I really don't care how it actually compares to Obama, and I really don't see why Trump cared so much, but the fact is the pictures are clearly not "facts" either. Yet disputing them is still held up as a common example of "deniers".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/03/06/...
Really - there are stronger arguments against Trump.
And yet the parent seems to believe that pointing out optical perspective differences means we're calling those pictures "right-leaning".
The parent is asserting that the truth is merely a compromise between two different opinions, when in reality there's evidence enough to assert the truth, without making it a matter of 'right' or 'left' opinion. Their inability to provide their credible sources ("high def video") is because their opinion doesn't align with the reality of the situation.
There are people who are good at estimating crowd sizes and I'll let them do their job. But, once again, this picture in no way contradicts the others.
You said 'high resolution video' which the gigapixel is not. Can you link these reliable sources you keep eluding to?
edit: knock yourself out then if you really couldn't find it from all my other comments on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nieiu8tmLIM.
I'm beginning to agree with you about this being "a clear-cut case of people being willfully ignorant."
Edit: The video you linked in your edit does not show the crowds. Why did you edit that video link in? Where is the high-def video you eluded to proving the NPS photos were fake news?
'Candidate X comes out as gay.' 'Secret photos reveal candidate X at KKK lynching.' Are both rather over the top, but also the kind of lies that influence elections.
So you're saying that we should let these organizations lie as much as they want, because people lie in your day-to-day life? The people you meet in your day-to-day life and lie to your face are much more limited in the number of people they can influence with lies.
Why shouldn't we make enormously more powerful institutions more accountable for lies?
The tragedy now is that there are sites that aren't neatly packaged as entirely false but are. The Internet has empowered people like Alex Jones and other people spouting pure falsehoods.
PS: There is a huge difference between blowing things that actually happened out of proportion to support an argument and saying anything that someone might believe.
Thankfully we have a word for that, and it even has a relatively well agreed upon meaning: lies.
The problem with the label "fake news" is, as has been pointed out, that it can mean different things to different people.
Weekly world news can have 'Batboy returns' as a headline and sure it's false. But, bookstores also have fiction sections...
This isn't new.
People, whole communities of people believe, non-sense today. Not small groups like Flat-earthers or chemtrail theorists who number in the hundreds or thousands (per their website/forums sign-ups). There will always be some people on the fringe.
We avoided truly ridiculous ideas for decades. Things like "911 was an inside job" or "Obama was born in Kenya" are believed by tens of millions of people. This is a new thing in my life at least. The last issue this big and this false was prevalent was McCarthyism.
Yes, some stuff is arguable, mostly when it involves politics, but there is a ton of stuff on facebook like "Bolivia expels McDonalds and Coca-Cola", or "check this video on why positive ions released by salt lamps can cure cancer".
For me, it has shown that a large chunk my social network is incapable of detecting bullshit. Last year I tried linking to Snopes or Politifact when people would post obvious falsehoods, but most people just don't care.
What I want from FB is a feed that doesn't include shares or likes of any external content. Seeing and reading about life events of my friends and family is what got me hooked on FB, but right now that's all lost in the torrent of bullshit.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/... http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/do...
Bernie's saying its 50%~, Trump is saying its 60%~. Sure its a 8 percent difference at most, but that difference reveals how they got their number. The gist of both articles is that Bernie is inflating his number with people that have part-time work but want full-time while Trump is inflating with high school and college students.
The rulings on both articles basically point to this: Sander's number has more issue with semantics than actually including people that are not actively seeking a job like Trump's number. Trump doesn't get POF because of your objection: while derived wrong it's "decently" close. Quotes because an 8 point difference is very large when talking unemployment numbers.
The inaccurate thing about Bernie's statement was that he cited U6 as a measure of "unemployment" when it would more accurately be called a measure of "underemployment". It includes people who want a full-time job but can only find a part-time job even though they aren't fully unemployed.
Trump cited 100% - labor force participation rate as a measure of unemployment, which is complete nonsense because it counts people who are full-time students or who are disabled as unemployed.
Perhaps the point here is that what is "true" and what is "false" aren't entirely black or white. Depending on how you look at it, full-time students aren't employed; they are therefore unemployed. In some contexts, people who currently do not hold a job are an accurate representation of unemployed. And therein lies the rub: context is incredibly important.
Most people didn't have to. When they heard something, it had been filtered. We switched context on millions of people without warning.
That's the problem. We're ALREADY THERE. It happened years ago. It's not a slippery slope, it's the thing behind us. And that's not even mentioning Google.
At least they're trying (VERY late, if you ask me). They could have chosen to let it continue and profit off it. After all we know it makes lots of clicks and ad revenue.
We can't pretend his is something that's about to happen. It HAPPENED.
IMV their response is very late, very weak and a half hearted attempt.
For specifics, look at entities in the world that are already known to spend lots of money in advancement of their narratives. We don't even have to look to Russia first. Try the fossil fuel industry.
I'm pretty sure the notion of a 'marketplace of influencers' through buying idea distribution on Facebook (with or without pseudo-grassroots camouflage) almost defaults to those who are up to no good: that's who has the money, in 2017.
I saw this coming years ago. So did others:
The funny thing is Zuckerberg has repeatedly used the line that "Facebook isn't a media company" which is either delusional and naive or Littlefinger doublespeak.
In the past you shared and discussed news at gatherings of all kinds, and unless its a cult (which are easy to identify, and if required, outlaw) you had a fair chance of atleast coming across differing opinion. You had a face, a body and a mind attached to a differing opinion, a great humanizing factor. That is missing in FB echo chambers.
For me, FB, TW, etc have become unreliable sources of news.
Here, FB is trying to limit ads from pages that share false news, but who will decide that??
1. FB - Leads to a dangerous slippery slope of putting too much power into a single,private, profit-seeking entity.
2. Users - It alienates sections of society.
3. Other sources - Inherently unreliable.
Seemingly, FB getting into the media distribution business itself is troublesome for a society, especially when you have a platform whose algorithms prioritize profit, consequently leading to construction of powerful echo chambers.
The trouble with these echo chambers is that they nullify efforts of the society to promote meaningful debate and discussion.
Even before the era of FB, the world was struggling with misinformation, lies, subversion of facts, etc. Now we have reached a point where Presidents can lie, often within a span of a few hours, and it's essentially forgotten and things move on. These echo chambers are the primary culprit for this IMV. When efforts to educate constituents is taken head on with echo chambers, the echo chambers inevitably win.
Reminds me of the novel where the speaker in a press conference is denouncing country A, and is handed over a note from his aide, and the speaker immediately switched the narrative denouncing country B, all the while the press simply accepts what is told.