Views: 8,829,013 Home | Forums | Uploader | Wiki | Object databases | IRC
Rules/FAQ | Memberlist | Calendar | Stats | Online users | Last posts | Search
10-23-18 03:37 AM

0 users reading Fake News. Aka, the next generation censorship | 1 bot

Main - Serious discussion - Fake News. Aka, the next generation censorship New reply

Pages: 1 2 3 4
Posted on 12-29-16 02:23 AM Link | #80596
I originally didn't bother talking about it, but now that it gets more and more trendy, I'll do so anyway.

After the USA, the EU also started to support this form of censorship, which they call "fake news".
Fake news is any type of news that either criticises a Western government, or talks about things a Western government doesn't want you to know about.
Aka, any kind of news that an American or European government (and I expect Australia and New Zealand to follow suit soon) doesn't like, must be blocked.

All thanks to the fact more and more people are finally waking up now, and finally start to realise Western news is merely state propaganda.

A quote:

Jean-Claude Juncker, the chairman of the European Commision, calls technology companies like Facebook and Google to act harsher towards fake news. According to him, these companies' job is to develop a 'pride'. According to Juncker, the 'trustworthiness of these companies is their most important thing'.

This 'pride' basically means "When it becomes serious, you have to lie".

Another quote from a news reader:

Yeah right, with the aftermath of Trump winning the election, the globalists are going to prohibit all the news they don't like. Because only their own news is the true news, and might be read. All other opinions will not be tolerated.

More quotes from other news readers:

Somebody said, who didn't get elected democratically. ... A step towards newspeak ... Because with this, you can legally censor things.

Yeah, the 'establishment' started to lose their elections, and suddenly the free news needs to be banned?

I think every average person should start to realise the true colours regarding this trend now.
What do you think of this?

Posted on 12-29-16 08:02 AM Link | #80602
I don't know what is actually fake and what will be considered fake, but this sounds like a major operation of confusion at best.

NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul


Posted on 12-29-16 11:45 AM (rev. 2 of 12-29-16 11:46 AM) Link | #80609
There are sources that can legitimately be considered fake news. But that's not how the corporate and political establishment is planning to use the term. Case-in-point: the Washington Post promoted a McCarthyist blacklist of "fake news" that smeared anti-establishment right-wing and left-wing sources (especially anti-war ones critical of Western military interventions) as Russian propaganda. There's clearly a desire to silence opposing voices, and government power to stop "fake news" would make that desire a reality.

Posted on 12-29-16 01:41 PM (rev. 2 of 12-29-16 01:41 PM) Link | #80612
Yes, there is no denying to the fact that actual fake news exists (look around in the Mainstream Media, it's filled with fake news, but also on independent websites online), but as Staple already worded it nicely, it's confusing as fuck.

But the most concerning about this, is the fact it takes away freedom of speech.

Posted on 12-30-16 09:15 PM Link | #80644
There is mainstream sites that misrepresent and give unequal coverage.

And there is fake news that are straight out lies.

I still would read from mainstream sites than buy into infowars or brietbart or NaturalNews bullshit.

Posted on 12-31-16 02:08 AM Link | #80654
Posted by LeftyGreenMario
There is mainstream sites that misrepresent and give unequal coverage.

And there is fake news that are straight out lies.

I still would read from mainstream sites than buy into infowars or brietbart or NaturalNews bullshit.

If you only read from mainstream sites, you'll be led to believe a lot of falsehoods, such as:

* The US is fighting a humanitarian war in Syria, and Assad and Putin are the aggressors
* Russia hacked the presidential election
* Hillary's corruption is a non-issue
* Election fraud is a myth
* Wikileaks is peddling Russian propaganda, and we should ignore the contents of their leaks
* The Dakota Access Pipeline protests didn't exist until attention-grabbing brutality started occurring

Not that I'm defending the sites you list. However, mainstream news is more insidious than them, because it has the veneer of legitimacy while deceptively covering the issues that matter most to the elites. The best approach is to get information from a variety of places - mainstream sources and credible alternative ones - and critically examine all of it.

Posted on 01-01-17 03:06 PM Link | #80697
Syria is bad.
Russia, ehhhh
Hillary is corrupt. So is Trump.
Election fraud comes in many forms (gerrymandering, DNC whatever the hell they're doing, and so saying is a myth is a vague statement. But yes, it is rigged, and it's not a new issue.
Dakota Access Pipeline was controversial.
Wikileaks shows some things, some other things.

