Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, cut domestic programs, cut domestic programs, cut domestic programs, particularly those that assist the “other” and the do nothing disadvantaged.
Does anyone here think Team Trump Treason shouldn’t be impeached?
Facebook Refuses To Pull Trump Campaign Ad That Falsely Accuses Biden Of Corruption
A video ad that falsely accuses Joe Biden of withholding $1 billion in aid to Ukraine to benefit his son has been viewed on Facebook millions of times since its release last month by President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign. Biden, who’s vying for the Democratic presidential nomination, has urged Facebook to take the ad down, arguing that it spreads “objectively false information” and “poisons the public discourse.”
But Facebook, which has come under scrutiny for its role in spreading misinformation during the 2016 presidential election, has reportedly refused to pull the video, citing its “fundamental belief in free expression” and “respect for the democratic process.”
The New York Times, which first reported Facebook’s denial of Biden’s request, reported Tuesday that the social media giant had sent a letter to the former vice president, saying the ad did not violate company policies.
“Our approach is grounded in Facebook’s fundamental belief in free expression, respect for the democratic process, and the belief that, in mature democracies with a free press, political speech is already arguably the most scrutinized speech there is,” Katie Harbath, Facebook’s head of global elections policy, said in the letter, per the Times.
Harbath’s letter echoed a similar sentiment expressed last month by Nick Clegg, a former U.K. deputy prime minister who is now a Facebook vice president, who said in a speech in Washington that it’s not Facebook’s “role to intervene when politicians speak.”
The Biden campaign slammed Facebook’s decision as “unacceptable.”
The dissemination of “objectively false information to influence public opinion poisons the public discourse and chips away at our democracy,” Biden campaign spokesman TJ Ducklo told CNN in a statement. “Whether it originates from the Kremlin or Trump Tower, these lies and conspiracy theories threaten to undermine the integrity of our elections in America. It is unacceptable for any social media company to knowingly allow deliberately misleading material to corrupt its platform.”
The Trump ad being contested pushes a conspiracy theory that Biden ― according to a narrator in the clip ― “promised Ukraine $1 billion if they fired the prosecutor investigating his son’s company.”
While it is true that the elder Biden, then serving as vice president, told Ukrainian leaders in 2016 to fire a top prosecutor if they wanted to get the aid, there’s no evidence that this demand had anything to do with his son, Hunter.
The ad has also run on Twitter and YouTube, both told the Times that the ad complied with company policies.
Biden’s campaign told CNN that it “would not rule out sending similar letters” to other social media sites requesting the ad’s removal from their platforms.
On TV, the ad has run on Fox News, which — like Facebook — denied a Biden campaign request to block the clip. CNN, however, has refused to run the ad.
Explaining that decision, a CNN spokesman said last week that the video “makes assertions that have been proven demonstrably false by various news outlets, including CNN.”
Facebook has come under fire from the Democratic National Committee, as well as other 2020 presidential hopefuls, for their refusal to block false statements or ads from political candidates.
Democratic National Committee CEO Seema Nanda told CNN last week that Facebook was allowing Trump “to mislead the American people on their platform unimpeded.”
On Monday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) ― who, along with Biden, is considered a front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president ― criticized Facebook’s policies in a series of tweets.
“The public deserves to know how Facebook intends to use their influence in this election,” Warren wrote.
“For instance, Trump and Zuckerberg met at the White House two weeks ago. What did they talk about?” she added in a subsequent tweet.
Warren suggested that Facebook had tweaked misinformation policies to exempt politicians from fact-checking after this meeting with Trump. As Reuters noted, Warren has not offered any evidence to support this claim.
“There’s no indication that Zuckerberg or Facebook executives have come to terms with the role their unpreparedness played” in the spread of misinformation during the 2016 election, Warren wrote. “Nor have they shown that they understand what needs to be done to prevent another attack in the 2020 election.”
Facebook Refuses To Pull Trump Campaign Ad That Falsely Accuses Biden Of Corruption
A video ad that falsely accuses Joe Biden of withholding $1 billion in aid to Ukraine to benefit his son has been viewed on Facebook millions of times since its release last month by President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign. Biden, who’s vying for the Democratic presidential nomination, has urged Facebook to take the ad down, arguing that it spreads “objectively false information” and “poisons the public discourse.”
But Facebook, which has come under scrutiny for its role in spreading misinformation during the 2016 presidential election, has reportedly refused to pull the video, citing its “fundamental belief in free expression” and “respect for the democratic process.”
The New York Times, which first reported Facebook’s denial of Biden’s request, reported Tuesday that the social media giant had sent a letter to the former vice president, saying the ad did not violate company policies.
“Our approach is grounded in Facebook’s fundamental belief in free expression, respect for the democratic process, and the belief that, in mature democracies with a free press, political speech is already arguably the most scrutinized speech there is,” Katie Harbath, Facebook’s head of global elections policy, said in the letter, per the Times.
Harbath’s letter echoed a similar sentiment expressed last month by Nick Clegg, a former U.K. deputy prime minister who is now a Facebook vice president, who said in a speech in Washington that it’s not Facebook’s “role to intervene when politicians speak.”
The Biden campaign slammed Facebook’s decision as “unacceptable.”
