The articles posted on this site were critical of Warren because of Warren’s opposition to school choice, but has also criticized the other Democratic candidates for taking the same position: https://www.the74million.org/article/stewart-the-democratic-....
The attempt to make it seem like the criticism of Warren on this site has anything to do with Facebook is pretty weak. The site was started long before Warren said anything critical about Facebook. The site also has a good faith basis for being critical of Warren in this front. Warren’s opposition to school choice highlights a distressing fissure within the Democratic Party: https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/19/08/ednext-poll-democrats...
> African American Democrats support targeted school vouchers, universal vouchers, and charter schools at 70%, 60%, and 55%, respectively. Among Hispanic Democrats, support for the three policies is at 67%, 60%, and 47%. On the other hand, just 40% of non-Hispanic White Democrats support targeted vouchers, 46% support universal vouchers, and 33% support charter schools.
The site is addressing a real debate within the Democratic Party, consistent with its founding principles, not using some contrived pretext to attack Warren for her comments about Facebook.
It points out Brown is friends with Betsy DeVos.
It points out that Eric Owens, a far-right regular writer for the Daily Caller, has written 11 articles for The 74.
I agree that the part about Warren is grasping at straws a bit. I think it's more interesting that Brown is right leaning, yet she's in charge of FB News. So far, FB News is showing many signs it will be right biased. This just adds more evidence.
The other evidence is the inclusion of Breitbart, but no leftist publications. Also, the fact that Zuckerberg has been having dinners with far-right figures, but no leftists.
If Facebook treated Brown’s advocacy for school choice as disqualifying, that would actually be an indicator of extreme left-wing bias.
As a general principle, decentralization is good.
This doesn’t seem like a reputable source for making the argument that voters actually support this policy.
School choice isn’t a “conservative” policy. Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc., have extensive school choice. The US is actually an outlier in the OECD for prohibiting private schools from getting any public funding: http://www.oecd.org/education/School-choice-and-school-vouch...
What is the hnews policy for when "politics" collides with "tech"? These articles are only going to be more common as the election approaches.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19769679
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869
If you still have questions they don't answer, let me know what they are and I'll add to the set.
Many here either work at FB or are reliant on their network for work related activities.
All of this would be a whole lot less critical if Facebook did what Twitter did and bowed out of taking political ad money.
We don't even hold ourselves accountable for our actions in this industry.
Facebook is the opposite of this, with their closed systems, back door dealings and often shady business practices it makes perfect sense that they are opposed to her.
I think it's plausible to be told something about your heritage and not question it, especially if it's something spanning multiple generations where the paperwork validating the claim is either nonexistent or otherwise hard to reach. At varying points I've been told by relatives that I'm part Scottish, and told by others that I'm not, and I don't really have a straightforward way of validating this aside from engaging in some intensive research.
I can reasonably extend the benefit of the doubt to Elizabeth Warren that she didn't know if she was actually some fraction Native American or not until the DNA test.
(if we can find a way to forgive and forget Judge Boof's college "hijinks" I think we can find a way to forgive this.)
There isn't a pattern of deceit on her part, this "debacle" wasn't a sin of great consequence, all the while it is pushed over and over by someone whose entire life is built on manufacturing falsehoods. "Both sides do it" doesn't apply here. It is like saying I can't be critical of a murderer because I too broke the law by speeding.
The world is sloppy, its not perfect, people are not perfect. In the end I dont care about that.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Their decision to accept paid lies (ads) by candidates (as opposed to Twitter) should tell us everything we need to know that FB views the targeted conspiracy-theory factually untrue bullshit - as a thing to be embraced (nay, not to avoid) - all for profit.
Time will tell if they permit all such ads or only the ones that they prefer.
This has already been answered. https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/29/tech/facebook-california-cand...
> Adriel Hampton, a political activist, registered as a candidate for California's 2022 gubernatorial election on Monday so he could take advantage of Facebook's policy allowing politicians and political candidates to run false ads on the platform.
> On Tuesday evening, a Facebook (FB) spokesperson told CNN Business, "This person has made clear he registered as a candidate to get around our policies, so his content, including ads, will continue to be eligible for third-party fact-checking."
The rules will be enforced arbitrarily only when FB wants.
I for one love capitalism and would rather send my child to a charter rather than the high school near my apartment, where the Dean of Peace Relations was recently convicted for attempted murder of a student he recruited to deal drugs.[0]
People without any means are forced to send their children to the monopoly school if they can't afford private and there are no charters. School choice is always preferable.
[0] https://www.wbur.org/news/2018/05/31/shaun-harrison-guilty-b...
