I have an idea about the fake news problem

No. Either a conclusion is compelled by the evidence or it is not. If it is not, then people may have their opinions.

Opinions are like farts. They are only enjoyed by the person who has them, hopefully not overly so.

This explains a lot. Thanks

Let's see what WaPo is up to:

That's far short of a retraction. Not even close.

Speaking as someone with experience at keeping lists of websites, it's quite possible to have incorrect individual entries no matter what methodology was used to collect them. Does that mean that the overall list is wrong? No, not if the methodology was sound. (Declaimer: I haven't looked at PropOrNot's methodology.)

From at least this summer, I was noticing alt-right sites that were echoing Russia's talking points.

https://whyweprotest.net/threads/wh...d-their-absolute-fuckery.132231/#post-2592835

The first time I noticed the media lying to me was in 1968, over the Vietnam war. CBS and Walter Cronkite. The issue is long standing. It's not a new thing, nor it is limited to one side of the political aisle. To pretend otherwise is to ignore all of history.

Nixon was crazy. Maybe CBS fell for his BS.

I think there is a difference between people who make mistakes sometimes and people who intentionally spam disinfo. Fraud is bad.

The US military were making up numbers of Vietnamese killed, a bit different from trolls on the internet convincing people that Yoko Ono got nasty with Hillary. Srs she has better taste than that.

NBC, 1993 Chevy trucks.
Brian Williams
Katie Couric
Dan Rather
Jayson Blair

This is out of memory, no research.

And now, Hillary is telling us how bad fake news is, while being the source of so much of it, from her lies about option trading, to her lies about the email, to her public views, available for free, and her private views, available for $300K a pop.

All this ignores that people have different values, and come up with different conclusions, based on the same facts. This is a fact that cannot be altered. It is human nature and the human condition.

Yeah, this is something that has been going on a long time, and these efforts are simply the reaction of sore losers.

It's been hilarious to watch, though. Thanks for the entertainment. It sort of evens out the fear of Trump as president.

Inherent in the fake news stories is that they're not based on the same facts. If they were different opinions based on the same facts, they wouldn't be fake news, they'd be editorial opinion.

I also don't see the relevance to the current problem that Walter Cronkite fibbed in 1968. I'm sorry if that scarred you for life.

Also, is Hillary still a thing? Get over her.

First pass, their methodology, as described, seems good. I might borrow a few things from it, like checking the Google Analytics id. I think they missed out by not tracking pushing of the line of demonizing Muslim refugees*, but that might have been hard to pick out from all the native alt-right stuff.

* RT was heavily pushing that, which is a strange message for a country with significant Muslim populations. Obviously that message was pointed to the West, not internally.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Byj_1ybuSGp_NmYtRF95VTJTeUk/view

Very much this.

Murder has been going on for a long time but I am still against it.

Brian Williams had a false memory. That does not make him Pravda or Breibart.

Libertarianism requires fraud to be under control. Markets are wise at setting the value of goods and services only when citizens have easy, quick access to reliable info. So I would expect you, as a libertarian, to be more concerned about standards of evidence and due diligence amongst those trying to educate the public about factual matters.

When conclusions are not compelled by evidence they are opinions. Opinions can be ignored.

Russia may not want Syrian refugees in the US where they can inform, organize, and rally support.

A lot of it was aimed at Europe.

If refugees can be demonized, then there is less chance that they will be able to peacefully blend into their host countries. A large population of ghettoized refugees will be a source of civil unrest for years down the road. (e.g. France.)

Speculating, with the danger of seeing a pattern where there isn't one, Russia's cunning plan seems to involve:

• Using their puppet Asad to shove half the population of Syria on the West (while accepting none of them themselves).
• Demonizing the refugees to prevent them from mixing.
• Stirring up right-wing groups in various countries against them.
• Destroying trust in mainstream media.

Benefits:

• The resources expended to deal with the massive wave of refugees.
• Strains between countries on who accepts them.
• Internal conflict and political destabilization over the problem, leading to governments that are more isolationist and inward-turned.
• A lasting social problem in western countries.
• Massive distraction from other things like the invasion of the Ukraine.
• Less support for "threats" like NATO.

Note, I'm not saying that events like Trump and Brexit are primarily due to Russia, but I'm sure that they're quite happy with the results.

I don't think your ideas are too far fetched when you consider that the bulk of Russian intelligence "active measures" have been aimed at undermining trust in civil institutions broadly (Alex Jones is prototypical of the crap you can find promoted on pro-Russian sites).

