Facebook

Policing 'Fake News' Is Our Own Responsibility, Not Facebook's

Calling for the social media outlet to censor things, even completely made up stories, can end up in bad places.

|

Facebook
Bizoon / Dreamstime.com

So now it's Facebook's fault that Donald Trump was elected president.

If you have any number of friends who like sharing either memes or headlines, you've undoubtedly seen all sorts of fake news stories and fabricated facts.

We're not talking deliberate parodies, like The Onion, though even they fool people now and then. We're talking pieces that are just completely made up by little-known "media outlets" with vague names, and the stories are intended to be perceived as real. Because these stories don't show up anywhere else (because they're not true), people might be more inclined to click the link to read when they see them on Facebook, particularly when the headlines are outrageous.

There's now apparently both a push to act as though these fake stories had a major impact on the election and also that Facebook should do something about it. There has been coverage in the New York Times, Gizmodo, and elsewhere. Google and Facebook have responded in the past by trying to find ways to de-emphasize links from these sites and just recently announced they'll refuse to run ads on fake news sites.

There are a lot of concepts to parse on what seems like a minor election side story (and the latest reason for some people to ignore why Hillary Clinton actually lost), but it's worth exploring more deeply.

First of all, perhaps consider that thinking people voted because of fake information they were exposed to on Facebook says more about you than them. To the extent that people fall for fake news, the fact that such news affirms existing biases certainly plays a major factor. Does anybody have evidence to suggest that fake news actually caused anybody to change their vote?

There is a component to this particular argument that has a stench of "What a bunch of rubes the people are," connected directly to the results of a controversial election. Not that people don't believe in conspiracies or fall for fake news, but as Jesse Walker would point out, Americans across the spectrum believe in them, not just those who would vote for Trump. And I would point out that believing fabricated conspiracy stories perpetuated by fake news sites significantly influenced the election is itself kind of a conspiracy theory.

Second, do you know who was big about pointing out fake news stories? Donald Trump. All those accusations of sexual assault and harassment? He said they're all lies. A smear job. He said he was the victim.

We all understand what people demanding Facebook do something about "fake news" are actually getting at. They're generally not asking for Facebook to serve as an arbiter of the factual components of controversies (though I wouldn't put it past some people). Facebook is not very good at managing controvery. Rather what these folks have in mind that is that there are clearly news outlets that are producing fake news stories on purpose to get page views and earn some cash, and they're absolutely right.

But that's exactly how Trump would describe the media outlets who run with the assault stories. So what these frustrated people need to realize is that if they convince Facebook to censor sharing of these obviously fake stories, then there's going to be a fight over what a "fake story" actually is. There's a bias here—in media circles most obviously—that it's simply going to be a matter of cutting out the outlets making stuff up from whole cloth. These little no-name places that aren't known journalistic outfits.

Why would it end there? Given that Facebook is now so influential in putting information in front of people, the result will most certainly be a push to define "fake" down in order to keep stories that harm certain interests from spreading. And so, yes, forget letting algorithms do all the work. Eventually Facebook staff will be put in a position of determining what is and isn't "real" news. How many people think the Trump sexual assault scandal is fake? How many people think the Hillary Clinton email scandal is fake?

And then there's the American ethnocentricness of it all. A newly released report from Freedom House indicates that internet freedom has been declining for the past six years due to government crackdowns on social media. Before asking Facebook to censor away fake news stories, ask yourself, "Will folks like me be the ones actually deciding what counts as fake news, or it will be powerful and connected government leaders?" I am very certain that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan would be very happy to tell Facebook which news stories are fake.

I'm not fond of the fake news headlines, and it's frustrating to have to deal with them when they pop up in my news feed, though frequently I find that my Facebook friends have realized they're not true on their own not long after posting them. I am even more concerned, though, at the potential negative long-term consequences of asking Facebook to referee the "realness" of information people are posting.

(Traditional libertarian caveat: Facebook is a private company that can set up whatever posting guidelines it chooses. I would recommend against trying to play referee here.)

Advertisement

NEXT: Rand Paul on Prospective Trump Secretary of State Pick John Bolton: No Way

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s like magic. Obama came out and said that we need a way to curate the news, and then – BAM – Google and Facebook release these awesome new policies and features to police thoughts.

    Yet Reason was silent while clutching pearls over Trump threatening to sue over bullshit stories about him grabbing pussy.

    1. Yet Reason was silent while clutching pearls over Trump threatening to sue over bullshit stories about him grabbing pussy.

