FACEBOOK IS TURNING TO FACT-CHECKERS TO FIGHT 'FAKE' NEWS!

By Jonathan E.P. Moore, and Friends of America!
FACEBOOK IS TURNING TO FACT-CHECKERS TO FIGHT 'FAKE' NEWS!

Please know that my last 4 articles must have been flagged for ‘Fake News,’ and the reason why I can’t, from here on out, is posting visual memes to exaggerate and emphasize my point! I will be using ‘Plain Jane’ visuals to make my ‘Personal View,’ which should be protected under the 1^st Amendment and not considered ‘Fake News’ OK to go, I think!     ..Yeah, right!

Because of doing a little digging, I now understand what’s been going on with Facebook and why

my posts are being blocked and marked as spam. I don’t need to hear from Facebook now because I went to a reliable source to do the research, and that’s anywhere else!

This is Hillary’s attempt to continue campaigning on her commitment about the first and second amendments having room for regulation, and then accomplishing that by her Supreme Court justice’s control and nominations path to transforming America to Socialism!

Hillary Clinton said that Americans must change their religious and personal convictions, convictions and belief systems of citizens should not stand in her way, and cultural codes and religious beliefs must change!  She said the same thing in April of last year at the sixth annual Women in the World Summit.

Instead of worrying about Fascism by Trump, people might want to look to the real and substantiated Fascism of Mrs. Clinton.

Americans must change their beliefs because she says so? She will tell us what to think?

“She’s now the thought police?”

Now when it comes to the first Amendment and Hillary’s vision:

HILLARY’S VERSION OF THE 1ST AMENDMENT!

Progressives like Clinton want to expand government’s regulatory reach to political speech.

People who are eager to weaken protection of private property to enable government to redistribute wealth will also want to weaken constitutional protections of free speech to empower government to redistribute ideas.

Americans do not forfeit their First Amendment rights when they come together in incorporated entities to magnify their voices by speaking collectively.

“In the Bernie Sanders drinking game, every time he mentions a free government program, you drink someone else’s beer.” But neither Sanders’s nor Hillary Clinton’s hostility to the First Amendment is amusing.

Both have voted to do something never done before — make the Bill of Rights less protective. They favor amending the First Amendment to permit government regulation of political campaign speech. Hence, they embrace progressivism’s logic, as it has been explained separately, and disapprovingly, by two eminent economists, Ronald Coase and Aaron Director:

'There is no reason the regulatory, redistributive state should distinguish between various markets. So, government that is competent and duty-bound to regulate markets for goods and services to promote social justice is competent and duty-bound to regulate the marketplace of ideas for the same purpose. Sanders and Clinton detest the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which they say their court nominees will promise to reverse. It held that unions and corporations — especially incorporated advocacy groups, from the National Rifle Association to the Sierra Club — can engage in unregulated spending on political advocacy that is not coordinated with candidates or campaigns. The decision simply recognized that Americans do not forfeit their First Amendment rights when they come together in incorporated entities to magnify their voices by speaking collectively.'

presidential candidate Hillary Clinton saying she wants to get unaccountable money out of the political system, "even if that

takes a constitutional amendment."

She must say I will clean up the mess in Washington and I will make America more fair than its current inequitable position. I hope you heard her that one of her four fundamental goals are to change the First Amendment to empower the political class to write legislation restricting the quantity, content and timing of political speech about the political class. I don't think anyone has ever announced running for president that they wanted to change the Bill of Rights.

Even though Hillary’s perception is not the reality when it comes to the first amendment, and thank god for that, the American people have spoken, and proven to Hillary and the ‘Never Trump’ movement that our founding fathers got it right from the beginning, and saved our America from the tyranny our electoral college was set up to prevent, and it worked!!

Amendment I

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'

Hillary Clinton would have Desecrated the First Amendment!

In a campaign tour of Iowa, Hillary Clinton said, “We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional

amendment.” Mrs. Clinton is repeating the “progressive” mantra to reverse the Citizens United case, which found a 2002 Federal law unconstitutional. Former Federal Election Commissioner (FEC), Donald F. McGahn II, explains in the Wall Street Journal:

Citizens United, the justices were debating a simple issue: Whether a movie critical of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton could be aired on pay-per-view television. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002, such activity was banned within 30 days of a primary election. The justices struck down this prohibition, ruling that “the First Amendment protects political speech.” Chief Justice John Roberts was even more blunt, arguing that such bans subvert “the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”

The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 was a devious attempt by Republicans and Democrats (and voted for by Senator Clinton) to stop independent, outside groups from speaking for or against political candidates. Chief Justice Roberts was correct; Congress intended to stop a “vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.” Fortunately, the Supreme Court, vested with judicial review, declared that Congress and President Bush II violated the First Amendment.

Of course, this does not prevent Congress and a President from conspiring to control and limit political speech. In fact, President Obama was so outraged over the Supreme Court decision that he confronted the Justices in a State of the Union speech excoriating the evils of corporate money: "the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without

limit in our elections." First, the President is wrong about foreign corporations. Federal law - 2 U.S.C. § 441(e) - prohibits foreign corporations from contributing to elections, and Citizens United did not alter that law. Additionally, Citizens United did not change Federal and State laws that limit the amount a person or other entities may give to candidates.

