1
54

[–] 123_456 1 points 54 points (+55|-1) ago 

You suppress ideas because you're afraid of them, because you think there's some truth to it. Nobody spends their time actively trying to squash something that's totally outlandish. If something is outlandish you just forget about it, and scoff, because you know it's false, and no one will buy into the idea.

1
7

[–] Psylent 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

And then there is religion . . . . . You would be amazed what people will believe.

(still no excuse for censorship - but I would be cautious saying that people won't believe something outlandish - billions around the world right now, do.)

[–] [deleted] 0 points 42 points (+42|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] Sciency 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

People need to just link the archive, and post the source in the comments. 99% of people will click a link by they time they see the comment with the archive.

6
36

[–] cynoclast 6 points 36 points (+42|-6) ago 

This is retarded.

"Liberal News" isn't news. It's propaganda.

"Conservative News" isn't news. It's propaganda.

1
19

[–] TheodoreKent 1 points 19 points (+20|-1) ago 

Lol, this is true, in theory. In practice, news has been, and always will be, propaganda for one side, or the other. In this case, the outlet that allows people to spew propaganda, decided it liked the lefts propaganda better than the rights. But you are right. All of this is retarded.

0
0

[–] cynoclast 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

propaganda for one side, or the other.

False dichotomy: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FalseDichotomy

Thinking that there are exactly two sides is itself propaganda.

2
1

[–] Black_Phillip 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

Would you have preferred if the article said they suppressed "facts and information that went against Facebook's liberal narrative"?

You're really digging at a semantic that really doesn't fucking matter in the grand scheme.

5
1

[–] cynoclast 5 points 1 points (+6|-5) ago 

No, I'm not digging at semantics. If it's openly declared to have a bias, it isn't news at all.

Quit seeing things as a false dichotomy, you might learn something. Picking a side is just picking a cage for yourself.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] cynoclast 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Yup. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, CBC, CBS, ABC, Al Jazeera, RT, reddit, voat, google news, techdirt, nytimes, nypost, washington post, bloomberg, buisnessinsider, even facebook. Drink it all in, digest it, and reason out the truth for yourself. There's no other way.

if you're hearing news you agree with, you need to change the channel.

0
14

[–] mschenk 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

If you want to see which political news is actually trending, without editorial interference, try our site: http://politide.com

It is 100% based on the numbers, no editors at all.

0
17

[–] redditor1255 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago 

Quick questions:

  1. Is your news sorting algorithm open source?

  2. Is there any third party oversight?

I appreciate what you are trying to do, but it is difficult to determine who is honest and who is not.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
5

[–] afsa 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

If fb is their primary news source then no matter what they're guaranteed to be ill-informed

0
10

[–] BustyChicksFTW 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Well this explains this

0
6

[–] Rabidfish88 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Need to suppress the facts so the propaganda machine can continue rolling.

0
4

[–] newoldwave 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Were they also Reddit mods?

load more comments ▼ (10 remaining)