The Truth About What Constitutes "Fake News" for the Left Which They Want to Ban.

And I notice they have infowars up there. Which I think should be taken off. They have great news articles on what's going on out and about in today's world.

I think the only reason it's on the list is because of the Alex Jones show, which is so ridiculous to watch it's like a form of comedic entertainment,

I just find it so weird that back when I used to lurk on ATS and when I first registered on this forum, he was a joke to just about everyone. And now it seems like almost everyone loves him

originally posted by: reldra

The left promotes free speech. It is the right that often uses derogatory terms for the left when it is exercised.

Its so cute you still say that. How many Republicans college kids have gotten left wing speakers banned as opposed to how many the left has. How many protests this election cycle had protesters blocking access to events.... And who were they?

a reply to: DisUglyBoyHere

You justify the use of agent provocateurs?

Its good to know that neither side has any respect for the law or one another.

Double post.

a reply to: TrueBrit
Do we sit back and watch this country continue to suffer and divide itself?

Or do we stop it?



They contribute nothing to society
They are damaging race relations
They are disruptive and violent.

You guys are right, we shouldn't get rid of this cancer that is turning our country into a terminal state of divisiveness, we should just sit back and watch the cancer do it's own thing.
Even though if the cancer were taken out by the FBI tomorrow, we ALL KNOW that would help heal the wounds of this nation. Say what you want, but it's true.

a reply to: DisUglyBoyHere

Where did I suggest doing nothing?

I think you will find that I did not.

However, you might think about doing whatever is to be done next in an overt, not covert manner, using tactics which mean it is impossible for the ends to be attacked, as they surely would be, owing in no small part to the utterly disreputable means you intend to apply to achieve them.

a reply to: TrueBrit

The best way to overtly get rid of the movement is to stop giving them media coverage. But that is not in the best interest of the MSM.....
Second best thing is to have people within the spectrum refute their ideologies, only problem is that a good enough chunk of the left are sympathetic to these people, and refuse to do anything about them.

So it seems we're back at square on.

a reply to: UKTruth

The cast were incredibly rude.

They actually embarrassed themselves.

You seem to be overly concerned with people embarrassing themselves UK. Comes up a lot

I have a theory about that :-)

They were very polite. And, you know what? In our country - until the new Emperor so decrees - we get to be rude for free!

That's right - turns out the right is very concerned all of a sudden about being polite - and respectful

Hilarious

Fake News is rather the hallmark of the government and western mainstream media, isn't it? It's hard to recall what is NOT fake in the news these days.

This thread amusingly makes her point for her. There is no list entitled Fake News, there is a list entitled "False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and/or Satirical ‘News’ Sources." False is a category. Clickbait-y is a category which I take to describe hyperbolic headlines that lead to rather sober articles (seen plenty of those around here).

So in a dark and amusing twist, this very thread is an example of the sorts of things she was trying to point out to her students: she composed a list of sites you should be wary of if you're looking for good sources, right wing nutjobs blew it up into a non-existent liberal call for censorship and reduced the scope of what she was compiling to a "Fake News" list. So the title of this thread is itself hyperbolic click bait in action!

What isn't funny is the sheer volume of people consuming this crap and working themselves into a lather about the revolution to come.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: DrStevenBrule
a reply to: ElectricUniverse



The left wants to ban all media and speech that doesn't fall in line with their beliefs.

No. You are wrong.

No...he is not wrong. The left does want to ban any news they don't create. And your response is right inline with the propaganda they are suggesting. If someone states the truth of what we are doing...deny, deny, deny.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Actually no... abandon the extremely false "pants on fire" news paradigm and Left will be quiet on the issue.

You can have your right-leaning news that argues that position on things, but keep it truthful.

None of this Obama secret Muslim terrorist, climate change hoax, Hillary Parkinson's nonsense. It's a bunch of horsh#t that hurts the country. It hurts the world.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

Nope. I don't believe you for a second. Here is how I believe it will work.

Big liberal groups and organizations (Facebook, CNN, etc.) will subscribe to the lie of "Get Rid of Fake News". Yeah...like every liberal agenda, you must adopt a catch phrase that hides the true purpose (lies) and sounds like something honorable. It isn't. And it perfectly follows all the liberal plans.

The reason it isn't is because someone will have to define what is fake news and what isn't. Considering that at an absolute minimum 50% of the news is opinion, the determination of what is fake and what isn't is the same as choosing whose opinion is right and whose is wrong. Look to who will make these decisions. They are/will be all left leaning organizations (watch) and therefore what you will have is a liberal "court" deciding whose opinions are valid and whose are not. Care to guess on that one?

What they could do is not allow the opinions they determine are false to be broadcast, advertised, promoted via advertising, etc. They will point to the liberal "court" and say..."see...these things are lies". This will be full on censorship for political purposes (as always) executed by the left. It is 100% their typical type of action. Look at man-made-climate change right now. It is ONLY A THEORY! But what does the left say? They say it is a fact and that those who don't support their lie are "deniers". Look it up...only a theory.

So...care to guess where they came up with this and how they are testing it? Do you remember hearing that the "man-made climate change supporters" (vastly liberal) wanted to make it criminal to state anti-man-made-climate change opinions? Remember that? HERE YA GO! That is how far it has gone. Imagine that...you may be a criminal for having an opinion...ON A THEORY!

