This is total BS ATS is on this list.

References such as ProporNot, Snopes, Alexa, MBFC News, Real or Satire?, Wikipedia, and Fort Liberty don't stimulate trust.




ProporNot was the site that once used "Allies" to support its legitimacy. Allies?

And now Alexa, too, is considered a legitimate reference? Who trusts a digital sound byte from a cloud? Cannot wait until that starts showing up in bibliographies of senior thesis papers. But then few universities even require a senior thesis these days before awarding a 4-year degree.

And Snopes, seriously? The once-upon-a-time site that was the go-to site for debunking urban legends, but now weaves gobs of liberal bias into its commentary that exceeds the boundary of a statement of fact?

The web site being discussed is satire, right? RIGHT?

a reply to: TrueBrit

I'm not trying to lay all the blame on owners & management, only that maybe their criteria for policing truthful input should be tightened up a bit, so as not to allow themselves to be used as an echo chamber for fake news from other sites.

And no, I'm don't usually complain to the mods because of someone's behavior. I was a longshoreman for 33 yrs and it takes a lot more than a few rude comments from ATSers to ruffle my feathers. Hell, sometimes I can be rude too.

But, aren't there certain web sites that ATS management has determined to be unreliable, or not suitable for sourcing because of repeatedly being documented as the source of false or "fake" information?

"Before It's News" comes to mind. Seems like I remember seeing attachments or warnings from management when those sites were utilized.

Am I wrong? I mean I could be. It may be another site I'm thinking of.

But if I'm right.....Why aren't Breitbart, InfoWars, World Net Daily, etc., on that list of unreliable source sites? That's what I'm talking about.

IMO, At the very least, any time a poster utilizes one of those sites, it should display a warning that information contained therein is more likely false than not.

Maybe we just need a liars bin that repeat offenders can be delegated to whether they're posters or entire web sites.

All I know is, trying to debate someone who truly believes that garbage is not an enjoyable or enlightening experience.

a reply to: EightAhoy

And now Alexa, too, is considered a legitimate reference? Who trusts a digital sound byte from a cloud? Cannot wait until that starts showing up in bibliographies of senior thesis papers.

had me laughing
but sad to say it seems as though we are heading this way.

It's a hotbed of alt-right trumpcult paranoid fake news peddlers that's why. Too many people here get their info from breitbart, infowars and Spicer. What do you expect?

a reply to: enament

The Huffington Post should be on that list not ATS

Talk about fake news, even the most progressive lefties like the Young Turks proclaimed it BS.

a reply to: Flatfish

You are onto something with regard to how news sources are regarded, and changes may well need to be made to the list of sites from which one may not post content, owing to the propensity for those sources to provide less than accurate reportage.

It might be wise to compose a message to one of the owners, expressing your thoughts on this matter.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: enament

The Huffington Post should be on that list not ATS

Talk about fake news, even the most progressive lefties like the Young Turks proclaimed it BS.

How do you know she didn't have a 98.1% chance of winning? Just because Trump won, doesn't mean that Hillary wasn't heavily statistically favored heading into it.

what outraged that the BBC aint on there !

ATS is fake news.

I could run off to the skunk works right now and write a thread entitled "I am ET Jesus" with zero proof and it would run on the site, might even get picked up by a few other sites who might run with the news that ET Jesus has returned. It might be entirely fake but its in the skunk works so it runs. Hell even outside of that trash can of a forum if anyone really wanted to they can just make up some stuff and run with it, pretty easy i would think to post some fake sources to back it up.

Furthermore its not uncommon for other sites to take a thread from ATS and turn it into a story or article on their website. I have seen this happen with a couple of my threads over the years where its been picked up by another site who run it on their news section. As far as i know ATS have never actually broke a huge story anyway but it does pop up in the media every now and then.

This sums up ATS

Above Top Secret publishes information that cannot be validated and that is anti scientific fact. The information provided should be regarded as speculative opinion or propaganda and cannot be substantiated by fact or evidence. It is among the most untrustworthy sources in the media.

Dude we are fake news, we are user generated, if some dude posts that he saw ET Jesus last night that is "news", might be 100% BS but its still discussed on ATS as if it is "news".

@Aazadan
The poll methodology they were using tainted the results.
If you were following the election closely you would know this, for example if people never voted in the last 2 elections they were eliminated. They tried to poll more democrats, than independents for example. As it turns out the northern blue states have a lot of independents. If Hillary was a race horse, she was no Secretariat going into the Belmont Stakes to win the Triple Crown; but the MSM desperately wanted us to believe that. Even the money was on Clinton at the political betting sites, because the political gamblers believed the fake polls.