The dissemination of “objectively false information to influence public opinion poisons the public discourse and chips away at our democracy,” Biden campaign spokesman TJ Ducklo told CNN in a statement. “Whether it originates from the Kremlin or Trump Tower, these lies and conspiracy theories threaten to undermine the integrity of our elections in America. It is unacceptable for any social media company to knowingly allow deliberately misleading material to corrupt its platform.”
The Trump ad being contested pushes a conspiracy theory that Biden ― according to a narrator in the clip ― “promised Ukraine $1 billion if they fired the prosecutor investigating his son’s company.”
While it is true that the elder Biden, then serving as vice president, told Ukrainian leaders in 2016 to fire a top prosecutor if they wanted to get the aid, there’s no evidence that this demand had anything to do with his son, Hunter.
The ad has also run on Twitter and YouTube, both told the Times that the ad complied with company policies.
Biden’s campaign told CNN that it “would not rule out sending similar letters” to other social media sites requesting the ad’s removal from their platforms.
On TV, the ad has run on Fox News, which — like Facebook — denied a Biden campaign request to block the clip. CNN, however, has refused to run the ad.
Explaining that decision, a CNN spokesman said last week that the video “makes assertions that have been proven demonstrably false by various news outlets, including CNN.”
Facebook has come under fire from the Democratic National Committee, as well as other 2020 presidential hopefuls, for their refusal to block false statements or ads from political candidates.
Democratic National Committee CEO Seema Nanda told CNN last week that Facebook was allowing Trump “to mislead the American people on their platform unimpeded.”
On Monday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) ― who, along with Biden, is considered a front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president ― criticized Facebook’s policies in a series of tweets.
“The public deserves to know how Facebook intends to use their influence in this election,” Warren wrote.
“For instance, Trump and Zuckerberg met at the White House two weeks ago. What did they talk about?” she added in a subsequent tweet.
Warren suggested that Facebook had tweaked misinformation policies to exempt politicians from fact-checking after this meeting with Trump. As Reuters noted, Warren has not offered any evidence to support this claim.
“There’s no indication that Zuckerberg or Facebook executives have come to terms with the role their unpreparedness played” in the spread of misinformation during the 2016 election, Warren wrote. “Nor have they shown that they understand what needs to be done to prevent another attack in the 2020 election.”
Who cares? It’s not like social media influences elections or anything.
Facebook Refuses To Pull Trump Campaign Ad That Falsely Accuses Biden Of Corruption
A video ad that falsely accuses Joe Biden of withholding $1 billion in aid to Ukraine to benefit his son has been viewed on Facebook millions of times since its release last month by President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign. Biden, who’s vying for the Democratic presidential nomination, has urged Facebook to take the ad down, arguing that it spreads “objectively false information” and “poisons the public discourse.”
But Facebook, which has come under scrutiny for its role in spreading misinformation during the 2016 presidential election, has reportedly refused to pull the video, citing its “fundamental belief in free expression” and “respect for the democratic process.”
The New York Times, which first reported Facebook’s denial of Biden’s request, reported Tuesday that the social media giant had sent a letter to the former vice president, saying the ad did not violate company policies.
“Our approach is grounded in Facebook’s fundamental belief in free expression, respect for the democratic process, and the belief that, in mature democracies with a free press, political speech is already arguably the most scrutinized speech there is,” Katie Harbath, Facebook’s head of global elections policy, said in the letter, per the Times.
Harbath’s letter echoed a similar sentiment expressed last month by Nick Clegg, a former U.K. deputy prime minister who is now a Facebook vice president, who said in a speech in Washington that it’s not Facebook’s “role to intervene when politicians speak.”
The Biden campaign slammed Facebook’s decision as “unacceptable.”
The dissemination of “objectively false information to influence public opinion poisons the public discourse and chips away at our democracy,” Biden campaign spokesman TJ Ducklo told CNN in a statement. “Whether it originates from the Kremlin or Trump Tower, these lies and conspiracy theories threaten to undermine the integrity of our elections in America. It is unacceptable for any social media company to knowingly allow deliberately misleading material to corrupt its platform.”
The Trump ad being contested pushes a conspiracy theory that Biden ― according to a narrator in the clip ― “promised Ukraine $1 billion if they fired the prosecutor investigating his son’s company.”
While it is true that the elder Biden, then serving as vice president, told Ukrainian leaders in 2016 to fire a top prosecutor if they wanted to get the aid, there’s no evidence that this demand had anything to do with his son, Hunter.
The ad has also run on Twitter and YouTube, both told the Times that the ad complied with company policies.
Biden’s campaign told CNN that it “would not rule out sending similar letters” to other social media sites requesting the ad’s removal from their platforms.
On TV, the ad has run on Fox News, which — like Facebook — denied a Biden campaign request to block the clip. CNN, however, has refused to run the ad.
Explaining that decision, a CNN spokesman said last week that the video “makes assertions that have been proven demonstrably false by various news outlets, including CNN.”
Facebook has come under fire from the Democratic National Committee, as well as other 2020 presidential hopefuls, for their refusal to block false statements or ads from political candidates.
Democratic National Committee CEO Seema Nanda told CNN last week that Facebook was allowing Trump “to mislead the American people on their platform unimpeded.”
On Monday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) ― who, along with Biden, is considered a front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president ― criticized Facebook’s policies in a series of tweets.
“The public deserves to know how Facebook intends to use their influence in this election,” Warren wrote.