Independent Speech!

Next, the President failed to explain that corporations, unions, individuals and PACs can give unlimited money for independent speech about candidates. Independent speech is the essence of the First Amendment and the critical issue in the Citizens United case. Can an individual or a group of people independent of the candidate speak and disseminate their facts and opinions? In other words, independent speech cannot be in cahoots or the control of the candidate’s campaign. Basically, there is no coordination with the candidate.

Again, can an individual or a group of people produce and dispense opinions and facts about candidates? Or as Chief Justice Roberts wrote, does our Constitution protect “the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy?” In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Hence, following the President’s lead, Democrats have chanted on and on about “dark” money and the need for an amendment. In 2013, Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) proposed an amendment to limit political speech allowing Congress to regulate and limit fundraising and spending on Federal

and State candidates. The law would prohibit the Supreme Court from declaring any legislation limiting and controlling unconstitutional spending. In other words, eviscerating the essence of the First Amendment – freedom from coercive government:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Last year, over 50 Senators, all Democrats, voted for Udall’s proposed amendment. Now, Hillary Clinton supports the power of Congress and State legislators to determine who can donate to a political candidate, how much a candidate can spend, and when the money can be spent. Senator Udall's amendment also “advance(s) the fundamental principle of political equality for all.” So, besides making a new amendment for political speech, it could easily lead to equity of content, value and whatever politicians and their regulators concoct. In other words, it will eviscerate the First Amendment and let elected politicians

determine who can contribute, how much, and what can be stated for or against them. Once elected, a politician would almost be totally assured of holding office for life.

Thankfully, the First Amendment still exists and the Supreme Court still has the power to declare Congress and the President violated our Constitution. ~~

As I’ve said before, the fix is in, and even though the election is over with a Trump victory, the ‘Never Trumpers’ keep fighting to undermine our Constitution and our election process! Electoral

Delegates are getting death threats, the ‘Paid to Report’ Media is in full court press mode, and Social Media, where Americans go for their 1^st amendment right voices to counter the lies of the ‘Paid to Report’ Media, are now being silenced, and an obvious attempt to override the ‘Will’ of the American people, for the ‘Global’ good of the world!

Faith in the election process representing the ‘Will’ of the American people is the most paramount right that has made America Great since the beginning of time, but after witnessing the primary process and the revelations that the American people don’t have a say in the selection process, and then the democratic party only allowing two Socialists to represent the ‘Will’ of the Democratic Party A.K.A. the ‘New’ Socialist Party of America, must be puzzling to patriotic Democrats!

Why would anyone think that ½ of America is willing to throw away what makes America great, and I mean throw away the Constitution, bill of rights, and our Constitutional Republic form of Democracy, and for a third world Socialist agenda that fails ultimately because, like other Socialist countries, fail when they run out of other people’s money!

I saw this comment and thought that he was spot on and not ‘Fake,’ but like myself, heartfelt, and the perception and reality of what the first Amendment’s meaning truly is, and represents!

Joshua McNear · Rosslyn, Virginia

This is how I read this:

"We are interested in controlling and determining what news you see. We are working with the government to produce stories that only the government approves. If you do your own fact digging, or read an independent newsource, investigate something we don't approve of, then we

will label you an "alt-righter", a deranged Trump supporter, or a conspiracy theorist. Mainstream has never lied to the nation, .... well...besides Brian Williams admitting to making up false stories, us making up poll numbers to determine that Hillary Clinton will 98% win the election, and cutting off someone on CNN whenever they talk badly about Hillary Clinton, but ...don't worry about things like that! Just trust us, k? Everything else is "fake". Also, notice how much we've used this term "fake news" since the election as buzz words. (wink). We're not biased and will not publish biased articles.

Now, we would like you to continue to real news about how bad Donald Trump is (he didn't invite us to a private dinner that time! Grr!), countless race-baiting articles (cause yay division! and if you're black and voted Trump, you're a racist!), several articles about Kanye West for no reason, and the latest about how much we hate Russia, ya know, to keep you informed! No bias!"

This is how censorship begins...it's also ironic how Buzzfeed of all sites have been ALL over this lately.

FACEBOOK IS TURNING TO FACT-CHECKERS TO FIGHT FAKE NEWS!

The company is giving content from fact-checking organizations unprecedented visibility in the News Feed.

Facebook today announced several initiatives to help reduce the spread of fake news, and a major element involves giving fact-checking organizations unprecedented prominence in the News Feed.

The largest social network in the world is partnering with organizations that have signed on to the International Fact-Checking Network (ICFN) fact-checkers’ code of principles to enable them to verify selected links being shared on Facebook and have those fact-checks attached to the original

link. This is the first-time Facebook has given third parties special placement in the News Feed, which is the biggest single referrer of traffic to news websites in the United States and a huge traffic driver in other parts of the world. This move comes after Facebook faced intense scrutiny for the spread of fake news and misinformation on its platform during the election.