But a rising tide raises all boats. So if US biotech is enurbulated, for example, that slows biotech development elsewhere, including Russia. And if global warming is true, Russia is fucked along with everyone else.

I think a machine built against a demonized enemy is nearly impossible to dismantle. Scientology is such a machine. The KGB/FSB is one. These machines run on autopilot.

Warning tinfoil: ISIS seems a useful demon when it comes to US-Russian relations. Russia has used horror ops in Syria and Ukraine early in the game like ISIS. I kinda wonder if the fuzzy and cozy bears are involved with ISIS.

This summer, Britons mutinied against their government, their experts and the EU – and consigned themselves to a poorer, angrier future. Such frenzies of collective self-harm were explained by Streeck in the 2012 lectures later collected in Buying Time:

Professionalised political science tends to underestimate the impact of moral outrage. With its penchant for studied indifference … [it] has nothing but elitist contempt for what it calls “populism”, sharing this with the power elites to which it would like to be close … [But] citizens too can “panic” and react “irrationally”, just like financial investors … even though they have no banknotes as arguments but only words and (who knows?) paving stones.

Here he is in 2013, foreshadowing the world of LuxLeaks, SwissLeaks and the Panama Papers and their revelations of a one-sided class war – by the 1% against the rest of us:

Why should the new oligarchs be interested in their countries’ future productive capacities and present democratic stability if, apparently, they can be rich without it, processing back and forth the synthetic money produced for them at no cost by a central bank for which the sky is the limit, at each stage diverting from it hefty fees and unprecedented salaries, bonuses, and profits as long as it is forthcoming – and then leave their country to its remaining devices and withdraw to some privately owned island?And in a 2015 essay, he warns that resentment against such elites will not be wholesomely Fabian but will instead take the form either of “public entertainment” or “some politically regressive sort of nationalism”. It will look less like Hillary than Donald:

Politicization is migrating to the right side of the political spectrum where anti-establishment parties are getting better and better at organising discontented citizens dependent upon public services and insisting on political protection from international markets.

In such long, precise, comfortless sentences, Streeck sets out the crises facing Britain, the US and the continent. His diagnosis is both political and economic, and it makes him what Chris Bickerton, a lecturer in politics at Cambridge, thinks might be “the most interesting person around today on the subject of the relationship between democracy and capitalism”.

more: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...ail&utm_term=0_4675a5c15f-d0f8a3e755-81649177

Pentagon papers ?

Yeah Pentagon dishonest. But Mann Ace was not criticizing the Pentagon. He was criticizing Walter Cronkite and CBS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Cronkite#Vietnam_War ?

Sometimes having Pentagon people to stop de President is good.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/01/world/nixon-proposed-using-a-bomb-in-vietnam-war.html

That Wikipedia page says that in 1968 Cronkite told America that it was fucked in Vietnam. However Nixon decided to pretend otherwise by escalating the war.

I think it is wrong to blame uncle Walter for tricky Dick's shenanigans.

You think it's wrong to point out that the MSM was lying to us 50 years ago, in a discussion about fake news?

And Nixon didn't force Walter to lie to 150M Americans, Walter did that all on his own.

What a time it was...just like now, only different

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

What lie did Cronkite say?

I could have mentioned any of the network anchors, but Cronkite was who we watched.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120226056767646059

Also, you might want to read about another Walter, Walter Duranty. He sort of ignored a famine that was killing millions. What a guy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/us/times-should-lose-pulitzer-from-30-s-consultant-says.html

And the reason to keep an eye on Hillary is pretty obvious...
http://observer.com/2016/12/clinton-basically-admits-she-learned-nothing-from-losing-to-trump/

Just a distraction from the real issues. At least the Left is consistent.

Vietnam was before my time so I am not up on that clusterfuck. The Tet offensive was defeated by the US?

We won the battles, lost the war.
The point remains: fake news is hardly new. It's as old as mankind.


"Thus, the artless songs I sing
Do not deal with anything
New or never said before.
As it was in the beginning
Is to-day official sinning,
And shall be for evermore! "
R. Kipling

I still do not know what lie Walter Cronkite said back in 1968. You are kinda dancing around impressionistically without specifics.

Like I said before, murder has been around a long time but I am still against it. Being around a long time is not a justification for a behavior that causes harm to the public right to make informed choices.

Amazing what kids don't know about their own history.
I always liked to dance, and you are kinda dancing around the main point, the idea that we have to "do something" about Fake News. Walt's lies are not the issue. You can look it up and decide for yourself. Hint, all the anchors were telling the US people that the US troops lost the battles of the Tet Offensive.

