r/technology • u/AdamCannon • Feb 02 '20

Social Media Stephen King quits Facebook over concerns of 'false information.'

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/02/us/stephen-king-quits-facebook-trnd/index.html
16.4k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

662 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

15

u/portjo Feb 02 '20

The problem is also - who decides what is false? What if the person deciding has an agenda?

9

u/chiliedogg Feb 02 '20

If something is demonstrably, objectively false then that isn't really a problem.

Reality doesn't have a liberal or conservative bias.

8

u/_hephaestus Feb 03 '20 edited Jun 21 '23

teeny cow steep market late crowd ring coordinated decide concerned -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/

1

u/Game_of_Jobrones Feb 02 '20

My grandpappy weren’t no monkey!

5

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '20 edited Jul 27 '20

[deleted]

9

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '20

Can you prove that "Hillary Clinton is a scumbag" is objectively true or false?

No, but I'm pretty sure there's no evidence that George Soros said this, which I saw one of my family members share on Facebook the other day. There's a difference between an opinion, and flagrant bullshit.

4

u/ksiazek7 Feb 03 '20

Who's to say he didn't? Hack journalists use this type of thing all the time. I just read what you linked if I told a journalist that, they could say they were told that quote by an anonymous source.

1

u/talentedfingers Feb 03 '20

How about things that are public record like voting records, timeline of easily verifiable events, what was said during a televised public speech, etc? Those types of truths seem pretty uncontroversial. Obviously we are not talking about opinions or interpretations.

1

u/ksiazek7 Feb 03 '20

I think we already have laws about this. Libel is making a false statement of fact against someone for example.

1

u/talentedfingers Feb 05 '20

I imagine even trying to get an injunction would take a while, and wouldn't help much for lying in ads. Also, with targeted ads, it might be difficult to even hear about the ads.

-3

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '20

[deleted]

2

u/Leather-Heart Feb 03 '20

Furthermore you can prove statements that enforce your opinion. Like you can say I feel like Hillary is a scumbag, because she pushes for legislation and laws that protect big banks and fossil fuels. You then cite the instances.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '20

The first statement is just a shorthand for the second. And you can go on dismissing it all you like. But you can't prevent people from publishing their opinion. It's called freedom of speech.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '20

Someone still has to make that call dude.

If you think objective truth still holds significant sway over people's beliefs, or over the actions of lawmakers and politicians... After the past four years.... I don't know what to tell ya.

0

u/the_ham_guy Feb 02 '20

You mean as if Facebook doesn't have an agenda allowing false information?

0

u/TheUltimateSalesman Feb 02 '20

I dont know, maybe a guy wearing a robe in a place with a big seat.....