Yup...a light-bulb went off in the head of Soros (or someone) and this idea unfolded. It takes the left's existing allies and utilizes them to support the effort and the technology. It allows the left to NOT control your opinion...BUT YOUR RIGHT TO STATE YOUR OPINION! And that will include those who we rely on to TELL THE TRUTH. Fox, Wikileaks, Anon, Snowden all the way down to...YOU! How would you like to be arrested or fined for saying you don't believe in man-made climate change on ATS? Could happen...read the article above.

So there you go. That is the plan in my opinion, it makes complete sense and it utilizes known allies, technology to do what the left always tries to do. SHUT YOU UP and make THEIR TRUTH the only truth.

Here is that link again. There are many more sources if you search.


And HERE is a link on the Climate Change lies.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Actually no... abandon the extremely false "pants on fire" news paradigm and Left will be quiet on the issue.

You can have your right-leaning news that argues that position on things, but keep it truthful.

None of this Obama secret Muslim terrorist, climate change hoax, Hillary Parkinson's nonsense. It's a bunch of horsh#t that hurts the country. It hurts the world.

PS: Why would you respond to anything I say when you know I consider you a proven liar and therefore, your words pointless and you useless? Kinda silly but I have no problem continuing to point you out to others

originally posted by: Salander
Fake News is rather the hallmark of the government and western mainstream media, isn't it? It's hard to recall what is NOT fake in the news these days.

Correct. Everything they report they slant according to a political ideology and this whole 'fake news' attack is just another example of the Progressive tactic of smearing anyone and anything that disagrees with their world view. Whether it's calling someone a racist without any proof or calling a whole slew of sites fake. The problem for the liberal progressive media is that their lies are out in the open and millions upon millions of people know that it is the MSM which is fake AND are wide awake to their tired old tactics.

That is not to say that there is no fake news on the right leaning news media.. of course there is. However, I'd rather not have biased hypocrites tell me what is fake and what is not.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: amazing

Well, I didn't expect anything less from you to claim all of those listed news sites are fake... Some of those websites are fake, but many are not. They are alternative websites that do not tow the party line.

I am actually going to show you in another thread one of the many stories that the mainstream media would not cover, and sites like Breibart does cover, and then I will show you directly from the WhiteHouse.org website evidence that the Breibart story is true.

Let's talk about Breitbart for a second. It's straight propaganda for right wing politics. Just like most of Huffpost is left wing propaganda for left wing politics. That doesn't mean that they don't get a good story once in a while, but it's through a filter. You only get half of the story. Isn't that the very definition of fake news?

Fact is we should all be pushing for truth in media.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: amazing

Well, I didn't expect anything less from you to claim all of those listed news sites are fake... Some of those websites are fake, but many are not. They are alternative websites that do not tow the party line.

I am actually going to show you in another thread one of the many stories that the mainstream media would not cover, and sites like Breibart does cover, and then I will show you directly from the WhiteHouse.org website evidence that the Breibart story is true.

Let's talk about Breitbart for a second. It's straight propaganda for right wing politics. Just like most of Huffpost is left wing propaganda for left wing politics. That doesn't mean that they don't get a good story once in a while, but it's through a filter. You only get half of the story. Isn't that the very definition of fake news?

I don't disagree with what you say, except the last sentence. There is no definition of fake news, which is part of the problem and no unbiased source exists for arbitration. The solution is as Donald Trump suggested. Open up libel laws so that fake stories that damage people or organisations can be dealt with through the courts. You'd soon see the lies and propaganda dry up.

originally posted by: UKTruth
I don't disagree with what you say, except the last sentence. There is no definition of fake news, which is part of the problem and no unbiased source exists for arbitration. The solution is as Donald Trump suggested. Open up libel laws so that fake stories that damage people or organisations can be dealt with through the courts. You'd soon see the lies and propaganda dry up.

While I do think we can use libel laws as a way to solve the problem, the courts in the US are a mess. There's just not enough affordable legal representation available for lower income folks, and corporations have the ability to delay things to the point where even those who are well off can't afford to drag something out. Throw in the fact that our courts are seriously overloaded and even with opened up libel laws we don't have an environment conducive to lawsuits.

Also you have the issue of disclaimers. If a disclaimer is put somewhere on the website publishing fake news, then you don't have a legal grounds to sue them. But, if it's placed out of the way people will still ignore the disclaimer and treat it as the truth. We have something similar right now with retractions, where the headline grabbing stories are false, and then 2 weeks later a retraction is issued, buried deep in the source where no one will ever see it.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Open up libel laws so that fake stories that damage people or organisations can be dealt with through the courts. You'd soon see the lies and propaganda dry up.

Don't you think though, that, looking far into the future, were this to come to fruition, that it would completely sway someone from attempting to even find truth?

Imagine Haarp, or MKUltra, or any suite of conspiracies, Gulf of Tonkin, the list goes on that were at FIRST reported as either not existing or being something other than what they were. Were libel laws to be opened up as he suggests, someone in fear of losing everything would not even make the attempt to expose them for what they are and at THAT time, the courts would be backing up the plaintiffs.

If the Government ONLY wanted a particular "truth" to be reported upon, then challenging it would find your way in court as "Against the Fake News Liability Law".

We really need to be careful what we try and fix.