My rant on Fake News

a reply to: DBCowboy

The argument is about justifying censorship in order to "protect" the rest of us from what the authoritarians consider fake news.

No - your argument is meant to prevent people from discussing fake news and calling it out

There is actually fake news you know. It's verifiable - not a matter of opinion

You seem to think facts are malleable - and subjective. Which is why you want to be able to defend fake facts, and deny people who want verification the right to speak, criticize or question

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: RickinVa

The argument is about justifying censorship in order to "protect" the rest of us from what the authoritarians consider fake news.

You're defending deception by fraudulent news sources. You say people are smart enough to know better, as a means to justify lies. You are not protecting free speech-- you're defending the dumbing down of people and implying that if they're not smart enough to know they're being lied to, then they deserve it.

You're defending the right to con people.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

I'm defending free expression, which includes criticism.

You're justifying censorship.

You're defending the right to con people.

Not at all. People can take care of themselves. This is just another example of the nanny-state mentality that you authoritarians want to impose on everyone else.


I think it's great though, to see you and other authoritarians doubling down on censorship.

It "speaks" volumes.

a reply to: DBCowboy

We're not talking about opinions or criticism. What you're defending is the option to con people by deceit. To intentionally confuse and prey on people's minds, filling them with lies.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm defending free expression, which includes criticism.

That's not true

You've yet to demonstrate where censorship or talk of censorship is taking place

Even when people are saying that this stuff needs to be exposed for what it is - you then double down on that. And - criticism. Even education

You want to suppress knowledge - and criticism of those things that can be proven to be untrue

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: spiritualzombie

People can take care of themselves. This is just another example of the nanny-state mentality

Now you're using buzz words to manipulate readers into supporting their own con. You're a real champion of fraud.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

I'm defending the right to free expression. What people do with that right is up to them.

You and the others want to remove, restrict, censor that right.

a reply to: DBCowboy

You and the others want to remove, restrict, censor that right.

By doing what?

You really don't have the courage of your conviction - do you?

It's very easy to accuse people of censorship - even while you want to censor criticism

Prove your point. How is calling into question verifiable fake news censorship?

I hope all people reading this are seeing how the fiercest proponents for Trump, (a man who just settled a Fraud case for his fake University by agreeing to pay out $25 million to the people he defrauded), are also fierce champions for lies and fraudulent news sources-- and they attempt to shield themselves behind Free Speech as a deceptive effort to convince their prey to support their own con.

Pretty f###ing slimy.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

I hope all people reading this are seeing how the fiercest proponents for Trump, (a man who just settled a Fraud case for his fake University by agreeing to pay out $25 million to the people he defrauded), are also fierce champions for lies and fraudulent news sources-- and they attempt to shield themselves behind Free Speech as a deceptive effort to convince their prey to support their own con.

Pretty f###ing slimy.

It's discouraging - definitely

What we're seeing is a precedent being set. It would seem that the only people to have their thinking and voices silenced are those that dare to criticize or question the validity of any information at all. Anyone that questions is attempting to censor the free flow of information

Now we're supposed to live in a society where all information is suspect - but nobody can discuss it?

Neato

Oh, and by the way - only intellectuals believe in Climate Change - and you know how they are

Who decides what is real and fake news for me?

What criteria do they use?

Am I allowed to voice my opinion on what that criteria is, or do I have to accept that they know better than I do?


That's censorship no matter how you slice it.


Sure, form your committee(s) to determine what is "fake" news and what is "real" news.... and keep right on living in the fantasy world that a group that decides what news other people outside their group are allowed access to is not censorship.

Whatever.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Pyle

So?

I was unaware that you had an obligation to read it.

Is this the type of material you want banned?

I had to put this up to point out an unbelievable hypocritical moment

So your point is that we can easily avoid BS news, or whatever we don't want to read

I agree....100% agree. I can easily agree that if I don't like a news story, I can walk away. I have that power. I have tons of self-control

Now here's the problem...

you say this

They are pushing for censorship and . . . believe it or not. . .they are getting quite a few people to help them do it.

We have a choice.

Do we embrace freedom, all freedom (the truth, the crazy, the fantasy) or do we do as the media and their willing accomplices want and introduce censorship?

If you support and defend ALL freedom, then you should probably be aware that Google has every right to not post BS news. They are not a government entity that is imposing state-supported, or punishable censorship in the name of the USA. Google has ever right and ability to block whatever the hell they want.

The hypocrisy is, you seem to want to MAKE Google or MSM, also not government sponsored, play or allow whatever you want. They are entities that decide what they want to play. So yes you pretend to be against censorship, and probably are, yet have portray that you have no issue with making a company do something against their will.

The main hypocrisy is that you say "We have a choice" and tell people they can always click off....well guess what? YOU also have a choice. Stop using Google or Facebook....boom...problem solved without the intense whining that you are pouring out

Just...stop...supporting them

and yes I am well aware that your rant is free to fly....so are the responses as I know you know. But you cannot, thankfully, change the fact that these corporations can do as they please

Me? I have Fox News....BUT I also hate CNN, MSNBC, and...well all liberal outlets despite being hard left myself. They all spin...all day...all night

so I stop watching them and aim for a few other outlets, followed by my own deeper inspection if it is a story that compels me

Preparing for nonsense now :-)

a reply to: RickinVa

What criteria do they use?

Can any part of a given story be verified?

Bias isn't what we're talking about here. We're talking about stories that are complete works of fiction

Closed ...for staff review.

Community Announcement re: Decorum