“For instance, Trump and Zuckerberg met at the White House two weeks ago. What did they talk about?” she added in a subsequent tweet.
Warren suggested that Facebook had tweaked misinformation policies to exempt politicians from fact-checking after this meeting with Trump. As Reuters noted, Warren has not offered any evidence to support this claim.
“There’s no indication that Zuckerberg or Facebook executives have come to terms with the role their unpreparedness played” in the spread of misinformation during the 2016 election, Warren wrote. “Nor have they shown that they understand what needs to be done to prevent another attack in the 2020 election.”
What do you mean, who's right? Is FB right to step away from making the determination? Or are you asking if the Trump campaign is right in its accusations?
Facebook is accepting money to spread political propaganda they know is false, propaganda which if effective will benefit Facebook in the long term, and there's a question as to whether or not they are wrong to do so?
Facebook Refuses To Pull Trump Campaign Ad That Falsely Accuses Biden Of Corruption
A video ad that falsely accuses Joe Biden of withholding $1 billion in aid to Ukraine to benefit his son has been viewed on Facebook millions of times since its release last month by President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign. Biden, who’s vying for the Democratic presidential nomination, has urged Facebook to take the ad down, arguing that it spreads “objectively false information” and “poisons the public discourse.”
But Facebook, which has come under scrutiny for its role in spreading misinformation during the 2016 presidential election, has reportedly refused to pull the video, citing its “fundamental belief in free expression” and “respect for the democratic process.”
The New York Times, which first reported Facebook’s denial of Biden’s request, reported Tuesday that the social media giant had sent a letter to the former vice president, saying the ad did not violate company policies.
“Our approach is grounded in Facebook’s fundamental belief in free expression, respect for the democratic process, and the belief that, in mature democracies with a free press, political speech is already arguably the most scrutinized speech there is,” Katie Harbath, Facebook’s head of global elections policy, said in the letter, per the Times.
Harbath’s letter echoed a similar sentiment expressed last month by Nick Clegg, a former U.K. deputy prime minister who is now a Facebook vice president, who said in a speech in Washington that it’s not Facebook’s “role to intervene when politicians speak.”
The Biden campaign slammed Facebook’s decision as “unacceptable.”
The dissemination of “objectively false information to influence public opinion poisons the public discourse and chips away at our democracy,” Biden campaign spokesman TJ Ducklo told CNN in a statement. “Whether it originates from the Kremlin or Trump Tower, these lies and conspiracy theories threaten to undermine the integrity of our elections in America. It is unacceptable for any social media company to knowingly allow deliberately misleading material to corrupt its platform.”
The Trump ad being contested pushes a conspiracy theory that Biden ― according to a narrator in the clip ― “promised Ukraine $1 billion if they fired the prosecutor investigating his son’s company.”
While it is true that the elder Biden, then serving as vice president, told Ukrainian leaders in 2016 to fire a top prosecutor if they wanted to get the aid, there’s no evidence that this demand had anything to do with his son, Hunter.
The ad has also run on Twitter and YouTube, both told the Times that the ad complied with company policies.
Biden’s campaign told CNN that it “would not rule out sending similar letters” to other social media sites requesting the ad’s removal from their platforms.
On TV, the ad has run on Fox News, which — like Facebook — denied a Biden campaign request to block the clip. CNN, however, has refused to run the ad.
Explaining that decision, a CNN spokesman said last week that the video “makes assertions that have been proven demonstrably false by various news outlets, including CNN.”
Facebook has come under fire from the Democratic National Committee, as well as other 2020 presidential hopefuls, for their refusal to block false statements or ads from political candidates.
Democratic National Committee CEO Seema Nanda told CNN last week that Facebook was allowing Trump “to mislead the American people on their platform unimpeded.”
On Monday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) ― who, along with Biden, is considered a front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president ― criticized Facebook’s policies in a series of tweets.
“The public deserves to know how Facebook intends to use their influence in this election,” Warren wrote.
“For instance, Trump and Zuckerberg met at the White House two weeks ago. What did they talk about?” she added in a subsequent tweet.
Warren suggested that Facebook had tweaked misinformation policies to exempt politicians from fact-checking after this meeting with Trump. As Reuters noted, Warren has not offered any evidence to support this claim.
“There’s no indication that Zuckerberg or Facebook executives have come to terms with the role their unpreparedness played” in the spread of misinformation during the 2016 election, Warren wrote. “Nor have they shown that they understand what needs to be done to prevent another attack in the 2020 election.”
What do you mean, who's right? Is FB right to step away from making the determination? Or are you asking if the Trump campaign is right in its accusations?
Sorry for my vague question, is Facebook right or wrong for keeping the add up?
Facebook is accepting money to spread political propaganda they know is false, propaganda which if effective will benefit Facebook in the long term, and there's a question as to whether or not they are wrong to do so?
Really?
I see your point, but is it the responsibility of every private corporation to validate the veracity of every statement made on their pages by their paid advertisers? I mean, CNN has their "paid content" on the website's front page, and it all looks like tabloid garbage.
should they take down ads by (insert sugar cereal here) claiming to be "part of your complete breakfast"?
ultimately the responsibility lies with the consumer/voter to decide. as unfortunate as it is. false/misleading political attack ads have been running on tv for decades. but now that's it the "cesspool" of social media, now everyone cares? what's the difference?
