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

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Where are you getting "ban" from

Ask SkepticOverlord what would happen if his ad revenue was yanked.

Those websites are being blacklisted. It isn't just that their ad revenue is being yanked.

...
Facebook is the primary target of this rampage. Mr. Thumb-With-Ears and his fellow fascists want the social media site to block Fake News, because there is nothing at all scary about a multinational communications corporation deciding what is and isn't truth.
...

www.dailywire.com...#

New York times.

...
Google kicked off the action on Monday afternoon when the Silicon Valley search giant said it would ban websites that peddle fake news from using its online advertising service. Hours later, Facebook, the social network, updated the language in its Facebook Audience Network policy, which already says it will not display ads in sites that show misleading or illegal content, to include fake news sites.
...

www.nytimes.com...

BTW, do notice that they are adding "any website that shows misleading or illegal content... So websites that link to stories from the wikileaks for example are also blacklisted.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: reldra

Google is talking about banning the ability to advertise on "fake" news sites.

It is. They are a private business. They can do that. They are not the only service that sells advertising.

Maybe we would end up with less Niburu spam.

Most even on this site agree Niburu spam is Sorcha Faal type news anyway. I'd be more worried about ending up having less information about Monsanto and GMOs due to advertisers not liking those topics so private sites restrict sharing sources about them.

a reply to: dreamingawake

What?... what are you two on about? Can't people discuss this thread? BTW, again, who would choose what is "fake news"? For you GMOs is a topic that needs to be talked about, but for the globalists and their mainstream media "it isn't". Perhaps in their minds websites that link to such stories should be also blacklisted. It could happen down the line.

When you start to blacklist websites because they show content that "x group" doesn't agree with, it leaves a door open for "banning news in general". Who is the judge of what news should be black listed or shouldn't? Shouldn't people decide themselves?

originally posted by: ketsuko
Realistically, had the media not squandered public trust the way it has, the rise of the alternative media would not be so prominent.

The fact that so much of the alternate media is based upon lies makes me think "squandering the public trust" wasn't really the problem.

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: ketsuko
Realistically, had the media not squandered public trust the way it has, the rise of the alternative media would not be so prominent.

The fact that so much of the alternate media is based upon lies makes me think "squandering the public trust" wasn't really the problem.

Sometimes the National Enquirer breaks a REAL news story. Is "FAKE NEWS" the same as "TABLOID NEWS"?

The sites listed include a level system.

ie CoasttoCoastAM.com sometimes unwillingly shares fake news.

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
a reply to: mkultra11

I'm sorry? I can't watch the video, but in ElectricUniverse's OP, it says

The websites that the left wants to ban/remove in their claims that they are fighting "fake news" include:

and I went to the 100percentfedup site, and it doesn't say she wants to ban anything. I'm just wondering where he got that info from.

I believe it's because a source such as the Gateway Pundit, included the Google ban info. Plus the person who wrote it can't ban anything. Can businesses and sites make use of it(if not having their own blacklist), sure.

Update:

UPDATE: Nov. 17, 5:52 p.m.: The professor who created the list has taken down the Google doc. She said it was a safety measure in response to threats and harassment she and her students and colleagues had received. She is continuing to work on it and plans to release it in the future in a format other than a Google doc.

[url=http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-want-to-keep-fake-news-out-of-your-1479260297-htmlstory.html]LATimes[/ url]

[edit double post]

originally posted by: Greggers

The fact that so much of the alternate media is based upon lies makes me think "squandering the public trust" wasn't really the problem.

What about the mainstream media lies?... The mainstream media is still reporting Trump only got 290 ec votes when he got 306 ec votes. Yet they give the full 232 ec votes to Clinton. Isn't that considered a lie when the mainstream media does it?

...Donald Trump won at least 279 electoral votes (306 if you include Arizona and Michigan, where he was leading as of Wednesday afternoon) to Hillary Clinton’s 228 (232 including New Hampshire, where she was ahead by a hair). But the popular vote is a near-tie, according to our tally of unofficial and, in some cases, partial returns. As of Wednesday afternoon, Clinton was slightly ahead of Trump, 59.6 million votes (47.66%) to 59.4 million (47.5%).
...

www.pewresearch.org...

Yet mainstream media still reports...

290 Trump 232 Clinton

www.cnn.com...

The mainstream media is lying to our faces but a lot of people accept it as truth.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Greggers

The fact that so much of the alternate media is based upon lies makes me think "squandering the public trust" wasn't really the problem.

What about the mainstream media lies?... The mainstream media is still reporting Trump only got 290 ec votes when he got 306 ec votes. Yet they give the full 232 ec votes to Clinton. Isn't that considered a lie when the mainstream media does it?

...Donald Trump won at least 279 electoral votes (306 if you include Arizona and Michigan, where he was leading as of Wednesday afternoon) to Hillary Clinton’s 228 (232 including New Hampshire, where she was ahead by a hair). But the popular vote is a near-tie, according to our tally of unofficial and, in some cases, partial returns. As of Wednesday afternoon, Clinton was slightly ahead of Trump, 59.6 million votes (47.66%) to 59.4 million (47.5%).
...

www.pewresearch.org...

Yet mainstream media still reports...

290 Trump 232 Clinton

www.cnn.com...

The mainstream media is lying to our faces but a lot of people accept it as truth.

