Comments by "N Marbletoe" (@nmarbletoe8210) on "Mark Zuckerberg on Fact Checking" video.

  1.  @jaimesolis8362  The hearing seems to be a farce; she asked questions that were already known. And what do we do about it? A solution to fake ads may be worse than the fake ads. There's a "no-censorship" clause in the Communications Act for good reason.
    3
  2.  CRIMNALSNEAK  Maxine and Zuck tie zero to zero. She asked questions that already are known. He's just not that great at explaining big things like freedom of speech. What's her solution anyway? I think we should break up some of the big tech monopolies but I'm guessing a lot of people want censorship.
    1
  3. fact checking itself however is very difficult. ask plato.
    1
  4.  @eklim2034  fo sho!
    1
  5. First amendment.
    1
  6.  @Avenger222  ok good answer! Principle still applies. And it is, here, the government pressuring facefork to censor political ads.   Even though the government prohibits broadcasters from censoring political ads (which Zuck maybe should have mentioned). Or is Waters have another solution than censorship/ aka fact checking? I think we should consider breaking up some of the tech giants.
    1
  7.  @Avenger222  The problem is setting up a standard of truth. This is something philosophers have wrestled with for ages. Our world is not yes or no.   Truth often cannot be determined by simple means; it will be a lot of judgement calls. But if facebook wants to flag certain ads with a link to "more information" or "why this ad is false" or something, fine. Censorship, no. If they reject candidate ads due to content, that's very very bad precedent, and will be mis-used.
    1
  8.  @Avenger222  Ok that first one, that's not a fake fact, that's fraud. There's strict laws about disclosing who is funding a candidate-ad.   Now the fake election date. Yeah, sure, you could take that one down. But what if it was just a mistake? Why not just put an icon "actual date is:____" So yeah, some facts are clearly false. But many ads really skirt the line. How about all the times they quote the opponent out of context.   That's like half of all the ads in a presidential season!   Ban them, or let them through? I don't want anyone with too much power making that call, period. Break up facebook, not freedom of speech.
    1
  9.  @pandacaribbeantech3921  Yeah take a small bottle of water. Anyone who doesn't like water must be a reptilian. Obviously our man Zuck is not reptilian.
    1
  10. Check all you want but if facebook starts banning a lot of ads, check and see if they are blacklisting legitimate opinions that oppose the power structure. Youtube is censoring today, they call it demonitization, and it's a disaster. Idk about faceplant I don't use it.
    1
  11. Break them up. Don't need to censor speech, just break them up.
    1
  12. Not just that! It's even more important to fart-chuck upstart democrats who challenge incumbents.
    1
  13.  @supagoon8  The Democratic Party tries to marginalize new and progressive candidates. They are afraid of change. If they could ban ads, they would first go after people like Tulsi, then they'd go after republicans.
    1
  14.  @supagoon8  Well just look at what Google did, banning Tulsi the day after a debate! It's already happening. The GOP and DNC will use every tool they have to maintain their lock on the system. Gerrymandering, censorship, smears, dog whistles, outright lies, whatever it takes. The party elite don't fear the other party as much as they fear upstarts from within.
    1
  15. who do you think it's working for?
    1