Facebook Refuses To Pull Trump Campaign Ad That Falsely Accuses Biden Of Corruption
A video ad that falsely accuses Joe Biden of withholding $1 billion in aid to Ukraine to benefit his son has been viewed on Facebook millions of times since its release last month by President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign. Biden, who’s vying for the Democratic presidential nomination, has urged Facebook to take the ad down, arguing that it spreads “objectively false information” and “poisons the public discourse.”
But Facebook, which has come under scrutiny for its role in spreading misinformation during the 2016 presidential election, has reportedly refused to pull the video, citing its “fundamental belief in free expression” and “respect for the democratic process.”
The New York Times, which first reported Facebook’s denial of Biden’s request, reported Tuesday that the social media giant had sent a letter to the former vice president, saying the ad did not violate company policies.
“Our approach is grounded in Facebook’s fundamental belief in free expression, respect for the democratic process, and the belief that, in mature democracies with a free press, political speech is already arguably the most scrutinized speech there is,” Katie Harbath, Facebook’s head of global elections policy, said in the letter, per the Times.
Harbath’s letter echoed a similar sentiment expressed last month by Nick Clegg, a former U.K. deputy prime minister who is now a Facebook vice president, who said in a speech in Washington that it’s not Facebook’s “role to intervene when politicians speak.”
The Biden campaign slammed Facebook’s decision as “unacceptable.”
The dissemination of “objectively false information to influence public opinion poisons the public discourse and chips away at our democracy,” Biden campaign spokesman TJ Ducklo told CNN in a statement. “Whether it originates from the Kremlin or Trump Tower, these lies and conspiracy theories threaten to undermine the integrity of our elections in America. It is unacceptable for any social media company to knowingly allow deliberately misleading material to corrupt its platform.”
The Trump ad being contested pushes a conspiracy theory that Biden ― according to a narrator in the clip ― “promised Ukraine $1 billion if they fired the prosecutor investigating his son’s company.”
While it is true that the elder Biden, then serving as vice president, told Ukrainian leaders in 2016 to fire a top prosecutor if they wanted to get the aid, there’s no evidence that this demand had anything to do with his son, Hunter.
The ad has also run on Twitter and YouTube, both told the Times that the ad complied with company policies.
Biden’s campaign told CNN that it “would not rule out sending similar letters” to other social media sites requesting the ad’s removal from their platforms.
On TV, the ad has run on Fox News, which — like Facebook — denied a Biden campaign request to block the clip. CNN, however, has refused to run the ad.
Explaining that decision, a CNN spokesman said last week that the video “makes assertions that have been proven demonstrably false by various news outlets, including CNN.”
Facebook has come under fire from the Democratic National Committee, as well as other 2020 presidential hopefuls, for their refusal to block false statements or ads from political candidates.
Democratic National Committee CEO Seema Nanda told CNN last week that Facebook was allowing Trump “to mislead the American people on their platform unimpeded.”
On Monday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) ― who, along with Biden, is considered a front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president ― criticized Facebook’s policies in a series of tweets.
“The public deserves to know how Facebook intends to use their influence in this election,” Warren wrote.
“For instance, Trump and Zuckerberg met at the White House two weeks ago. What did they talk about?” she added in a subsequent tweet.
Warren suggested that Facebook had tweaked misinformation policies to exempt politicians from fact-checking after this meeting with Trump. As Reuters noted, Warren has not offered any evidence to support this claim.
“There’s no indication that Zuckerberg or Facebook executives have come to terms with the role their unpreparedness played” in the spread of misinformation during the 2016 election, Warren wrote. “Nor have they shown that they understand what needs to be done to prevent another attack in the 2020 election.”
What do you mean, who's right? Is FB right to step away from making the determination? Or are you asking if the Trump campaign is right in its accusations?
Sorry for my vague question, is Facebook right or wrong for keeping the add up?
Well in fairness to facebook, I'm sure many (if not all) of Trump's television ads will have falsifications....as hundreds if not thousands of American TV political ads have. So if television channels can run that shit, why not facebook? That's the problem. Politicians or lobbyists spreading false information isn't anything new. But the fact that it spreads like wild fire in the social media age is.
Facebook is accepting money to spread political propaganda they know is false, propaganda which if effective will benefit Facebook in the long term, and there's a question as to whether or not they are wrong to do so?
Really?
I see your point, but is it the responsibility of every private corporation to validate the veracity of every statement made on their pages by their paid advertisers? I mean, CNN has their "paid content" on the website's front page, and it all looks like tabloid garbage.
should they take down ads by (insert sugar cereal here) claiming to be "part of your complete breakfast"?
ultimately the responsibility lies with the consumer/voter to decide. as unfortunate as it is. false/misleading political attack ads have been running on tv for decades. but now that's it the "cesspool" of social media, now everyone cares? what's the difference?
Well, for starters, social media's reach and influence is greater than anything we've ever seen before (it's unprecedented), and the lies are only getting bolder & bigger, so there's two significant differences.
Furthermore, do you really not see the difference between CNN running an ad that might call Frosted Flakes "a part of your complete breakfast" and Facebook running an ad claiming Biden withheld $1B from the Ukraine?
Facebook is accepting money to spread political propaganda they know is false, propaganda which if effective will benefit Facebook in the long term, and there's a question as to whether or not they are wrong to do so?
