FAKE NEWS

My ignorance is the case in what point?
Originally Posted by Pitfall

The "point" on top of your head!

Dunno why Gruber would be laughing, but it doesn't affect me in any way.

The more people believe that the MSM is a conspiracy and that real truth can only be found on sites like mine, the better my little side business does. I have 0 interest in changing anyone's mind about fake news.

Laugh all you want, fellas. Just keep those page views coming. Originally Posted by Pitfall

So, what you're saying is that you have a "little side business" writing fake bullshit and getting naive suckers to pay you a little bit of money for it?

How very impressive.

You must be bursting with pride!

So, what you're saying is that you have a "little side business" writing fake bullshit and getting naive suckers to pay you a little bit of money for it?

How very impressive.

You must be bursting with pride! Originally Posted by Ex-CEO

He must be another member of the Clinton Crime Family. And proud of his larceny too !

pitfall is a sissy

666 is a NySUPrunER

Yes, liberals will buy into some of it, but it's not nearly as easy to write a fake article for them. They're a bunch of fucking know-it-alls and they are way more likely to check sources since they love to be the ones to prove you wrong. There's just not the same tribal cohesion with that group. I'm not saying they're smarter, I'm just saying their particular culture isn't as ripe for disinformation as the Trump group. Originally Posted by Pitfall

You are delusional.

Most US media outlets slam Trump daily with little or no facrual support and much of the public believes it without question. Take the violence at Trump rallies prior to the election. Major networks reported that Trump and his supporters caused violent protests.
Trump exercised his First Ammendment right to free speech. His supporters exercised their right to assemble. Watch the San Jose protests. Anti-Trump protestors attacked Trump supporters. But the media blamed Trump.
It doesn't matter if you disagree. It doesn't matter if he's offensive. No one is justified in becoming violent over offensive language. Yet the media continued to blame Trump's language for the violence. This is only one example.
If you watch liberal news on any given day and fact check even a few things with an open mind, you will find many stories that lack credibility and others that are outright false.
I don't believe most liberals fact check anything, unless they disagree with it. Most accept everything that is in line with their ideology.

You are delusional.

Anti-Trump protestors attacked Trump supporters. But the media blamed Trump.
Originally Posted by goodman0422

Just like they threatened and attacked Trump Electors.

The events since November 8th have proven from where the violence came!

I don't believe most liberals fact check anything, unless they disagree with it. Most accept everything that is in line with their ideology. Originally Posted by goodman0422

Well, it's pretty easy to test. All you need is Wordpress and a catchy title. Give it a try!

No one is immune to confirmation bias. We all like to hear that what we already believe is true. I'm not saying that liberals are immune to this. I'm saying that liberals just don't go for fake news sites. Maybe liberals just get all the confirmation they need from the regular media, so they have no reason to go to shitty websites put up by Macedonian teenagers for their "truth."

Like it or lump it, and for whatever reason or set of reasons, Trumpland is much more fertile ground for selling people lies. That's just reality. And if you can't accept that reality, then you are my audience, so keep clicking.

HUH? Fucken 0zombies...


Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Isn't " FAKE NEWS " what Dastardly Da Rather tried to put out with his made-up story about Geo W. Bush's military time ? And what Lyin Brian Williams tried with his " I was shot at in a helicopter " story. Or what New Yawk Times reporter Jason Blair was peddling during his time there ? Or shrilLIARy's " sniper fire " story ? Gotta love the blatant lies of the libs !!! And they have NO problem doing it ! Until they are caught !

Isn't " FAKE NEWS " what Dastardly Da Rather tried to put out with his made-up story about Geo W. Bush's military time ? And what Lyin Brian Williams tried with his " I was shot at in a helicopter " story. Or what New Yawk Times reporter Jason Blair was peddling during his time there ? Or shrilLIARy's " sniper fire " story ? Gotta love the blatant lies of the libs !!! And they have NO problem doing it ! Until they are caught ! Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

The Russians-Are-Coming and "Fake News" are merely deflections from THE TRUTH, which is the content of the EMAILS .... that were captured ... and can you imagine if the content of the shredded emails had been released over a year ago ..... She'd have never made it to first base.

Kill the messenger and bury the messages with the corpse.

Didn't work! Another miscalculation!

I'm saying that liberals just don't go for fake news sites. Maybe liberals just get all the confirmation they need from the regular media Originally Posted by Pitfall

Dude,
CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, FOX. These are fake news sites. You can get "the story" from them but it will not be the whole story. You will only hear what they want you to hear. (A partial truth is still not the truth.)
They provide bits and pieces and draw the conclusion that they want to draw then report it as fact. The only difference between the big media outlets and fake news sites is that the mainstream media is usually more subtle in it's lies. The masses of mindless believers are only distinguished by party affiliation and political leanings.

Thats one of the reasons I actually watch CNN, though the propaganda is hard to stomach. They will say things FOX wont. I add in some objectivity and common sense and decide what I want to research. I get most of my news online so I can attempt to skip the BS and go straight to the original source cited in an article. Interestingly, the source is often misquoted or taken out of context. The only thing the mainstream media can add is the smug look on the journalists face as they believe they once again successfully fooled the American people. I don't always find the truth but, I recognize lies when I hear them.

What you call news is just massive disinformation. Why are you so eager to accept mainstream lies and discount so-called "fake" news sites? Is it because the mainstream media told you too?