The whole point of talking about Fake News is so the Left doesn't have to look at reality, doesn't have to think "Hey, wait, maybe it was something we did wrong, not the Fake News, not Comey, not the Russians, maybe we did something wrong. Maybe calling people deplorable isn't the way to win friends and influence people...hmmm, nah fuck it, we're right they don't know their own interests, they are easily duped by Fake News and We Must Do Something About It. Now."

It'll be interesting seeing how long it takes the left to get through the stages of grief and come to their senses. I think it's going be at least one more election cycle, when they lose even more seats before they wake up to reality.

Time will tell...

Here's an app some here might like

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/11/28/app-lets-users-boycott-trump/94541732/

Not quite OP's idea, but it's something.

Trump's companies are about to get so much foreign direct investment and overseas revenue, especially from countries without anti-corruption regulations, that it will probably more than offset losses from any organized boycott, domestic or international. It pains me to say.

Not just on the Internet, but MSM (print, radio, and television). There are a few individuals on this site who just copy/paste crap w/o spending time researching whether what they post is true. They clog up pages with links and articles ad nauseum of bullshit no one cares about, let alone reads, like they're some propaganda RSS feed...

And yes, Spirit Cooking is real, and part of Occult practice even though (of course) some of those recipes look ridiculous to you and me. We all know you can't bottle up jealousy, but you can drink urine, blood, and breastmilk, and there are people currently in our WH administration with deep scars on their fingers just like it's called for. SEVERAL of them.

It is NOT art. Victims HAVE come forward though the years, but they aren't paraded. How many child rape victims in this country can you name? There are tens of thousands, you know. Just because a handful went public against Bill Clinton doesn't mean anyone who has been trafficked, raped, or tortured as a child in this world wants to get on Good Morning America.

Many are in Witsec, hospitalized/institutionalized, dead, or living normal lives. And yes, Scotland Yard is looking into the Podestas and Madeleine McCann. If you don't work IRL with Human Trafficking in any way/shape/form, do NOT post any bullshit articles from any site. News is bullshit. Fake news is even worse. Pedophilia and human trafficking for sex and labor is real across the globe, it's lucrative, and if regular people, cartels, etc. are awash in it - WTH would you think the world elites aren't, too? It's the 2nd leading money maker behind drug trafficking in the world, FFS.

If you wonder why Clintons and Co. haven't been arrested for anything, maybe it's because the powers that be need Obama out of office so he cannot pardon anyone? Did anyone ever think of that? I mean, just because Comey (or anyone) announces things to the public, does it mean they're giving all their secrets away or not providing disinfo?

Anyway, I like what Denzel has to say in this clip. I think this sums up fake news nicely.




Hey, by the way - congrats on Obama's and Hillary's handling of Aleppo over the past almost 5 years. Shame she lost before all the women and children were dead. Nice how the Dems on Twitter were blaming Trump for it today, when he's not even in office yet. Much fake news around that, too, it seems, according to the UN Emergency meeting I watched today...

I'll be back again someday...maybe

This is pretty interesting, coming from you. I know you refused to at the time, but maybe now that you're complaining about it, you can acknowledge some personal blame for being responsible for the same behavior.

You posted a picture that made the claim that it depicted torture in Benghazi, when multiple sources - readily available if someone had spent time researching whether what they post is true - showed that the picture was clearly from YEARS before Benghazi.

All I did, at the time, was suggest that you should make a resolution to research your claims carefully before posting them, especially regarding politics during an election year. You rebuffed my polite suggestion and called me an unregistered troll.

And now you're complaining about the very behavior that I pointed out in yourself, as if the incident with your posting unresearched, inaccurate information had never happened. I am just trying to point it out for you, and to suggest respectfully that you acknowledge some personal responsibility in the future for avoiding this behavior about which you complain.

http://boingboing.net/2016/12/14/an-attempt-to-chart-new-source.html

You seem mad, bb. But I am not up on everything you mention because I have been on the road this past week.

I don't know much about Aleppo. But I know the US has not been bombing the shit out of Syria. That is mostly Russia's job.

I do not think my views are controversial. I try to stand up for "dox or GTFO" mostly. I'm cool with speculation so long as other possibilities are considered and people do not insist speculation is true without dox. I'm not a fan of any particular political party. In fact, I think political parties are too powerful.

Bullshit spread as news that effectively misleads a significant number of people should be everyone's concern. Are you saying Republicans are cool with misleading propaganda that actually works?