Really?
I see your point, but is it the responsibility of every private corporation to validate the veracity of every statement made on their pages by their paid advertisers? I mean, CNN has their "paid content" on the website's front page, and it all looks like tabloid garbage.
should they take down ads by (insert sugar cereal here) claiming to be "part of your complete breakfast"?
ultimately the responsibility lies with the consumer/voter to decide. as unfortunate as it is. false/misleading political attack ads have been running on tv for decades. but now that's it the "cesspool" of social media, now everyone cares? what's the difference?
Well, for starters, social media's reach and influence is greater than anything we've ever seen before (it's unprecedented), and the lies are only getting bolder & bigger, so there's two significant differences.
Furthermore, do you really not see the difference between CNN running an ad that might call Frosted Flakes "a part of your complete breakfast" and Facebook running an ad claiming Biden withheld $1B from the Ukraine?
i never claimed they were the same or equal, just that they are on the same spectrum. My "what's the difference" was in regards to social media vs tv.
TV had an exponentially larger reach 15 years ago.
so it's only a bad thing now because of social media's reach? shouldn't it have been a problem before, regardless? and also, isn't social media a young person's (mostly) folly? you know, the ones that don't vote?
I think people are attempting to move the goal posts because it's trump. because we are in semi-uncharted territory here, where we have the US president ready and willing to tell not just exaggerations, or partial truths, but obvious lies.
my point is where is the line drawn? is it only drawn for trump and the GOP? or do we outlaw all political ads altogether, because by and large, they are ALL utter bullshit, whether by telling lies or lying by omission of truth.
Don't sleep on the concept of advertising. People buy into that shit.
Coffee is for closers. Also, I don’t believe faceturd has to play by the same rules as television, given FCC, FTC and other regulatory agency oversight and rules. Could be wrong but it’s not apples to apples.
Facebook is accepting money to spread political propaganda they know is false, propaganda which if effective will benefit Facebook in the long term, and there's a question as to whether or not they are wrong to do so?
Really?
I see your point, but is it the responsibility of every private corporation to validate the veracity of every statement made on their pages by their paid advertisers? I mean, CNN has their "paid content" on the website's front page, and it all looks like tabloid garbage.
should they take down ads by (insert sugar cereal here) claiming to be "part of your complete breakfast"?
ultimately the responsibility lies with the consumer/voter to decide. as unfortunate as it is. false/misleading political attack ads have been running on tv for decades. but now that's it the "cesspool" of social media, now everyone cares? what's the difference?
Well, for starters, social media's reach and influence is greater than anything we've ever seen before (it's unprecedented), and the lies are only getting bolder & bigger, so there's two significant differences.
Furthermore, do you really not see the difference between CNN running an ad that might call Frosted Flakes "a part of your complete breakfast" and Facebook running an ad claiming Biden withheld $1B from the Ukraine?
i never claimed they were the same or equal, just that they are on the same spectrum. My "what's the difference" was in regards to social media vs tv.
TV had an exponentially larger reach 15 years ago.
so it's only a bad thing now because of social media's reach? shouldn't it have been a problem before, regardless? and also, isn't social media a young person's (mostly) folly? you know, the ones that don't vote?
I think people are attempting to move the goal posts because it's trump. because we are in semi-uncharted territory here, where we have the US president ready and willing to tell not just exaggerations, or partial truths, but obvious lies.
my point is where is the line drawn? is it only drawn for trump and the GOP? or do we outlaw all political ads altogether, because by and large, they are ALL utter bullshit, whether by telling lies or lying by omission of truth.
social media allows for "sharing"...unlike an ad on TV. If some organization posts absolute bullshit (i.e. Hillary is the devil, etc.) and idiots share it it takes on a whole new level of unchecked bullshit.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Don't sleep on the concept of advertising. People buy into that shit.
Coffee is for closers. Also, I don’t believe faceturd has to play by the same rules as television, given FCC, FTC and other regulatory agency oversight and rules. Could be wrong but it’s not apples to apples.
You see this watch? That watch cost more than your car. I made $970,000 last year. How much you make? You see, pal, that's who I am, and you're nothing.
Facebook is accepting money to spread political propaganda they know is false, propaganda which if effective will benefit Facebook in the long term, and there's a question as to whether or not they are wrong to do so?
Really?
I see your point, but is it the responsibility of every private corporation to validate the veracity of every statement made on their pages by their paid advertisers? I mean, CNN has their "paid content" on the website's front page, and it all looks like tabloid garbage.
should they take down ads by (insert sugar cereal here) claiming to be "part of your complete breakfast"?
ultimately the responsibility lies with the consumer/voter to decide. as unfortunate as it is. false/misleading political attack ads have been running on tv for decades. but now that's it the "cesspool" of social media, now everyone cares? what's the difference?
Well, for starters, social media's reach and influence is greater than anything we've ever seen before (it's unprecedented), and the lies are only getting bolder & bigger, so there's two significant differences.
Furthermore, do you really not see the difference between CNN running an ad that might call Frosted Flakes "a part of your complete breakfast" and Facebook running an ad claiming Biden withheld $1B from the Ukraine?
i never claimed they were the same or equal, just that they are on the same spectrum. My "what's the difference" was in regards to social media vs tv.