@OtherSideOfTheCoin
Some news is presented not as fact but as conjecture and supposition, and ATS does a lot of that, 9/11 is an example of that on here.
But this is a forum to discuss what might become MSM news later, sometimes it makes into the MSM, other times it doesn't.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You work for GCHQ and your ADMIN pass phrase is "God rules the Queen, the Queen rules Britain"?
Please just remove this post if you are still using that.
I think the Lockheed engineers are on to you though they use "Leave nothing to chance" when they log on at Mcdonalds.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

ATS is not a fake news site.

It is not, in fact, a producer of journalism at all. It is a forum, a place for discussion. Print journalism and its websites, news media, these ARE journalism producers, they produce and distribute news. This site does not. This sites membership often share news from other sources, discuss that news and indeed the sources of that news at length, we have discussions, debates, and yes, arguments about the contents of the same, but we do not produce journalism ourselves, by and large.

So no, this is not a fake news site.

a reply to: EightAhoy

What gets me is the laziness of these so-called fact-checker watchdogs. They target entire outlets instead of specific content, thereby insinuating that no valuable content can ever be found at one of their target outlets -- now or ever in the future.

That's misleading and almost guaranteed to be false.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
@Aazadan
The poll methodology they were using tainted the results.
If you were following the election closely you would know this, for example if people never voted in the last 2 elections they were eliminated. They tried to poll more democrats, than independents for example. As it turns out the northern blue states have a lot of independents. If Hillary was a race horse, she was no Secretariat going into the Belmont Stakes to win the Triple Crown; but the MSM desperately wanted us to believe that. Even the money was on Clinton at the political betting sites, because the political gamblers believed the fake polls.

I don't know about that. They nailed the number of people Hillary would win the popular vote by. It was off regionally though. Even still, polls can do everything right, state someone has a high chance of winning, and that person can still lose. It doesn't mean the poll was wrong. It's merely giving a percentage of outcome and the most likely result isn't the only result.

Furthermore, most polls get misrepresented down to a single number saying X person has Y% chance to win because that's an easy message to communicate when the actual result is that the poll suggests there's a W% chance for X person to win with between Y% and Z% of the vote.

The reality is, Trump had a very low chance to win the election, even his campaign thought he didn't have a chance on election day. It was a surprise to everyone. But that doesn't mean the polls were wrong, it means we fell into one of those times where the less likely result happened.

I wouldn't feel too hard-pressed to cite this very thread as an example why ATS ended up on that list. Yes, it's a message board, but one that often cites untrustworthy and sometimes purposely false sources bent towards a very specific (and demonstrably hard to find) agenda. Hint: It's not because of CNN.

Longer-term members will likely admit to a shift in the tone and focus of topics on this site over the past few years.

ATS = Assembly of Trump Supporters.

That guy is infallible here, which does not at all square with reality.

Good luck.

a reply to: Elepheagle

Yup.
I wouldn't be surprised if the man himself checks this site from time to time.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

ATS is not a fake news site.

It is not, in fact, a producer of journalism at all. It is a forum, a place for discussion. Print journalism and its websites, news media, these ARE journalism producers, they produce and distribute news. This site does not. This sites membership often share news from other sources, discuss that news and indeed the sources of that news at length, we have discussions, debates, and yes, arguments about the contents of the same, but we do not produce journalism ourselves, by and large.

So no, this is not a fake news site.

What's the difference whether ATS produces fake news or disseminates it?

Do you feel ATS should do more to crack down on fake news dissemination?

What does that say about this place if it allows it to go on?

originally posted by: Elepheagle
I wouldn't feel too hard-pressed to cite this very thread as an example why ATS ended up on that list. Yes, it's a message board, but one that often cites untrustworthy and sometimes purposely false sources bent towards a very specific (and demonstrably hard to find) agenda. Hint: It's not because of CNN.

Longer-term members will likely admit to a shift in the tone and focus of topics on this site over the past few years.

ATS = Assembly of Trump Supporters.

That guy is infallible here, which does not at all square with reality.

Good luck.

It's true, all dissenting opinion should be crushed!! Including those who dare speak on a forum.

All those who question, or dare challenge our ruling pedo-crats are Russian spies and most likely work for Putin.

We can only trust our beloved "news sources" who are owned by 6 corporations(last time I checked, maybe less now). Only they know what's good for us slaves.(end sarcasm)

I can't believe what I'm hearing from a lot of members here. I truly believe the left has become cult/religious in their ideaology.

Since we have sections to deconstruct truth from fiction, as an ATS longtime contributor, I say Sue them and be done with it.

No need to drag ATS into this fight.

a reply to: enament

Big Hairy News?

What is interesting is that when I clicked on Checkers link for "Big Hairy News", there was an advertisement for a kids phone from Amazon. This is the same advertisement I was redirected to when I went to Pizzagate.com this morning.

So that site, "Fake News Checker" is actually a fake news site itself. Probably a CNN site. They put ABC News on there just to throw people off.

That site needs to be taken down. Aren't there any good virus makers out there who can stick it to CNN and their ilk?
Come on Nigeria, give CNN a taste of your skills.