I also don't/won't do FB.

Do you notice and/or does in bother/annoy you at all that even here, so many posts/links/comments seem to originate from members use of FB and its' propensity for 'fake news' ?

@FearlessFly It MIGHT if I knew anything about it.
I just go with if I already agree with the main point, or not. Also, I consider the source. Trump/Fox News/Rush, etc., at one end of the Truth Spectrum, Nader/Chomsky/Sanders, etc., at the other.
Facebook is irrelevant, smacks me as some kind of gimmick.

@Storm1752 "if I already agree with the main point"
Isn't that the definition of "confirmation bias" ?

@FearlessFly Sure. I'm biased. I go to my already incontrovertible basic premises and from there follow the logic.
Everybody's biased. Except you.

@Storm1752 . . . hmmm, where have I claimed I wasn't ?

@FearlessFly Actually maybe we AREN'T biased, except to the extent our premises are biased. I sometimes find my premises faulty. For instance, my one-time insistence "agnostic atheist" was a self-contradictory term, that you had to be one or the other, but couldn't be both. I've since softened my stance even though I still think I'm technically right...I now "get" what they're saying.
I myself was REALLY saying Atheism itself is an illegitimate label I still think so. No one can say they are sure there is no god, I think. Everybody is really agnostic, whether they admit it or not. They're just sure there's no god of a particular TYPE (Abrahamic), as am I.
Anyway...enough of THAT!

@Storm1752 [en.wikipedia.org]

@FearlessFly No! I won't read it! I already have! No Agnostic-Atheist debate, please! Examine your premises!
May I add Joe Biden is a swell guy...I base my conclusion on the unchallengable premise he took the train to Washington every day so he could be with his family every night.
Case closed.

Does your equivalency withstand examination?

Regulation of outer space will result in competing attempts to militarize it.