No one is immune to confirmation bias. We all like to hear that what we already believe is true.

Maybe liberals just get all the confirmation they need from the regular media, so they have no reason to go to shitty websites put up by Macedonian teenagers for their "truth."


Trumpland is much more fertile ground for selling people lies. Originally Posted by Pitfall

Oh, please.

You sound too much like WTF.

He was a racist so he wanted everyone else to be one also!

"Trumpland" and you want to preach about "bias"?

I'm not preaching anything to anyone. If you think that shitty little websites that tell you the "truth" are the best place to get news, please continue to click those links.

I'm thinking about making up a story where some of Hillary's campaign workers in the Midwest still haven't been paid. Keep a lookout for it in your newsfeed.

I'm not preaching anything to anyone. If you think that shitty little websites that tell you the "truth" are the best place to get news, please continue to click those links.

I'm thinking about making up a story where some of Hillary's campaign workers in the Midwest still haven't been paid. Keep a lookout for it in your newsfeed. Originally Posted by Pitfall

OK, Urbantarzan(G) but in the mean time we will watch this...

Fake news has been fucking amazing for me... It only takes 30 to 60 minutes to write an article because if I'm just making it up as I go... If somebody shares on one of the big conservative Facebook groups I can easily make $500 - $1500 on Google Adsense. Not a bad return! Originally Posted by Pitfall

Hey Pitfall, it looks like Facebook is rolling out a new policy that will threaten your livelihood! Mark Zuckerberg is going to let other libtards fake-fact-check your fake news stories! Better start looking for a new line of work!


Facebook’s Fake Fix for Fake News

Liberal fact-checkers are not the way to ensure a more informed public.

Updated Dec. 18, 2016 3:27 p.m. ET


Some progressives will do anything to avoid confronting the realities of why Hillary Clinton lost the election, and one diversion is the complaint about fake news, which is provoking even worse responses. Facebook announced this week that the social-media platform will weed out some stories, and that the company will deputize “fact-checkers” to decide if an article is credible. What could go wrong?

Facebook says it is testing technology so that a story shared on its site that is flagged by users, among unknown other indicators, will be checked out by the Associated Press, ABC News, PolitiFact or others. If these high priests declare a story fake, it will be denoted as “Disputed by 3rd Party Fact-Checkers” and perhaps demoted in a news feed.

This appears to be a response to the fake news story that Mrs. Clinton lost the election because false information duped people into voting for Donald Trump. There is zero evidence that invented events—an article that said “The Pope Endorsed Donald Trump,” for example—swayed the election.

More than 80% of Americans told Pew Research in a recent poll that they can spot fake news, and only a third report seeing it often. Fakery and exaggeration exist on the web. But this does not qualify as a democracy-killing “epidemic,” which is how Mrs. Clinton described it last week.

It’s certainly curious that the consternation over fake news seems aimed above all against Mr. Trump. Politico this fall rolled out a fact check of the Republican, claiming that every three minutes he told one “untruth.” Here’s one of those supposed falsehoods: Mr. Trump said Islamic State is evil “the world has not seen.” Politico concluded that this was false because “judging one ‘level of evil’ against another is subjective.” Well, judging what is true is also often subjective.

That’s certainly the case with PolitiFact, which pretends to be even-handed but has its own biases. In 2008 PolitiFact helped bless ObamaCare with a “true” rating for candidate Barack Obama’s claim that “if you like your health-care plan, you can keep it.” In 2009 the website demoted the remark to “half true,” adding the non-insight that ObamaCare would “surely change the current health system.” By 2013, as Americans lost their insurance, PolitiFact changed its judgment and called Mr. Obama’s line the “lie of the year.”

Tendentious PolitiFact ratings are a classic genre of bad journalism. When Texas libertarian Ron Paul said the U.S. federal income-tax rate was zero until 1913, PolitiFact called that “half true.” (We would have called that true.) Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb later said the same thing and notched a mark of “mostly true,” and maybe he earned extra points for being a Democrat.

Behind this is the conceit that political debates could be settled if ideologues (Republicans) would only accept what the liberal consensus defines as “facts,” as if worldview or interpretation are irrelevant. Facebook has long insisted that it is neutral about content, and earlier this year it denied reports that the platform censored conservative news. That’s looking less credible.

The company also says it will only target the “worst of the worst” fake news, which you would think a sophisticated algorithm could identify without an assist from PolitiFact. In any case, the standard is subjective and no one knows which employees will make that call. Google’s YouTube site restricts videos based in part on community flagging, which is how conservative radio host Dennis Prager’s videos about free speech and other topics ended up marked as “inappropriate.” Facebook’s editing experiment may result in similar judgments that are ideologically skewed.

If Facebook is really worried about bad information crowding out good, here’s one suggestion. Pay news organizations in exchange for featuring trusted and reliable content where users can find it easily. Facebook’s business model depends in part on making money off content produced by others, including this newspaper. But producing real news with credible standards of accuracy is expensive. How about paying publishers for it?

Facebook can run its business as it pleases, but this fake fact-checking exercise is likely to damage its brand and open itself to political pressure from every corner, including from Mr. Trump. Meantime, progressives will continue to invent controversies to avoid acknowledging the (true) fact that American voters rejected their presidential candidate for real reasons based on real concerns about the real condition of their country.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook...ews-1481932361

You mean Facebook is going to have an RTM button .. and MODS!