      Another partisan “yeah, right, pull the other one” to you, bub.

      There have been a zillion rumors about all the candidates. First, I bet a quickk Reason search would find the articles you claim to be non-existent, and second, if they aren’t so what? If you want to pick and choose which of the rumors get published and which don’t, apply for the next internship and work your way up. Or do you feel entitled to the top job just be being a commentatortot.

      1. Are you claiming here that Reason didn’t run pants shitting stories where writers expressed shock and outrage that he would suggest suing media outlets (as a private citizen)?

        Or are you claiming that what I said about Obama was a rumor?

        I genuinely can’t tell because that paragraph, outside the general implication that I’m full of shit, is completely incoherent.

        1. I’m claiming you’re an idiot troll, a not very good troll, a very partisan troll, nothing even close to a libertarian.

          Can you parse me now?

          1. So you have to be a libertarian to post on this website? Are you actually advocating for an echo chamber here?

            The point he was making is Reason was so busy virtue signaling by posting a bunch of pearl clutching hysteria pieces that they failed to realize and see the bigger picture. Now that he has been elected they’ve gone (mostly) back to actually being a good news source instead of a virtue signaling website.

    2. An interesting point, actually. Either way, if someone is idiot enough to use Facebook links to determine their news intake they get what they deserve. Much like if you receive your talking points from Oliver, Stewart, or any of those other comedians you are doing yourself a disservice. At least Jon had the grace to admit he wasn’t a journalist, and asked people to stop treating him like one. The rest seem to lap it up, but it’s thin entertainment with a heavy dose of propaganda if ever I’ve seen it.

  2. I can’t wait until a group of gatekeepers is anointed as the Arbiters of True News. No chance this body will act in accordance with any particular bias.

    1. If This Sound Good For You & Interested
      Watch Now….!!!Streaming Online HD Movie :
      ? ? ? http://bit.ly/2gkrFfx ? ? ?
      Happy & Enjoy to Watch For Free
      Or Visit first for check : https://www.facebook.com/movierolls/

  3. If Facebook really wants to clamp down on people sharing bullshit stories, they could just save time and go out of business.

  4. WHY HASNT REASON COVERED THE PIZZA/PEDO-RAPE-CULT CONNECTION WHAT ARE YOU HIDING

    1. Now that is some high-octane gibberish.

      1. No, gilmore is make a point about the ludicrous headlines they’re talking about cutting out.

  5. So now it’s Facebook’s fault that Donald Trump was elected president.

    Well, depending how you look at it…

  6. Meh, it’s their site. They can do what they want with it.

    1. Quite right, but I do get a bit offended if they hold themselves out as neutral and then refuse to police the big steaming pile of derp coming out of the progressive camp, including all the helicopter mom bullshit, the fake kids with cancer that need clicks bs, not to mention the Huffpo/Vox nonsense. If you want to set a policy of curating, fine. But don’t assume the role of letting clicks dictate your algorithm unless its clicks you don’t like, and then pretend to be the Switzerland of newsfeeds.

      1. I saw shiiiitt posts coming from both sides of the polar spectrum. I’ll be glad to see some of it cut down. They’re not going to cut fox, cnn, reason.com etc. They’re going to cut ViralNewsHaHAHA.com and YOUNEVEHGONNABELIVEDIS.to crap . Wait until they implement it before you criticize it. People are too impatient these days.

        1. You hope. I personally see this for what it is, another lie they’re putting forth so they can cull news from sites like breitbart, etc, that they consider to be racist/homophobic/etc.

    2. Imagine that we were talking about a telephone company. One day, your phone company decides to implement a new system, the details of which are unclear to you.

      You’ve got a crazy uncle who lives in Appalachia. He calls you every so often to let you know how his family is doing and to share with you his batshit notions that Obama’s black helicopters are flying over his property. You like your uncle, but you don’t care for his politics. You entertain him.

      The phone company has decided, without any of your input, that he’s a radical spreading “fake news.” You’re cut off from hearing from him entirely. He doesn’t call often, and you don’t initiate calls to him, so you have no idea that this has happened.

      Meh, it’s their phone company. They can do what they want with it.

      1. Well if they misrepresent policy and there is harm sue them, otherwise switch phone providers.

        I really fail to see any type of dangerous implications from individual companies enacting biased and stupid policies. Maybe my outrage meter is broken but this just sounds like “Thinly veiled liberal company finds new way to promote liberal perspectives.”