TV had an exponentially larger reach 15 years ago.
so it's only a bad thing now because of social media's reach? shouldn't it have been a problem before, regardless? and also, isn't social media a young person's (mostly) folly? you know, the ones that don't vote?
I think people are attempting to move the goal posts because it's trump. because we are in semi-uncharted territory here, where we have the US president ready and willing to tell not just exaggerations, or partial truths, but obvious lies.
my point is where is the line drawn? is it only drawn for trump and the GOP? or do we outlaw all political ads altogether, because by and large, they are ALL utter bullshit, whether by telling lies or lying by omission of truth.
social media allows for "sharing"...unlike an ad on TV. If some organization posts absolute bullshit (i.e. Hillary is the devil, etc.) and idiots share it it takes on a whole new level of unchecked bullshit.
I get that. But there just seems to be a whole new level of outrage over everything just because it's trump.
i never claimed they were the same or equal, just that they are on the same spectrum. My "what's the difference" was in regards to social media vs tv.
TV had an exponentially larger reach 15 years ago.
so it's only a bad thing now because of social media's reach? shouldn't it have been a problem before, regardless? and also, isn't social media a young person's (mostly) folly? you know, the ones that don't vote?
I think people are attempting to move the goal posts because it's trump. because we are in semi-uncharted territory here, where we have the US president ready and willing to tell not just exaggerations, or partial truths, but obvious lies.
my point is where is the line drawn? is it only drawn for trump and the GOP? or do we outlaw all political ads altogether, because by and large, they are ALL utter bullshit, whether by telling lies or lying by omission of truth.
Yeah, TV's reach, even at it's height I'm sure wasn't a fraction of Facebook's reach these days. I don't have the data to support that, but even with the internet 15 years ago, I feel pretty confident assuming there was no tv station / network with a modicum of facebook's reach at any point in history.
RE: "a young person's folly" - according to recent data, 65% of Facebook users are over 35, so maybe millenials aren't to blame for this one?
No one said misleading political ads weren't a problem before, but I do agree that you ask a very important question, and that's 'where is the line drawn?'
To that I would answer if we aren't going to draw the line with a president whose lies about immigrants have inspired at least two domestic mass shootings then I guess we aren't ever going to draw the line.
If I were Biden I would be hammering that fucker every day. I would speculate that the GOP secretly wants Nikki Haley to run in tRump's place and make tRump focus on that. It would drive him insane. The Dems need to harp on bullshit 24/7 just like the GOP does with Biden/Ukraine.
Turn the fucking table over for once.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
i never claimed they were the same or equal, just that they are on the same spectrum. My "what's the difference" was in regards to social media vs tv.
TV had an exponentially larger reach 15 years ago.
so it's only a bad thing now because of social media's reach? shouldn't it have been a problem before, regardless? and also, isn't social media a young person's (mostly) folly? you know, the ones that don't vote?
I think people are attempting to move the goal posts because it's trump. because we are in semi-uncharted territory here, where we have the US president ready and willing to tell not just exaggerations, or partial truths, but obvious lies.
my point is where is the line drawn? is it only drawn for trump and the GOP? or do we outlaw all political ads altogether, because by and large, they are ALL utter bullshit, whether by telling lies or lying by omission of truth.
Yeah, TV's reach, even at it's height I'm sure wasn't a fraction of Facebook's reach these days. I don't have the data to support that, but even with the internet 15 years ago, I feel pretty confident assuming there was no tv station / network with a modicum of facebook's reach at any point in history.
RE: "a young person's folly" - according to recent data, 65% of Facebook users are over 35, so maybe millenials aren't to blame for this one?
No one said misleading political ads weren't a problem before, but I do agree that you ask a very important question, and that's 'where is the line drawn?'
To that I would answer if we aren't going to draw the line with a president whose lies about immigrants have inspired at least two domestic mass shootings then I guess we aren't ever going to draw the line.
(edited to cutdown on all the previous replies)
facebook, yes. it is now your parents' social media. so yes, to that end, that's true. I guess i was responding about facebook while thinking of all social media.
I wasn't trying to blame anything on millennials. typically young people, regardless of generation, are the lowest voter turnout. I wasn't targeting them.
Facebook is accepting money to spread political propaganda they know is false, propaganda which if effective will benefit Facebook in the long term, and there's a question as to whether or not they are wrong to do so?
Really?
I see your point, but is it the responsibility of every private corporation to validate the veracity of every statement made on their pages by their paid advertisers? I mean, CNN has their "paid content" on the website's front page, and it all looks like tabloid garbage.
should they take down ads by (insert sugar cereal here) claiming to be "part of your complete breakfast"?
ultimately the responsibility lies with the consumer/voter to decide. as unfortunate as it is. false/misleading political attack ads have been running on tv for decades. but now that's it the "cesspool" of social media, now everyone cares? what's the difference?
Well, for starters, social media's reach and influence is greater than anything we've ever seen before (it's unprecedented), and the lies are only getting bolder & bigger, so there's two significant differences.
Furthermore, do you really not see the difference between CNN running an ad that might call Frosted Flakes "a part of your complete breakfast" and Facebook running an ad claiming Biden withheld $1B from the Ukraine?
i never claimed they were the same or equal, just that they are on the same spectrum. My "what's the difference" was in regards to social media vs tv.