I don't think I've really read alt news sites, but how do I know this then? Am I brainwashed?

Posted on 01-01-17 04:10 PM Link | #80701
You can probably answer that question better than I can:

What are your opinions of the Syrian war, the claim that Russia hacked the presidential election, and the Wikileaks releases, and how did you form them?

As for election fraud, I'm specifically talking about tampering with the vote casting and counting, through registration tampering and vote rigging. The media is willing to cover money in politics, gerrymandering, and sometimes even voter suppression, but they won't get into the direct manipulation of the election itself. Did the media properly inform you about that issue?

The Dakota Access Pipeline wasn't picked up by the media until the protests were well underway. And as for Hillary's corruption, I'm guessing you paid enough attention to politics to form your own opinion. But the media was clearly pushing the idea that Hillary's corruption wasn't very relevant.

Posted on 01-01-17 08:40 PM Link | #80706
Syrian War is a mistake like Iraq. I'm inherently anti-war and I know for sure Iraq was a mistake and there are WMDs or whatever. I didn't follow media at the time, but I did get that information from history textbook and from skeptic sites.

Doesn't matter if Russia hacked the election. The real problem is not admitting the errors. The "hacking" thing just dodges the actual reason people voted for Trump, as ill-informed they are. It's because Trump promised radical things that are simplistic and ill-advised, but they resonated because of their simplicity. It's unfortunate that the real world doesn't work that way, but people do think immigration is a problem and many of them live in rural areas that are swept by a changing world and of multiculturalism. They like their comfort zone of years ago, and they like the message by Trump. Even if it is extremely naive as I think it is. Whatever Russia did, it doesn't change that Hillary is a corrupt shitbag who was paid to do speeches and even then, people don't seem to care that Trump is a corrupt shitbag either, but Trump stood out to them because he spoke to them. Hillary just seemed distant to them. She felt distant to ME.

The DNC are a bunch of circle-jerking rich elite asses (hee-haw) who have a voter demographic who appear to be farther left than them, and I think it's frustrating that they don't capitalize on the flaws the Republicans have, such as Republican ideology that massively conflicts with reality (Medicare for instance, they want to roll is back but it is massively popular). They handpick Hillary Clinton because she's one of them and they expect her to win on a silver platter like that. Too bad, they lost positions of power because they think playing race/gender cards are going to win them the presidency rather than actually combatting the core issue of corruption in politics. Which both are guilty of having. Goldman Sachs still won if you vote for Clinton or Trump, but Clinton is just more apparent. Trump voters don't even seem to care that Trump appointing millionaires to his cabinet, believing that "he's rich enough". Facepalm.

Election fraud does exist, though media probably didn't say anything, just like how they didn't say anything about FTC cracking on homeopathy (or just media treating homeopathy as a piece of junk it actually is) nor do they actually go after fake news (instead, they just list websites they don't like). They don't answer to global warming deniers (they call them "skeptics" which makes them seem legit, but they're no less than fringe reality-deniers).

From what I have garnered, the Dakota Access Pipeline is controversial for quite a while, but it didn't receive a lot of coverage compared to the other crap I've seen, which, again, includes Donald Trump going to the bathroom and a celebrity getting a stupid haircut. They also talk about Clinton's corruption a bit, and they didn't say a thing about Bernie Sanders attracting large crowds and how he's anti-establishment like Trump was, but Clinton is the special one. I'm already skeptical of Hillary because she's a Wall Street representative. Trump is less apparent, but he did reward Goldman Sachs, so he's no better than Hillary in that respect.

So yeah.

Posted on 01-01-17 09:31 PM (rev. 2 of 01-02-17 01:42 AM) Link | #80708
You're clearly well-informed about politics and issues. (Though I do have something to add about Syria below.) But would you know what you do solely from paying attention to the mainstream media? Would you consider military intervention in Syria (or Iraq, for that matter) a mistake if your only source of information was the media mischaracterizing the situation and making a case for intervening? Would you know election fraud was real if you only heard the media dismissing it as impossible? Would you know and care about the evidence of the DNC stacking the deck for Hillary if you barely heard the media cover it and frequently heard them call it illicit material (that might even be illegal to read)? And if you only heard the mainstream narrative that "Russia hacked the election" to make Hillary lose, how much would you criticize her shortcomings that led to her loss?

