Babylon Bee’s CEO Pushes Back Against Big Tech (Facebook) Bullying
dailywire.com
dailywire.com
I have no idea what the solution is, but I don't like that Facebook gets an outsized say in what people can profitably write online.
The problem isn't in access. The problem is their insistence on profit. The Internet was designed in a nonprofit environment, and certainly wasn't intended to ensure that one player could force somebody else to use their servers to guarantee their profit.
But I go directly there, not via Facebook. They should work harder to not rely so heavily on that single source of traffic.
Can you share a funny post here?
From UrbanDictionary: Punching down: For someone of higher rank, power, status, and position to engage someone of much lesser and/or inferior rank, status, power, and position in debate and/or argument. Not limited to just status, power, position, and rank but can and often do include intellect, capability, competence, and acumen.
Oh, actually, hmm... that last part (not including intellect). Maybe you're right after all. Except for the isn't funny part.
https://babylonbee.com/news/seeking-to-quell-controversy-joe...
- With Mic Muted, Trump Corrects Biden With Tweets
- Intelligence Experts Concerned Media May Tamper With Election By Asking Biden Questions
- Hero: Man Stranded On Desert Island Still Obediently Wearing His Mask
- CNN Pre-Debate Poll Shows Biden Clearly Won Debate
- World Turns To Christianity After Learning There Are No Politics In Heaven
I think for these to be found humorous, you have to have a bunch of pretty crappy attitudes.
Like the mask hero one. To find that funny, you have to feel that the rules to wear masks are infringing and unnecessary, ridiculous even, thus you enjoy them being ridiculed.
Every time you laugh at something, try to ask yourself what exactly you're laughing at. Or don't bother. Stupid snowflake libtards tryinna tell you what to laugh at amirite?
Someone (e.g. me) could support wearing masks inside / near others, but still ridicule wearing masks when e.g. alone in a car, or running alone in the park (yes, I’ve personally seen people like that).
Not at all! I'm all for masks in the right scenario, and think ridiculous true-life scenarios are funnier than fiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Wire
> According to FactCheck.org, The Daily Wire incorrectly credited Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson with finding over $500 billion in accounting errors made by the Obama administration. FactCheck.org reported that the errors were discovered and published by HUD's independent inspector general before Carson became secretary.[18]
> The Daily Wire has published articles expressing skepticism that climate change is occurring and that humans contribute to climate change. Climate scientists have described the articles as being inaccurate and misleading.[19][20][21]
I honestly can't remember the last "news" article I read from any source that didn't seem to conveniently forget some context or additional detail. Even the AP doesn't read as an unbiased accounting of the facts these days.
Generally, "don't shoot the messenger" only applies if you a messenger bearing objective truth, at least as far as you (the messenger) are aware. In this case, however, you are a messenger repeating someone else's representation of what might be the truth, without actually knowing the truth for yourself.
Thanks for the link though. Anecdotally, I wouldn't say this chart matches my experience, so I will need to dig into their methodology to get a better understanding of how this has been determined. Though in all honesty I don't read things like Breitbart or The Daily Wire, so maybe its just a case of survivorship bias, where the things I've seen linked have always been the least egregious due to the sites I actually do visit consistently (HN).
You asked "Has the dailywire been known to be untrustworthy in the past?" apparently without googling it for yourself, then when I provided the answer that multiple news analysis sites would've give you, you attacked me with 'both sides'-isms. When I provided a specific source and asked you to take it up with them, you continued to attack me for "repeating someone else's representation" without "knowing the truth myself." I knew it myself, and I backed it up with citations.
Some unsolicited life advice: it's pretty rude and insufferable to ask people questions on the internet and then attack them when they do your research for you. Maybe think about not doing that.
I asked a question, and you answered it. In turn, I responded to the substance of your comment. In retrospect, my initial comment probably would've been along the lines of "is the Daily Wire any more unreliable than mainstream news sources?", as I can't think of any mainstream news org that hasn't published multiple factual inaccuracies in recent memory. Which is what I said in my follow-up comment.
Then you asked me to not shoot the messenger and provided a link to your source.
At that point, I probably should've said something like "shoot the messenger???", because I haven't actually done that in this conversation. However, even if I had, the conversation is about information/news (and its propagation), where everyone is a messenger, so I'm not sure who else there is to shoot. So that's what I responded to. When I was talking about "knowing the truth for yourself", that was specifically in the context of my previous statement about bearing "objective" truth. Sure, you think what you said about The Daily Wire is true, I'm just maintaining that this is a subjective truth and therefore a messenger is still responsible for its spread. Even the source you cited has a lot of subjectivity in their methodology, and they seem like they want to be objective.
But again, after re-reading my own comments I have no idea at which point you think I attacked you. In fact, the only person that can reasonably claim being attacked is me, who was called rude and insufferable for something I didn't do. My unsolicited advice would be to not take disagreement on matters of substance as a personal attack, and even if you do feel attacked don't go all scorched earth and start name-calling.
> Headlines on the site range from commentary on current events to the absurd. "Big Tech Fights Election Interference By Interfering In Election," "Senator Hirono Demands ACB Be Weighed Against A Duck To See If She Is A Witch" and "Teen Applies Entire Case Of Axe Body Spray Before Heading To Youth Group" were all featured on the site's homepage Friday morning.
> However, other headlines mock transgender people and Black Lives Matter protesters.
"However"? How do headlines satirizing transgender and BLM issues not fall under the previous umbrella of "headlines on the site range from commentary on current events to the absurd"?
USA Today also seems interested in "fact-checking" The Babylon Bee's headlines[1], something I've never seen done for The Onion / other satirical news, even when people "eat the onion"[2].
[0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/16/dona...
[1] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/30/fact...
Is this another instance of their satire that I’m somehow missing? Donald Trump is very much not in support of free speech.