TV had an exponentially larger reach 15 years ago.
so it's only a bad thing now because of social media's reach? shouldn't it have been a problem before, regardless? and also, isn't social media a young person's (mostly) folly? you know, the ones that don't vote?
I think people are attempting to move the goal posts because it's trump. because we are in semi-uncharted territory here, where we have the US president ready and willing to tell not just exaggerations, or partial truths, but obvious lies.
my point is where is the line drawn? is it only drawn for trump and the GOP? or do we outlaw all political ads altogether, because by and large, they are ALL utter bullshit, whether by telling lies or lying by omission of truth.
social media allows for "sharing"...unlike an ad on TV. If some organization posts absolute bullshit (i.e. Hillary is the devil, etc.) and idiots share it it takes on a whole new level of unchecked bullshit.
I get that. But there just seems to be a whole new level of outrage over everything just because it's trump.
Probably because tRump takes advantage of the dark side of it. He won in 2016 based on false FB ads that targeted the three states that won him the electoral college. He won by 77,000 votes...which means the ads only had to influence 38,500 people into changing their votes from Clinton to assface.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Facebook is accepting money to spread political propaganda they know is false, propaganda which if effective will benefit Facebook in the long term, and there's a question as to whether or not they are wrong to do so?
Really?
I see your point, but is it the responsibility of every private corporation to validate the veracity of every statement made on their pages by their paid advertisers? I mean, CNN has their "paid content" on the website's front page, and it all looks like tabloid garbage.
should they take down ads by (insert sugar cereal here) claiming to be "part of your complete breakfast"?
ultimately the responsibility lies with the consumer/voter to decide. as unfortunate as it is. false/misleading political attack ads have been running on tv for decades. but now that's it the "cesspool" of social media, now everyone cares? what's the difference?
Well, for starters, social media's reach and influence is greater than anything we've ever seen before (it's unprecedented), and the lies are only getting bolder & bigger, so there's two significant differences.
Furthermore, do you really not see the difference between CNN running an ad that might call Frosted Flakes "a part of your complete breakfast" and Facebook running an ad claiming Biden withheld $1B from the Ukraine?
i never claimed they were the same or equal, just that they are on the same spectrum. My "what's the difference" was in regards to social media vs tv.
TV had an exponentially larger reach 15 years ago.
so it's only a bad thing now because of social media's reach? shouldn't it have been a problem before, regardless? and also, isn't social media a young person's (mostly) folly? you know, the ones that don't vote?
I think people are attempting to move the goal posts because it's trump. because we are in semi-uncharted territory here, where we have the US president ready and willing to tell not just exaggerations, or partial truths, but obvious lies.
my point is where is the line drawn? is it only drawn for trump and the GOP? or do we outlaw all political ads altogether, because by and large, they are ALL utter bullshit, whether by telling lies or lying by omission of truth.
social media allows for "sharing"...unlike an ad on TV. If some organization posts absolute bullshit (i.e. Hillary is the devil, etc.) and idiots share it it takes on a whole new level of unchecked bullshit.
I get that. But there just seems to be a whole new level of outrage over everything just because it's trump.
Probably because tRump takes advantage of the dark side of it. He won in 2016 based on false FB ads that targeted the three states that won him the electoral college. He won by 77,000 votes...which means the ads only had to influence 38,500 people into changing their votes from Clinton to assface.
He didn't even PAY for those insanely TARGETED ads (INFLUENCE) in 2016...the Russians picked up the tab, as normal.
Is anyone checking the investment portfolios of Mr. & Mrs. Chain Migration Melania? Or any of the offspring of Jared Dear Boy and Donny Jr.? You know, their kids’ college and trust funds? Those tweeted wild gyrations of the stock market have consequences. I wonder who’s been profiting? Wouldn’t want yet another false accusation to be brought up either. And what about Putin on the ritz’s and his oligarchs? They in the stock market?
Comments
Does anyone here think Team Trump Treason shouldn’t be impeached?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Facebook Refuses To Pull Trump Campaign Ad That Falsely Accuses Biden Of Corruption
A video ad that falsely accuses Joe Biden of withholding $1 billion in aid to Ukraine to benefit his son has been viewed on Facebook millions of times since its release last month by President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign. Biden, who’s vying for the Democratic presidential nomination, has urged Facebook to take the ad down, arguing that it spreads “objectively false information” and “poisons the public discourse.”
But Facebook, which has come under scrutiny for its role in spreading misinformation during the 2016 presidential election, has reportedly refused to pull the video, citing its “fundamental belief in free expression” and “respect for the democratic process.”
The New York Times, which first reported Facebook’s denial of Biden’s request, reported Tuesday that the social media giant had sent a letter to the former vice president, saying the ad did not violate company policies.
“Our approach is grounded in Facebook’s fundamental belief in free expression, respect for the democratic process, and the belief that, in mature democracies with a free press, political speech is already arguably the most scrutinized speech there is,” Katie Harbath, Facebook’s head of global elections policy, said in the letter, per the Times.
Harbath’s letter echoed a similar sentiment expressed last month by Nick Clegg, a former U.K. deputy prime minister who is now a Facebook vice president, who said in a speech in Washington that it’s not Facebook’s “role to intervene when politicians speak.”
The Biden campaign slammed Facebook’s decision as “unacceptable.”