        Pop quiz, what percentage of the reason commentariat relies on Facebook news? The point, people like us that don’t want to be fooled by illusions of objectivity, are rarely fooled. Most people accept falsehoods when they support their personal narratives not because they are misled. I doubt Facebook is swaying many opinions or fooling the logically competent.

        1. True, but it’s a slippy slope out there.

          If a private company is doing something we find objectionable, let’s call them out so that others are aware and can choose whether to get their service somewhere else.

          Also, once people get used to and expect someone else to filter the news for them, they might be more ready to accept the government doing it for them. After all Facebook and Twitter are eventually just korporashunz that can’t be trusted, unlike the Dear Leader.

  7. Those fake news sites are annoying as hell. Frankly, I’m glad that Facebook and Google are refusing to do business with them. And the targets of these fake stories have every right to complain about them – even Obama and Trump. Bit I’m not aware of any official government agency doing anything about them. Did I miss something?

    1. You missed the slippery slope that government always slides down.

  8. If you’re getting your news from Facebook, I suppose getting deceived by fake news is a very real threat but it really should be one of your least concerns. Like, learning to eat with a fork without the threat of losing an eye maybe should be a higher priority. Getting a drink without the toilet seat slamming you in the back of the head. Trying to remember which animals in the zoo are okay to pet and which are not. Things like that.

    1. Getting a horseshoe shaped toilet seat is known as a life-hack for the toilet drinkers. I saw that on Facebook.

  9. Dems: We lost the race because stupid people couldn’t recognize fake stories on Facebook. We depend on those stupid people to vote for us. They belong to us.

    1. Yeah, this is very silly.

    2. And facebook is where the voters are!

    3. Hillary did prefer them uninformed and compliant.

  10. Every day it’s something new. First it’s Facebook. Then it’s people in Clay County, West Virginia and their offensive tweets.

    And did you hear that the Electoral College is RACIST?

    1. Well, we SHOULD have the Electoral Junior College and the Electoral Cosmetology School and the Electoral Midnight Basketball Program to even things out…

    2. Don’t forget THIRD-PARTY VOTERS and RUSSIA. Those horrible third-party voters refused to acknowledge that their votes are rightfully the property of our pantsuited Imperial Majesty! Russia leaked those emails that showed more of Hillary’s bungling, lies, and graft, therefore Russia and Julian Assange are to blame for Hillary losing! Also James Comey! Arghblarghle *foaming at mouth* If it weren’t for you meddling kids, we’d a-done it!

  11. A newly released report from Freedom House indicates that internet freedom has been declining for the past six years due to government crackdowns on social media. Before asking Facebook to censor away fake news stories, ask yourself, “Will folks like me be the ones actually deciding what counts as fake news, or it will be powerful and connected government leaders?” I am very certain that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan would be very happy to tell Facebook which news stories are fake

    Hmmm…probably. Or you could go with something that actually happened already.

    On the sidelines of a United Nations luncheon on Saturday, Merkel was caught on a hot mic pressing Zuckerberg about social media posts about the wave of Syrian refugees entering Germany, the publication reported.
    The Facebook CEO was overheard responding that “we need to do some work” on curtailing anti-immigrant posts about the refugee crisis. “Are you working on this?” Merkel asked in English, to which Zuckerberg replied in the affirmative before the transmission was disrupted.

    1. Merkel was caught on a hot mic pressing Zuckerberg about social media posts about the wave of Syrian refugees entering Germany

    2. Liberal plans to advance their agenda:

      1. Force people to go to Breitbart if they want to see what so-called “refugees” are really doing to Europe.

      2. Label Breitbart “fake news” and have it banned from social media sites.

      3. Profit!

  12. I was very annoyed hearing this in the morning, but am less annoyed knowing that it’s at least just click-bait ads.

  13. As opposed to all the fake stories from prog sites that fill up my derpbook feed.

    1. This is what annoys me. I know there’ll be zero effect on my Derpfeed, because the ‘fake news’ will be defined as ‘shit Republicans want to believe.’ So I’ll still have to scroll through mountains of utter garbage in hopes I can catch a glimpse of a nicely painted mini, or something important happening to someone I know.

        1. Is it sad that my first thought was this was a modern-day SWAT van?

          1. According to rumor, the design was based off of one used by the Brits in Northern Ireland during the troubles.

  14. This is just another window-dressing reordering of the old canard that anyone who votes Republican is a stupid, uneducated lout.

