Fake News Just For Right-Wingers: A Huge Industry

originally posted by: samerulesapply
How deep does one have to go before they feel they've gone deep enough?

SNL?

What is your problem with SNL exactly??

Nobody has claimed that SNL is their source of any kind of political news or information. You are the only one implying that for some reason. Nobody is getting their news by watching Alec Baldwin's parody of Trump. It's comedy. That's it.

a reply to: mOjOm

But I'm saying it in response to comments that you and others made!

Lol...there's no end to the madness, is there?

I really like this thread, I just want to state that I am giving you a flag but not because I agree with you, just because ths thread has been amazing fun.

Much obliged.

a reply to: mOjOm

I don't have an issue with SNL...I've never seen it except for the odd clip here and there but I don't care much for television.

You know for someone so enlightened you don't catch on too quick, do you? It's the pretentious nature of your position...the self-righteousness.

This whole notion that you're somehow more awake than most of us yet you seem consumed by everything that is contrary.

That's all.

originally posted by: samerulesapply

So you went from pushing the article as real news, to...sort of looking like you're trying to will yourself to believe it's real. Simply because it confirms your bias.

Now you go on and tell folk they an't diggin' deep 'nuff!

It's that high horse again...it is pretty funny. The whole thing is funny.

Politics is now a comedy.

I'll assume you're talking to me even though that isn't exactly clear. But I'll answer anyway.

I'm not pushing anything as real news. The person I'm talking to is claiming that it's fake however. All I'm saying is that unless he provides info showing that they are lying he can't claim they are fake. Claiming something is false without proof is no different than claiming it's real without proof.

That's what I'm saying. I'm not claiming to have proof either way. I'm admitting that. But he's claiming they are false yet has no evidence to prove that. That is a false claim.

Try and keep up.

originally posted by: samerulesapply
a reply to: mOjOm

But I'm saying it in response to comments that you and others made!

Lol...there's no end to the madness, is there?

I really like this thread, I just want to state that I am giving you a flag but not because I agree with you, just because ths thread has been amazing fun.

Much obliged.

This isn't my thread BTW. So it's not my flag. But I'm sure the OP appreciates the flag.

a reply to: mOjOm

Lol...but you move so quickly.

There's always fake news. Here's what's sinister about the article -- if true, some lefty wanted to push some propaganda so that he could later denounce it as fake and be like the liberal hero.

I mean, if y'aint got nothin' to tell...make it up! Wonder why his plan failed...by the sounds of the article he'd moved on. He says it was a success, and he was amazed at how fast fake news spread and how many folks believed it.

So why no epic, virture signalling reveal at the end? Sounds pretty sinister, actually. Some liberal decided to push fake, heavily right-wing propaganda just as an 'experiment'

Pretty convenient, especially the part where he refused to comment at first, then later responded with this story. I mean, whre did he go between the first encounter and subsequent interview? To whom did he speak? You want to dig so dig. Critical thinking - occams razor, right?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

So NPR doesn't have an editorial slant? Totally honest are they?

For every right "fake news" there's a matching left "fake news".

Which is precisely why one should use multiple sources from every side of whatever issue, to do anything less is intellectually dishonest.

Even the title is mental - fake news for right wingers, a huge industry.

Then it turns out it's some dude what made a website. All hear say...probably true but who gives?

Couple of links...a story about some fake (highly questionable) story or stories that was/were published and shared by a couple of million people on facebook. I don't remember seeing it. Of all the users on facebook, a couple of million is a drop in the ocean. If we assume 2 million shares, let's be really minimalist and pretend that most facebook users have a fraction of the friends they actually do have and pretend the average user has a mere 10 friends...well that's 20,000,000 potential views of that questionable, faked, right-wing propaganda.

Yet it still only got 2 million shares...so a tiny fraction of the facebook community saw it, and an even tinier fraction of the facebook community shared it. How many you think actually read it? I'm pretty sure people see that crapa nd are shocked enough to share it without having even clicked it. how many times did the protagonist, the agitator...the, er, scientist share it? Probably a group of folks sharing it. Need to dig more to find out...can't be arsed.

But this is a huge industry.

And the OP is fully awake.

The end.

a reply to: seagull

I already said, twice now, that NPR is a liberal-leaning site. It is biased toward the left.
That doesn't mean the interview was fake, or that the guy was fake, or that it's a blatant lie.

Maybe you didn't get that far into the thread yet, though.
In my personal investigative experience, NPR is as non-inflammatory as it gets.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: JinMI

The same John Oliver who wanted Trump to run in the first place for..entertainment?

High bars indeed.

Well, has it not been entertaining???

Yes, and John has addressed all of that already, at length, and even shown clips of himself saying that. He is not arrogant at all about it. He actually faced up to it, and said, "I should never have said this."


He is a man who has integrity. Not a spin doctor.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Not saying the interview was/is fake. I don't really care, as it's saying nothing that I didn't already know.

I'm commenting on the seeming shock that many seem to be expressing... Nothing more.

This sort of thing has been going on since the dawn of time, or politics, whichever came first.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Yep, I believe the story 100% because it shows how someone plotted to plant a red-herring as part of some sordid scheme. I love how nobody is questioning the motives of that.

People are gullible, the dude in the interview apprenty told how he made mock news pages basically feeding lies to people on purpose. And would you believe it, they saw it and some were hoodwinked!