The dissemination of “objectively false information to influence public opinion poisons the public discourse and chips away at our democracy,” Biden campaign spokesman TJ Ducklo told CNN in a statement. “Whether it originates from the Kremlin or Trump Tower, these lies and conspiracy theories threaten to undermine the integrity of our elections in America. It is unacceptable for any social media company to knowingly allow deliberately misleading material to corrupt its platform.”
The Trump ad being contested pushes a conspiracy theory that Biden ― according to a narrator in the clip ― “promised Ukraine $1 billion if they fired the prosecutor investigating his son’s company.”
While it is true that the elder Biden, then serving as vice president, told Ukrainian leaders in 2016 to fire a top prosecutor if they wanted to get the aid, there’s no evidence that this demand had anything to do with his son, Hunter.
The ad has also run on Twitter and YouTube, both told the Times that the ad complied with company policies.
Biden’s campaign told CNN that it “would not rule out sending similar letters” to other social media sites requesting the ad’s removal from their platforms.
On TV, the ad has run on Fox News, which — like Facebook — denied a Biden campaign request to block the clip. CNN, however, has refused to run the ad.
Explaining that decision, a CNN spokesman said last week that the video “makes assertions that have been proven demonstrably false by various news outlets, including CNN.”
Facebook has come under fire from the Democratic National Committee, as well as other 2020 presidential hopefuls, for their refusal to block false statements or ads from political candidates.
Democratic National Committee CEO Seema Nanda told CNN last week that Facebook was allowing Trump “to mislead the American people on their platform unimpeded.”
On Monday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) ― who, along with Biden, is considered a front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president ― criticized Facebook’s policies in a series of tweets.
“The public deserves to know how Facebook intends to use their influence in this election,” Warren wrote.
“For instance, Trump and Zuckerberg met at the White House two weeks ago. What did they talk about?” she added in a subsequent tweet.
Warren suggested that Facebook had tweaked misinformation policies to exempt politicians from fact-checking after this meeting with Trump. As Reuters noted, Warren has not offered any evidence to support this claim.
“There’s no indication that Zuckerberg or Facebook executives have come to terms with the role their unpreparedness played” in the spread of misinformation during the 2016 election, Warren wrote. “Nor have they shown that they understand what needs to be done to prevent another attack in the 2020 election.”
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
"New media" is just like TV advertising or ads in newspapers used to be.
You can't just fucking LIE to people.
Facebook is accepting money to spread political propaganda they know is false, propaganda which if effective will benefit Facebook in the long term, and there's a question as to whether or not they are wrong to do so?
Really?
should they take down ads by (insert sugar cereal here) claiming to be "part of your complete breakfast"?
ultimately the responsibility lies with the consumer/voter to decide. as unfortunate as it is. false/misleading political attack ads have been running on tv for decades. but now that's it the "cesspool" of social media, now everyone cares? what's the difference?
www.headstonesband.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Well, for starters, social media's reach and influence is greater than anything we've ever seen before (it's unprecedented), and the lies are only getting bolder & bigger, so there's two significant differences.
Furthermore, do you really not see the difference between CNN running an ad that might call Frosted Flakes "a part of your complete breakfast" and Facebook running an ad claiming Biden withheld $1B from the Ukraine?
TV had an exponentially larger reach 15 years ago.
so it's only a bad thing now because of social media's reach? shouldn't it have been a problem before, regardless? and also, isn't social media a young person's (mostly) folly? you know, the ones that don't vote?
I think people are attempting to move the goal posts because it's trump. because we are in semi-uncharted territory here, where we have the US president ready and willing to tell not just exaggerations, or partial truths, but obvious lies.
my point is where is the line drawn? is it only drawn for trump and the GOP? or do we outlaw all political ads altogether, because by and large, they are ALL utter bullshit, whether by telling lies or lying by omission of truth.
www.headstonesband.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
You see this watch?
That watch cost more than your car. I made $970,000 last year. How much you make? You see, pal, that's who I am, and you're nothing.
www.headstonesband.com
Yeah, TV's reach, even at it's height I'm sure wasn't a fraction of Facebook's reach these days. I don't have the data to support that, but even with the internet 15 years ago, I feel pretty confident assuming there was no tv station / network with a modicum of facebook's reach at any point in history.
RE: "a young person's folly" - according to recent data, 65% of Facebook users are over 35, so maybe millenials aren't to blame for this one?
No one said misleading political ads weren't a problem before, but I do agree that you ask a very important question, and that's 'where is the line drawn?'
To that I would answer if we aren't going to draw the line with a president whose lies about immigrants have inspired at least two domestic mass shootings then I guess we aren't ever going to draw the line.
(edited to cutdown on all the previous replies)
If I were Biden I would be hammering that fucker every day. I would speculate that the GOP secretly wants Nikki Haley to run in tRump's place and make tRump focus on that. It would drive him insane. The Dems need to harp on bullshit 24/7 just like the GOP does with Biden/Ukraine.
Turn the fucking table over for once.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I wasn't trying to blame anything on millennials. typically young people, regardless of generation, are the lowest voter turnout. I wasn't targeting them.
www.headstonesband.com
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Everything he does he takes to a whole new level, including his lies and attacks on opponents, so why shouldn't the reaction be proportionate?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Would that be the same Russia who stands to benefit from Trump pulling US troops out of Syria?
Weird.