    It is an insidious attack on free speech. Any alteration to their algorithms to quash “fake news” will result in false positives, guaranteed. Favoring MSM outlets that have a history of mendacity and manipulation themselves is not going to convince people that proggy politics are correct. It’s just going to make them recede even further from real discussion. The media needs to own this and start trying to provide a sense of balance in their stories.

    Every time a prog repeats the Colbert quote “Reality has a well-known liberal bias” they justify what they’re doing. They remove a place setting at the table and insist that the empty seat across from them represents progress. They have no shame.

    1. “Favoring MSM outlets that have a history of mendacity and manipulation themselves…”

      They also have a grand history of presenting news that’s just as fake as the crap Facebook is talking about blocking.

  15. Guys, why should we be surprised by any of this? Liberals hate personal responsibility, so why would they take ANY personal responsibility for the election?

    It’s not their fault they nominated a disliked, corrupt politician, and it’s not their fault their supporters didn’t show up and vote for her, no, it’s gotta be *someone else’s* fault! Those freakin racists and fake news sites and Putin and Gamergate and ….. / head explodes

  16. People are idiots. I won’t deny that. The mistake TopMen make is thinking that they are smarter than everyone else.

    1. No, it’s not the idiot’s that scare me. It’s the prog idiots who *think* they are smart, but they couldn’t analyze shit if their life depended on it. I have to deal with this in the bay area, where they don’t have a clue how things work but repeat shit they heard on Buzzfeed or the Daily Show like it makes them intelligent.

      1. Some of them in my circle *could* regain the levels of analysis they learned in law school or even undergrad, but many of them won’t, because they’re already right. Had a disagreement over that last week. Someone told me that of all the “knowers”, the libertarians were the worst. My reply was that I actually don’t have much confidence in what I know about governing, that’s why I propose doing much less of it. If I’m wrong, I don’t have the full force and legitimacy of the state backing me. Totally, totally went right by the guy. Who has a technical PhD and is probably objectively smarter than I am.

        So it isn’t about intelligence or knowledge. Some just don’t want to be bothered with it. Some want it to work, they don’t want to worry about theories of competing rights. Some just want rigid definitions of right and wrong that everything fits in so they can get on with what they care about. And some just feel a lot more than I ever will. I mean, they have more feelings about things that will never touch their lives than I have about my kids. Its weird and off-putting to me, but I may be a Vulcan.

        1. “…. but I may be a Vulcan.”

          You say that as if it’s a bad thing? 😛

          1. Well, Pon Farr can be a bitch.

      2. I thought that is what I said esteve7. Maybe I need to work on that line.

    2. Part of wisdom is recognizing how little you know.

      1. Gee, you must be the wisest person I’ve ever seen….

        /joke

  17. You know, what I almost hope out of all this is that some enterprising plaintiff’s lawyer finds a way to show that Facebook’s and Google’s curation activity makes them liable as accomplices in defamation lawsuits.

  18. There has been coverage in the New York Times, Gizmodo, and elsewhere.

    And Shackford trolls the commentariat by posting a series of links to fake news sites. Very nicely done, Scott.

    1. Slate and Salon hardest hit.

  19. Only Republicans put out fake news, so I don’t see a problem with this.

  20. You know who else censored the news…

  21. Dammit, now where will my grandmother get her stories about how President Trump wants to outlaw the environment?

    1. Don’t send her to Jezebel

    2. This link should be good for years to come, unless website is re-implemented.

      Err…maybe don’t tell her about the comments though. Deplorable.

    3. I volunteer to educate gam-gam.

      1. I get a new Pop-pop? Neat!

        1. These rap songs are getting geriatric.

  22. …perhaps consider that thinking people voted because of fake information they were exposed to on Facebook says more about you than them.

    It says how superior I am to all of them dummies.

    1. ^THIS^ x1000.

      I know FAR too many folks who are fairly intelligent, right up until politics comes up. Then all of that goes right out the window, and it becomes exactly this.

      “All those other people are dummies and need to be told how to live their lives.”

  23. ” Does anybody have evidence to suggest that fake news actually caused anybody to change their vote?”

    First, yes I’ve seen it happen. Generally they cause people to go from undecided or third party to supporting “the lesser evil” whoever the fake news stories make that seem to be.