“Symbolically, this is huge,” Alexios Mantzarlis, director of the ICFN, told BuzzFeed News when asked about the significance of this partnership for fact-checkers.

He also cautioned that “we’re going to have to wait and see how the solutions announced by Facebook work in practice and how they are scaled up worldwide to determine what significance this has for fact-checking and the battle against fake news.”

Adam Mosseri, the VP of product management for News Feed, told BuzzFeed News Facebook is not paying the checking organizations for their participation, but said their sites could benefit from the additional traffic that this new level of exposure could bring.

He also said this and the other new initiatives — which involve a tweak to the News Feed ranking algorithm, easier ways for users to report false content, and new ways to prevent scammers from making money from completely fake news — come in response to concerns about the spread of misinformation on Facebook.

Facebook is initially focused on attacking “the worst of the worst” of fake news, according to Mosseri. He defined that as “clear hoaxes that are intentionally false and usually spread by spammers for financial gain.”

“Fake news is something we have were looking at before the last month or two, but I would say that the urgency around fake news has definitely increased given the feedback we received from the community,” Mosseri told BuzzFeed News.

How It Works!

Here’s how the partnership works and how it will change how some links look in your News Feed: Participating partners will have access to a special online queue that will show links Facebook determined may be suitable for a fact-check. Links can end up in the queue because users have

reported them as false, the viral nature of the link warrants a closer look, the source of the link is “masquerading as a news site,” or, for example, a lot of comments say the story is false or misleading. One or multiple partners can fact-check a link.

If checkers rate the content of the link as false, the resulting fact-check(s) will be attached to the link in News Feed, thereby alerting users to potential factual issues. So-called disputed links will also have their reach adversely affected in News Feed, per Mosseri.

This is what a disputed piece of content will look like in News Feed:

“[The fact-checkers] can dispute an article and link to their explanation and then provide context on Facebook so people and the community can decide for themselves whether they want to trust an article or share it,” Mosseri said.

The queue of checkable links is already operational and at least some participating partners have begun submitting their articles to be attached to disputed content.

Concerns Over Bias!

Conservatives in the United States have over the years criticized fact-checking organizations for having a liberal bias. The owner of a large hyper partisan conservative Facebook page and website recently told BuzzFeed News he thinks Facebook as an organization also has a liberal bias.

Mosseri emphasized that this initial partnership is focused on purely fake news, and not on checking claims from politicians or wading into partisan disputes.

“Fake news means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, but we are specifically focused on the worst of the worst — clear intentional hoaxes,” he said.

Aaron Sharockman, the executive director of PolitiFact, told BuzzFeed News that his and other checking sites often face accusations of bias and said they focus on making their work as transparent as possible so readers can make up their own minds.

“I think that at some level you are never going to be able to satisfy certain critics, particularly very partisan ones,” he said. “At PolitiFact we’ve been doing this nine years and have

published 13,000 fact-checks and we have heard criticism of perceived bias from the left and from the right.”

He said he expected Facebook to take heat for aligning with fact-checkers, but credited the company with taking steps to address the spread of fake news.

“They’re sticking their neck out a little bit and I think they’re gonna have to stick it out a little bit more because there are so many falsehoods flowing through Facebook feeds that Facebook is going to be very busy attacking these issues,” he said.

Meanwhile, Mantzarlis expects the partnership will result in a huge increase of applications to sign on to the IFCN’s code.

“I imagine that inundated may be an understatement,” he said. “But if this decision by Facebook leads to a surge in genuine fact-checking projects, so much the better.”

In preparation for that deluge, and because of the new prominence checking organizations will receive in Facebook, the IFCN is reworking its vetting process.

“We’re now adapting the process to set up a vetting process and ensure compliance,” he said. “Aspiring signatories must go through that process. Existing signatories will also be vetted and if they don’t meet the criteria, will be delisted.”

He also emphasized that signing onto the IFCN code is just the minimum requirement to be included in the Facebook checking project.

“First, it is important to note that Facebook

decides which fact-checkers to include; the IFCN code is just the ‘minimum condition,’” he said in an email.

In response to a follow-up question about how organizations will be approved for the third-party fact-checking program, a Facebook spokesperson said participants “must be signatories” of the IFCN code. As of this writing, six US-based organizations have signed on: The Associated Press, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, Snopes, the Washington Post, and ABC News. The last was only added as a signatory two days ago, and AP joined the day of the announcement.

Mantzarlis said ABC News applied early last week. Its website lists two stories for its Fact or Fake feature. AP has been publishing fact-checks for several years. By Craig Silverman, BuzzFeed News Media Editor, a Friend of America!
P.S.

 Hillary’s total expenses were $565 million,
compared with $775 million for President Obama; Mr. Trump spent $322 million, while Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee that year, spent $460 million. Hillary closed with under $1 million dollars in the bank, much less than the $7 million remaining for the Trump campaign.

With the current threat of Facebook's feckless ability to be bipartisan feel free to befriend me at 'Jonathan E P Moore' to get direct and instant access, or follow 'While You Were Sleeping' at www.whileyouweredozing.blogspot.com Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, and Google Plus PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

Friends Of Liberty is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.