Surely you can come up with a better example from MSM than failure to assign the EC votes of states that have not yet reported a result in an election that had already been decided...

I know I could.

In any case, if we assume these numbers are being assigned as they are due to bias, then this is a perfect opportunity to point out the difference between biased news and fake news.

Example of biased news = we'll assign non-reported EC numbers to our favorite candidate, but not to our least favorite candidate, in an election that's already decided.

Example of fake news = Podesta has been caught working with the mainstream media to manipulate national polls.

Both of those are wrong and, in my opinion, have no place in a reputable news organization.

But the fake news tends to be way more obvious, and once discovered, far more difficult to deny.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

This is because more than ever people are becoming emotionally invested, but more than that ... people are intertwining their identities to their political beliefs. They just don't "agree" with Democrats, they *are* a "Democrat".

Similar to how one simply does not like the Yankees...no, they *are* a Yankee's FAN. It's who they are.

This is why when you disagree with someone about politics, people feel like you have insulted them personally. Their politics are who they are or something.

Its strange.

Can't everyone just go back to Superbowls and Wii bowling?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I'm not so sure about the banning, but remember that John Stewart was polled to be the most trusted news anchor, and he did a show that touted itself as the fake news, with nary a peep.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: ketsuko
Realistically, had the media not squandered public trust the way it has, the rise of the alternative media would not be so prominent.

The fact that so much of the alternate media is based upon lies makes me think "squandering the public trust" wasn't really the problem.

Sometimes the National Enquirer breaks a REAL news story. Is "FAKE NEWS" the same as "TABLOID NEWS"?

I define fake news as any story purporting to be real but which is demonstrably, irrefutably false.

The Enquirer may break a REAL news story every now and then, but they are still a fake news outlet.

a reply to: Greggers

Did you notice that the pewresearch.org website reported the 306 ec votes that Trump got at the same time that the 232 ec votes were given to Clinton on November 9th?...

So why is the mainstream media reporting the full 232 ec votes for Clinton but not the 306 for Trump when the New Hampshire votes were late like the votes for Arizona and Michigan?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Greggers

Did you notice that the pewresearch.org website reported the 306 ec votes that Trump got at the same time that the 232 ec votes were given to Clinton on November 9th?...

So why is the mainstream media reporting the full 232 ec votes for Clinton but not the 306 for Trump when the New Hampshire votes were late like the votes for Arizona and Michigan?

Did you read my post?

This would be an example of biased reporting.

originally posted by: Greggers


Did you read my post?

This would be an example of biased reporting.

If the mainstream media is under-reporting the votes for Trump isn't that spreading false news?

Then again, these are the same news sources that want to ban alternative sites, and be sure that the list of websites they want black-listed will increase.

That leaves us with biased news, that leave out facts on purpose meanwhile they want to black list alternative news website for not towing the party line of the left.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Greggers


Did you read my post?

This would be an example of biased reporting.

If the mainstream media is under-reporting the votes for Trump isn't that spreading false news?

Then again, these are the same news sources that want to ban alternative sites, and be sure that the list of websites they want black-listed will increase.

That leaves us with biased news, that leave out facts on purpose meanwhile they want to black list alternative news website for not towing the party line of the left.

Come on, man. The MSM has done lots of fake stories over the years. Can't you come up with something a bit more obvious than this example?

And the discussion is about blacklisting (although I'd prefer labeling) FAKE NEWS. You know, where the story is completely fabricated.

This example of yours from MSM doesn't qualify because I promise you CNN could come up with some passable reason for assigning those votes, if you asked them.

Whereas there is no conceivable excuse that can be made for posting an outright fake story.

Here's an example of a faked demonstration on MSM. They were sued and found liable.

articles.latimes.com...

I don't know if I'd call it an outright fake STORY (because, if I recall, the basic safety issues were legitimate), but there is no question that the test was 100% staged, theatrical nonsense.


The difference between MSM and much of the alternative media is that when it happens on MSM, it's a big deal and somebody's head rolls.

Biased news, on the other hand, is another matter. That's everywhere. And it shouldn't be.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: dreamingawake

What?... what are you two on about? Can't people discuss this thread? BTW, again, who would choose what is "fake news"? For you GMOs is a topic that needs to be talked about, but for the globalists and their mainstream media "it isn't". Perhaps in their minds websites that link to such stories should be also blacklisted. It could happen down the line.

When you start to blacklist websites because they show content that "x group" doesn't agree with, it leaves a door open for "banning news in general". Who is the judge of what news should be black listed or shouldn't? Shouldn't people decide themselves?

What am I on about? You must have misunderstood my reply? Where did I say people can't discuss this thread? I was replying that she shouldn't be hoping for Nibiru threads to go away(a lot of people don't agree with them here) but be worried about Monsanto/GMO threads(as an example because I think they are anti Monsato/GMO as myself) being restricted due to advertising lobbying against certain topics.

It happens a lot already. Apparently it has happened on ATS. I'll leave out the obvious Monsanto part which I have heard claims of on this site. A more safe example-remember the bikini pic/s that Google Adsense didn't like so cut the site off from using it?

Yes, people should decide for themselves. I never said anything against that and am also against people and companies wanting to blacklist.

a reply to: reldra

No they promote a modification of it like "ebonics" but more for touchy feely people who think they already have this.
Politically Correct is going to die an ignominious death.