    Second and more importantly is precisely that the fake news stories confirm biases. They drown out the realities of the election and make it so that people simply cannot hear an actual opposing view over the din of fake “news” stories telling them what they already suspect to be true. With no exposure to new facts (or the truth of those facts being obscured behind a wall of misinformation) it makes it impossible for someone to ever consider voting differently from their initial inclination.

    The point is not that they make people change their minds, it is that they PREVENT them from accessing the information needed to change their minds.

    1. This sounds like unconvincing speculation.

      1. It’s certainly speculation, but given what we understand about how people think and form opinions, it’s rational and not all that controversial.

        Whether you think it is convincing is up to you, but it seems correct due to:

        People have zero choice but to limit consumption of information given the inability to consume it all. Then you have the effects of confirmation bias, including both the tendency to automatically believe that which conforms to your worldview, as well as the tendency to need better & stronger evidence to disprove a pre-held belief than the level of proof objectively needed under normal circumstances.

        Added together and I think it’s a logical conclusion that fake news stories can and will prevent the real information from being consumed.

    2. I’ve seen many people who think everything on the web is true because it suits their agenda rather than common sense. I welcome an enterprising company to filter out tripe like “YOU’RE NEVER GONNA BELIEVE WHAT HILLARY DID THIS TIME” “THE DONALD CAUGHT AGAIN” . Screw that worthless noise. Thank Zuckerberg some of it might be going away.

  24. The campaign to re-brand Fox News as Faux news finally makes sense.

  25. This sounds more like a crackdown on alternative media which was doing the mainstream media’s job. If fake news is really a problem, I expect them to go after NBC.

  26. Interesting, it’s almost like they’re trying to deflect blame for a lost election. Maybe Google and FB want to throw whatever credibility they have in the garbage like old media has done to salvage a lost cause.

  27. We’re at the point where there are two ways the progressives are going to lose the argument. Either they engage and their shitty arguments are torn to shreds, or they refuse to have it while silencing others and they lose by default. They are incapable of realizing that they lose regardless.

  28. Another self righteous dumbass screwing up traffic.

    http://nbc4i.com/2016/11/15/no…..-columbus/

    1. Um, just leave him under there. He’s an adult and he made a choice.

      1. Yes, but consider his victims. Thousands will have lost time and tax dollars are being wasted preventing further damage, at a minimum.

    2. SO why is there a Dakota pipeline protest in Ohio, where the pipeline doesn’t go? It ends two states over.

      1. Because progressives have an agitation erection that won’t die. There’s a lot of pent up emotions and progressives can’t have good feels unless they are protesting every. single thing. like it’s the defining struggle of their generation. Plus, Dakota is like real far away so it’s easier to protest nearby where you live. AIN’T NOBODY GOT TIME FOR THAT.

      2. Because Ohio sent Troppers to help

  29. The liberal pants wetting continues…

  30. It would be nice to have someone give examples of these “fake news” storie. If they were that numerous and effected the election so much it should be easy.

    But instead we get another story mentioning them with no examples given.

    Its almost like they only exist as a talking point put out by the Democrats to hide their failure.

    1. Wait. The fake news stories caused the election to happen?

    2. You mean like the ones saying Hillary’s email server was no big deal and both Powell and Rice did the same thing?

      How about the fake stories of violence committed by Trump supporters that basically never happened?

      Oh I know, all those news stories proclaiming Hillary to be the most qualified candidate in forever, except even ignoring her record of abject failure and no actual accomplishments to speak of in any of her public service jobs her qualifications to be President prior to running were slightly below average among modern candidates.

      There were TONS of fake news stories out there and most of them inflated rather than cut into Hillary’s vote totals.

      1. I got suckered into the Powell and Rice one before I realized what was happening. That particular story wasn’t exactly fake. Details were distorted so it appeared that it was false. Luckily I have friends and family who have served. Thanks to their help I was eventually able to sort out the narrative.

  31. Calling for the social media outlet to censor things, even completely made up stories, can end up in bad places.

    Um, while, I certainly think Reason did a good job calling out the Rolling Stone Story I think it would’ve ended up in a much better place if anyone in the line of succession between Jackie and the editors had seen fit to censor things.

    If Facebook had chosen to censor the story, I don’t know that I would’ve faulted them.

    1. That’s editing their own content.

      Twitter & Facebook pass along content linked by users, or that others pay them to post as ads

    2. Completely made up stories from sites that have absolutely no credibility should be tossed. This isn’t a political thing it’s a flat out draining the swamp of shiiiit post articles.

  32. Media,
    Please keep doubling down on your propaganda and bias. Please. It will eventually work, just like communism.

