>However they were pushed to that by accusations of bias in the right-wing media.
As per my previous comments on this subject. The sources that got "censored" _happened_ to be conservative. They were unreliable sources, and stories that turned out to be not true. But people still moaned about it.
The fact that more conservative sources report false information seems like a problem conservatives should want to fix, instead of crying censorship. We have too much false information flying around; it's yellow journalism.
>which is why most CDNs don't cache 404s in the first place.
That definitely isn't technically true. There are other mechanisms usually involved in these cases, and should be for any publicly available resource. Otherwise you're begging for someone to bypass a good bit of your publicly available resource's security.
>And before you say those scandals are a result of partisan witch-hunting, Obama never had these scandals that Hillary did.
Um, are you just blanking 2004 out of your head? This is just the same stuff all over again. All of the screaming and shouting about birth certificates and generally shady connections? His ultimate Muslim agenda to bring down the Great Satan that is America?
Absolutely nothing of worth is coming from the leaked documents, despite all hell being raised about a smoking gun (that no one can point to) in them. It literally is a witch hunt. If these past 4 elections aren't going to kill the GOP in general, I don't know if anything will. It should be disgusting the out right lies and propaganda that they employ, with a complete lack of integrity and standards. But people still buy into the juicy conspiracy theories and the generally "known and accepted" unknowns.
If HRC is the dirtiest candidate in the history of politics, then then last 4 decades of investigations and general obstructionism were undertaken by the most incompetent politicians in the history of politics. Not just one, a whole collection of individuals (senators, house members, governors) from one party who despite their best efforts continually fails at proving claims they have no problem repeating until people start to believe them.
I definitely didn't say anything remotely like that, so I'm really not sure how to respond to this. I'm really tired of the one-off pedantic and disingenuous posts people seem to be okay with posting on these topics.
In the context of facebook "censoring" conservative media outlets, there's an observable trend that major conservative news sources are more apt to post false or misleading content that tickle's their audiences expectations, than it is for major liberal sources.
This is an observable trend. Take something as scientifically sound as global warming or evolution. Fox News or Breitbart will consistently misreport on these issues, just to be in harmony with the overall conservative narrative in the U.S. It is highly unlikely you will find equivalent liberal sources that do anything remotely like that. Liberal sources are not perfect nor are they immune from criticism. It's just _more_ likely that an editor will find reason to deny a story from a conservative source than a liberal one. Again, this doesn't seem like a problem for facebook to solve by removing editors, it seems like a problem conservatives should strive to fix.
No news source is going to be perfect. They're never going to report everything accurately, and sometimes they might jump the gun to just get a story out. But there is a line when you can consistently observe a set of news sources being dishonest, or even worse, malevolent.
With all this mind, keep in mind the stories that were falsely trending. It's coming from the same set of sources, with the same political idealogies that Facebook got lambasted for "censoring." You have to be blatantly ignoring what's going on at this point to admit that maybe, just maybe, the problem wasn't with the editors.
And as a side note, I really have never labeled myself one way or another, but I've found over the years I'm consistently labeled as a "liberal" so I've picked it up. The only thing I've ever done is looked at the evidence, been skeptical about claims, and tried my best to form opinions around an ever revolving set of information. If that means my opinions happen to be more consistently liberal than conservative then so be it, but screaming "bias" just because one side of the U.S. political spectrum consistently has absurdly low standards is the worst kind of false equivalency.
There is nothing arbitrary about evidence based statements. Everything I stated is completely based on evidence from multiple sources, from the congressional investigations to reporters.
So, you can remove your disingenuous label of "my political agenda." just because you want to falsely equivocate things based on what you feel is probably true from hearsay and claims, instead of what is actually known based on evidence and legal testimony.
When you have multiple claims against you and you describe in detail taking actions that you've denied, it's no longer "joking" (Honestly, who jokes about stuff like that?) At that point it's called corroborating evidence.
Thinking logically and taking all contextual evidence into account can be hard, but it's worth the effort instead of rationalizing things away while simultaneously debasing yourself. Based on your profile, you don't really seem to care, so I won't bother anymore.
They definitely don't do this. It seems like you have a significant misunderstanding of the literature being discussed.
>Look mate I'm not interested in arguing who is more wrong.
No, it's about who is wrong _more often_ and who reports fake stories _more often_. When the standard for one set of sources is consistently absurdly low then you can't just
pretend all sources are equal. Again, it's a false equivalency.
>Huff is full of titles Trump is sexual predator without facts, just talks.
We have, on record, him describing sexual assault. With his own words. On the other hand, some of the people who now are claiming Bill is a rapist once testified under oath that he did _not_ rape them. On top of the fact that there is zero evidence in favor of that statement.
That's the difference. And you would definitely know this if you weren't being disingenuous.
That's a really cheap false equivalency. You've basically side nothing while ignorning the practical reality of what we're discussing. Take for example, the fact that Fox News will continually post stories about how Global Warming is a hoax, which is something the Huffington Post definitely won't do. The Huffington Post tends to write click-baity headlines, but they've never out right used lies in their articles. That's not bias, it's an observable trend.
I'm not sure what you want me to clarify? At no point did I indicate that it's okay to downvote people you disagree with. They should constructively contribute to the conversation, and in cases where they are not, the downvote button should be used.
>primarily the low quality of Google's SDK for Android.
This has always been my biggest frustration with Android. I've written a few applications for the platform, and while their architecture leaves a lot to be desired I've never had any real problems with it. However, the immense disappoint and anger that comes from their SDK idiosyncrasies is astounding. Google really just hates stability and nice API's, in my opinion. Everything from GAE to Android, it's always just so terribly frustrating to keep track of any one-off decisions they make without any form of actual communication from the development team.
As per my previous comments on this subject. The sources that got "censored" _happened_ to be conservative. They were unreliable sources, and stories that turned out to be not true. But people still moaned about it.
The fact that more conservative sources report false information seems like a problem conservatives should want to fix, instead of crying censorship. We have too much false information flying around; it's yellow journalism.