The media may have talked about Hillary's corruption somewhat, but it should have been taken more seriously and focused on more. Particularly, there was more emphasis on campaign donations and less on selling influence through the Clinton Foundation, which I consider even more egregious. Trump, of course, doesn't deserve a free pass, but the media was more keen on considering his conflicts of interest than Hillary's.

As for Syria, the problem is more complex than whether to intervene or not. The conflict has been mischaracterized as a civil war, when it's really a small, militant minority (along with outside invaders, like al-Qaeda in Iraq) trying to fight the legitimate government. And these rebel forces happen to have received significant backing from NATO and the Gulf monarchies since the very beginning of the Syrian conflict, if not before. There is democratic opposition to Assad, but virtually no one supports a violent overthrow of his government, and most Syrians support his efforts to fight the rebels. They've certainly led to unfortunate civilian casualties, but these have come from both sides, and it's the consequence of an imperialistic war foisted on the Syrian people. The US has to realize its own major culpability in this humanitarian crisis, and work for a peaceful end that doesn't try to topple a sovereign nation.

Posted on 01-08-17 01:14 AM Link | #80830
Of course not, mainstream media lies and doesn't provide adequate information for the events happening around us. As for knowing about Syria, I think it depends on what mainstream media I consume, but I often get my sources from skeptic, science, and left-wing sites (sorry, I can't help reading left-wing stuff) who are at least knowledgeable about the science side of things. But from what I've read, it doesn't look good in Syria at all and, as I said, I'm naturally inclined to be anti-war, and I've learned from history that U.S. intervention is rarely pretty (although if it weren't for U.S. intervention during World War II where U.S. earned my grandma's gratitude, I don't know if I would be alive today). Cambodia, Vietnam, Iraq... they all underestimated the targets and overestimated themselves because the U.S. thinks they're so damn good and the targets are the evil bad guys.

I'm inclined to think this "fake news" thing really needs to be distinguished from faulty reporting, which is probably why I was confused from this whole discussion. Mainstream media is very, VERY guilty of distorting and lying, misusing sources, distorting (like Fax Nooz and MSNBS) or not giving out important details for the sake of sensationalism, but fake news totally makes things up. Warped news starts from real events, but fake news is, well, totally fake.

The Washington Post brouhahaha was a serious fork-up on their side but they've received a lot of flak from that as they deserved, but the crap you see on Facebook doesn't get that much scrutiny, so I think that's pretty dangerous.

Baby Luigi
Posted on 01-08-17 01:27 AM Link | #80835
My two cents on this is that...well mainstream media is far FAR from perfect, they're still atrocious in their own stinky way, but they're still not as bad as, say, tabloids like the Daily Fail, Breitbart, or HuffPo. Those sites I consider "fake" news.

Posted on 01-08-17 01:34 AM Link | #80837
The problem is that your rational definition of "fake news" is not at all the way people in power are using it. It's being treated by the corporate establishment as a means to censor opposing views, with progressive and anti-war sources being labeled as fake. Censorship, if it occurs, is a greater danger than fake BS stories. So I think it's a bad idea, given the current political climate, to feed the anti-fake news push.

Posted on 01-08-17 01:59 AM Link | #80838
Fake news has been abused by fake news sources themselves, though, so the term has essentially became meaningless.... just as you said earlier if I recall correctly. Hm, so far, Washington Post has been guilty. Has any other media been putting up blacklists like this? And if we can't trust those sites, what sites CAN laypeople rely on? For me, I liken to rationally-minded sites that admittedly have a left-wing bias but they actually know when they're talking about when they advocate critical thinking and skepticism. And they're not afraid to criticize both sides of politics, unlike some sites like Media Matters, which sometimes is a bit too uncomfortably cozy with Hillary. Though I still think Republicans deserve the "disproportionate" flak they get on fact-checking sites. I mean, they're already VERY wrong on global warming part and political ideology that clashes heavily with reality (Medicare) and that some of the Republicans show an irrational hatred of a minor aspect of Planned Parenthood. Democrats don't really capitalize on those flaws and they don't embrace the pluralist values they spout that much nor do they seem to really care about the middle class. They also seem to be too comfortable with letting naturopathic and right-to-try legislation to pass while also being anti-GMO, which are both on the wrong side of science. It seems like they just pander to the center with no good results and not pleasing their base. Democrats are really center-right if you ask me.