Yeah, people are like that. They sare crap news stories without caring about the content, they do it for likes and crap like that. People were sharing crap about both Trump and Clintoj even here in the UK. People believe and read and share stories a bout all sorts of things not necessarily because they agree or believe or sympathise in any way. So the finding of this...alleged experiment do nothing more than show us that people share news articles and can be easily taken in by a well presented mockery.

Nothing new...nor is there anything new about people faking propaganda for various ends...the dude in this interview is acting like he is somehow innocent in all of this, or what he did was somehow virtuous or good, and the people who believed his lies are somehow bad.

He's the one pushing lies on people then claiming it was sme experiment...very odd it is, the more I think about it.

Very odd indeed...I reckon I am gonna do some digging, g'night.

"The whole idea from the start was to build a site that could:

kind of infiltrate the echo chambers of the alt-right,
publish blatantly or fictional stories
and then be able to publicly denounce those stories
and point out the fact that they were fiction," Coler says.

A trap, folks. It's called a trap. A scam.

He was amazed at how quickly fake news could spread and how easily people believe it.

Well, as upset as many of you are that I'm daring to say this, I for one am glad that I know. And I'm glad that I know how to think about any source critically.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Not amazed at all that it exists. It's pretty commonplace unless you've been under a rock. What is shocking is your claims that it's one sided and that liberals are too smart to fall for those shenanigans. I could post the numerous false DT memes et al from my own FB feed.

Oh, and by the way, I had teachers. I took classes, and learned how the website business works. I learned how to investigate and assess the quality of websites, also -- a job I was applying for had a fantastic tutorial course about how to identify crap sites.

I learned about it, and I know how it works.

And so I understand when the article says "the website ownership was anonymous."

A valid, genuine website will have a real "About Us" or "About" item in their menu.
ALWAYS click it when you are doing research. No legit news outlet will have a 404 on the About menu tab, or not have one at all. Check the "Contact" tab or link, too.

VERIFY that the source is an actual news outlet. Look for provable addresses, actual names, etc.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs


Look for provable addresses, actual names, etc.


What else you got? any other criteria?

I have a website....in my name..I am a independent journalist not associated with any major news companies.. I report the news....is it legit?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Oh, and by the way, I had teachers. I took classes, and learned how the website business works. I learned how to investigate and assess the quality of websites, also -- a job I was applying for had a fantastic tutorial course about how to identify crap sites.

I learned about it, and I know how it works.

And so I understand when the article says "the website ownership was anonymous."

A valid, genuine website will have a real "About Us" or "About" item in their menu.
ALWAYS click it when you are doing research. No legit news outlet will have a 404 on the About menu tab, or not have one at all. Check the "Contact" tab or link, too.

VERIFY that the source is an actual news outlet. Look for provable addresses, actual names, etc.

LOL!!!

Sorry, I just haaad to come back for this.

So, that's how you dig and research, an about or contact page! you do realise that those are built, typically, by the developer/rpogrammer who builds the rest of the site, right?

I work as a freelance programmer and developer.

I've build sites both with and without about us and contact pages. Real webscraping requires some knowledge of how pages are linked, how to parse and order the contents of web pages, using languages like php and applications/libraries like cURL.

Even your definition of researching a website shows how deluded you are about how awake and critical thinking you are. You immediately refer to a contact or about page, neglecxt useful networking tools like whois, you know...many of the owners of the website aren't actually the programmer or developer.

My first insitnct would be to find out who owns a particular domain - follow the money, right?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Not amazed at all that it exists. It's pretty commonplace unless you've been under a rock. What is shocking is your claims that it's one sided and that liberals are too smart to fall for those shenanigans. I could post the numerous false DT memes et al from my own FB feed.

What? It's been made very clear to us that liberals would never fall for this. Never have, don't every day, and never would.

Ever. Not even if there's a fire!

They're all so much wiser and intelligent and just doing the rest of us a favor and somehow also martyring themselves for the greater good, though I haven't quite sussed that last part out yet. I'm sure the tinge of victim-card being played will get explained though. I have faith.

originally posted by: samerulesapply

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Oh, and by the way, I had teachers. I took classes, and learned how the website business works. I learned how to investigate and assess the quality of websites, also -- a job I was applying for had a fantastic tutorial course about how to identify crap sites.

I learned about it, and I know how it works.

And so I understand when the article says "the website ownership was anonymous."

A valid, genuine website will have a real "About Us" or "About" item in their menu.
ALWAYS click it when you are doing research. No legit news outlet will have a 404 on the About menu tab, or not have one at all. Check the "Contact" tab or link, too.

VERIFY that the source is an actual news outlet. Look for provable addresses, actual names, etc.

LOL!!!

Sorry, I just haaad to come back for this.

So, that's how you dig and research, an about or contact page! you do realise that those are built, typically, by the developer/rpogrammer who builds the rest of the site, right?

I work as a freelance programmer and developer.

I've build sites both with and without about us and contact pages. Real webscraping requires some knowledge of how pages are linked, how to parse and order the contents of web pages, using languages like php and applications/libraries like cURL.

Even your definition of researching a website shows how deluded you are about how awake and critical thinking you are. You immediately refer to a contact or about page, neglecxt useful networking tools like whois, you know...many of the owners of the website aren't actually the programmer or developer.

My first insitnct would be to find out who owns a particular domain - follow the money, right?

You get outta here, you damn dirty pleb

/shrug