    1. Never underestimate the tenacity of a true believer.

      Someone pointed out this morning that the baby boomer generation was exposed to an awful lot of marxist brainwashing . I got to thinking about that. Yep, it was pretty bad and it never wears off of the ones it stuck to.

  33. Great article, Scott.

  34. OT but on Shackford’s beat. The Oregon Secretary of State who made it such a point of bankrupting the Christian bakery, lost his bid for re-election last Tuesday.

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/11…..-election/

    Funny how Shackford seems to have missed this story. If he didn’t and I missed his reporting of it, then good for him. But I haven’t seen it if it exists.

    I would think Shackford, assuming he actually believes that it is wrong to fine bakeries out of business for refusing to serve gay weddings, would see this as a good thing and as the public rejecting the kind of SJW bullying that is giving the gay rights movement a bad name. He hasn’t seemed to notice this however. If some county clerk in BFE had lost re-election after refusing to issue a gay marriage license, I have the feeling Scott wouldn’t have missed the story like he apparently did this one. Its almost like his concern for religious liberty is feigned or something.

  35. Facebook and Google have expressed where their political leanings are – i.e. Democrats.

    It’s not a stretch to be skeptical. Personally, I wouldn’t trust them and quite frankly I’m not convinced their staff are well-read intellectuals up for this job – to the extent anyone is.

  36. My face – your “book.”

    (Not you, Shackford)

  37. Where did Rolling Stone Magazine’s FB page go!? I was reading a big article about a rape at UVA… oh wait. It’s still there.

  38. Scott, you take the pro-censorship argument too much at their word.
    The leftists/progressives are not interested in cutting down on small fake news sites.
    What they really intend to do is eventually label and censor conservative and libertarian news sites the size of Breitbart.

    We have seen this in California where the gun control freaks start off with a ban on certain so-called “assault weapons” and then deliberately expand the definition to include large numbers of sporting rifles. It is definitely, absolutely, a strategy of incremental restrictions with a long-term wide-reaching ban as the goal.

    Same here with news sources. The goal is to shut down all opposing political news. You already see the leftists/progressives calling on criminalizing global warming skepticism.

    Someday, Reason will be in their crosshairs.

    1. Now they’re working on demonizing support of Trump.

      Trump’s not normal, his supporters are therefor not normal, and the Left is then allowed any non-normal means to restore democracy.

      I point out to someone on Twitter that I had to suffer thru 2008 and I’m told that’s a false equivalency as Obama was qualified to lead but Trump is simply a racist authoritarian and anyone who doesn’t denounce him is just as racist.

      1. There’s a difference between news with a slant that is based on facts. These crappy “news sites” that they are ferreting out are useless and as a free enterprise sort of guy, I am happy they are giving the customer a better experience.

        1. Problem is, who is the arbiter of what is a fact?

          The global warming debate isn’t truly settled until science can produce a computer model that has very small margins of error (right now the MoE are larger than the measurements by a lot) and is good enough to make predictions with, then test those predictions.

          So opinions/forecasts/predictions are being presented as facts (on both sides), but there is no way to tell what is objectively, measurably, demonstrably true yet.

          And of course, the leftists/progressives/statists want to ban things that can only ever be opinions, never facts…

      2. They’re already going after more than just Trump.

        Here’s the first list I could find of “fake news” sites that should be banned, and it includes ZeroHedge, a fairly libertarian and not necessarily pro-Trump site (throughout the election, there were definitely articles critical of Trump, and many of the commenters are very anti-Trump, myself included).

        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/…..ws-sources

        Note also that RedState is on the list, and RedState’s Eric Ericsson was one of the first high-profile NeverTrump figures to draw ire from the pro-Trump crowd. Same with TheBlaze (pro-Ted-Cruz, always NeverTrump).

        And one can’t imagine that GeoEngineeringWatch.org is/was a Trump fan site….

  39. Whatta you know, a good libertarian article from a Reason author

  40. Actually if you believe in the free market, as a corporate entity, they have every right to remove this fake crap as a service to their customers. It is obvious people don’t have the time to research every single piece of crap that show up in their feed. If it becomes obvious that website is peddling BS to get hits, can their butts.

  41. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    >>>>>>>>>http://www.centerpay70.com

  42. It’s their house, their rules.

  43. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    >>>>>>>>>http://www.centerpay70.com

  44. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    >>>>>>>>> http://www.centerpay70.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.