So enough of that, I just don't know which sites to trust any more but I still read L.A. Times roughly once-a-week because eh, updating yourself is fun from time to time. But I don't shroud myself in it. And I don't even watch TV. I found it surprising you called me well-informed in spite of that because I see myself as a confused citizen with left-wing views that has an idea what's going on, but not really enough to critically examine news, so I just accept it, but have doubts all the time. Except for things where the science is clear on because that's easy.

Baby Luigi
Posted on 01-08-17 02:37 AM Link | #80840
LGM, you think you're ignorant of what's going on, you very much know what's going on far better than I ever did. I don't even know who to believe in at times, and I ponder where you get all of those good, pro-science skeptical sites from.

Posted on 01-08-17 03:06 AM Link | #80842
You know what's nice?
The Washington Post is the one who started this whole "fake news" stuff.
Then they've spread fake news themselves, when it came to the US power grid 'being hacked by the Russians'.
Later, those from that power grid themselves confirmed it was no Russian hack, or rather, not a hack at all.
They did find malware on 1 laptop, but it wasn't even connected to the power grid, to begin with.

Posted on 01-08-17 02:50 PM Link | #80846
I think the Washington Post was the main source pushing the PropOrNot blacklist. They're one of the most egregious offenders when it comes to the malicious misuse of the term "fake news". All while, as Yami said, making up fake stories themselves. Still, the Post was far from the only source raising the alarm about "fake news" and talking about "Russian propaganda" instead.

As for what sources I pay attention to, it depends. I don't completely eschew mainstream sources, since they don't lie all the time, and they do report pertinent news. In fact, while I'm highly critical of it, I do read the Washington Post nearly every morning. But when it comes to serious analysis of a subject like issues, politics, or foreign policy, the mainstream sources generally can't be trusted. Nor can they be trusted to cover ideas that the corporate establishment prefers to silence.

For that, I prefer progressive sources like The Intercept, Counterpunch, Truth-out, Global Research, and The Free Press. Not that I completely give them a pass either; one main issue is that they embrace pseudoscience that the left seems to like. But that's less objectionable than getting major issues wrong. I'll also sometimes form my own opinions of news from mainstream sources: take the news itself, but not the corresponding analysis.

From my experience, these progressive sources get the facts right more often and are unafraid to cover issues that are considered "fringe". The mainstream media virtually always parrots the corporate and US government narrative regardless of whether the facts back it (and they often don't), and they dismiss inquiries into particular topics as "conspiracy theory", shutting down the matter without looking into it.

Posted on 01-08-17 04:31 PM Link | #80851
One thing I've learnt from comparing news on RT with news in American, European, and Japanese media is, do fact check on every important news story, no matter the credibility.
In fact, RT is the source that keeps reminding their viewers to fact check news, to make sure it's accurate.

The biggest mainstream news here in Japan is NHK, and even the Japanese say it sucks, more often than I can count.
Even more in America, but in Europe, most people seem to trust the mainstream news blindly.

Posted on 01-10-17 03:36 AM (rev. 2 of 01-10-17 03:40 AM) Link | #80865
RT is a good channel in some respects (i.e. some good reporting) but don't forget it is essentially controlled by the Russian government, and is biased to it. see

Posted on 01-10-17 06:54 AM Link | #80866
Posted by Hiccup
RT is a good channel in some respects (i.e. some good reporting) but don't forget it is essentially controlled by the Russian government, and is biased to it. see

It is Kremlin-owned, but it provides a platform (with editorial independence) to many progressive critics of corporatism and imperialism, such as Thom Hartmann, Lee Camp, and (formerly) Abby Martin.
Pages: 1 2 3 4

Main - Serious discussion - Fake News. Aka, the next generation censorship New reply

Page rendered in 0.028 seconds. (2048KB of memory used)
MySQL - queries: 26, rows: 229/229, time: 0.014 seconds.
[powered by Acmlm] Acmlmboard 2.064 (2018-07-20)
© 2005-2008 Acmlm, Xkeeper, blackhole89 et al.