is heinous. He says A. Then he says not-A. Then he says B (which is very like A). Then those who say A=B are chastised because he used a different word this time. I think these "fact checkers" are using Russian-developed bots, designed to obfuscate and confuse us.
It seems to me MSM is punishing their readers for being critical of their one sided coverage of this election, in favor of Trump. So, now they are sticking it to us with facts. Seems to me every Democrat needs to say, not "Trump says," but "Trump wants to" do... and then go on from there. Then when the fact checkers say he did not say this, they can point to it being implied in Project 2025, which none of these so called journalists seem to have read. I can tell. Even in my Substack I can see people writing that something Kamala said was wrong, but it is not if you have actually read P2025, it is just named differently in their, so an AI search will not net you what you want. You need to actually read the damn plodding, redundant, lying, whining document to know what it says. I am not just slogging through it, I am doing this with a group as a book club. My group is a political group, Democrats Abroad. We are discussing it online so across countries. It helps. Still, even if you read it, there is so much subtext you need to be really informed on the particular department, the issues, Trump's personal beefs with the department, and the Heritage Foundations personal beefs with it, to understand what you are reading. I have chucked the MSM. I did not watch the interview, and won't be watching the debate. I find all of this dog and pony show irrelevant to figuring out who I am voting for. There is no doubt. I am not fence sitting, or a swing voter, for whom this dog and pony show applies. Also, I am not into the gladiator arena nature of it, and I have no respect for US news media organizations. They need to do what is done in some or many European countries. In Germany, where I live most of the time, every household is billed ~18€ a month, and that covers broadcast news whether or not one has a radio or television, not that you need them to stream anyway. With the written word you have a lot more choices, but those you have to pay for. In addition to the Supreme Court, we need to overhaul our media situation. Also, I hope that the Harris campaign takes to using dating app sites to get their ads in. I recommended it. Then, I read an article that the military was sending messages in Arabic to the middle east via dating apps, where they are telling people that they better not escalate the war and that if US military/citizens? or our allies are harmed, we would retaliate, and it was showing the weapons systems that would be used. So, clearly the Pentagon, or someone in DOD feels that dating apps are a good way to get a message across to youth in general.
This is so beyond pathetic. P.S. I just posted the link to my FB profile. Will let you all know what happens to it. P.P.S. One minute later: FB removed it as "misleading" and "an attempt to get clicks," etc. I filed a complaint.
I've tried, I've really tried... to keep my self control when I think about the mainstream media's pro-Trump bias. But you know, I just, I just can't....AAAAAAARRRGGGHHHHHHH! That feels better. No, wait -- just a little more left. AAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH! All right, I'm okay now. Thanks, Steven Robinson, for letting me unburden myself.
So if we cannot just depend on fact checkers where does that leave us? Having to pay attention and think lest we just fall back on our original perceptions misperceptions misconceptions and prejudices.
At the very least, when trump has been flip flopping around, the rating should simply be "inconclusive." If he said in 2016 that he would not cut Social Security and then submitted budgets doing so and now says he won't again, the rating should be "inconclusive" or "you figure it out for yourself."
It is getting to depend on the time of DAY when a fact check is done. Trump said was in favor of the Florida abortion amendment. Then he flipflopped and says he opposes it. How the hell is a fact checker going to operate. They need to stress the completely ephemeral nature of any statement on policy he makes.
The fact that Gardner won a Pulitzer proves that all a these awards are just professional circle jerks that mean nothing.