I've been wondering if there is a possibility of some other third party type "verification" thing that can go on. Like a "seal of actuality" or some type of rating system. I dont know....its a very loose idea.
Like if you saw a story that had the "seal of actuality" you'd know its probably worth reading, or at least taking in to consideration.
I've been pondering a way to get this rolling, but I keep coming back to someone almost immediately creating a "conservative" version that gleefully signs off on all manner of bullshit and calls the original a tool of lefty propaganda.
Yea crap. You're probably right. I hadnt considered that.
I'm still somehow stuck in the "facts and truth matter" age. I have to get past that.
There was a browser addon that tried to do that for conspiracy theories - it would automatically draw from a few sites like Snopes if they linked to the page you were looking at, but there are no even nearly complete sources, so users could link pages to threads and blog posts from JREF or Metabunk or something.
Here's where it failed: It was basically an upvote/downvote war between debunkers and conspiracy theorists. One side was basically just downvoting when they came accross stuff, the other was sending tweets to their followers that a psyop was in progress, but they could all install the mod right now and upvote repeatedly from different browsers or using proxies and TRUTH WILL WIN!
I've been wondering if there is a possibility of some other third party type "verification" thing that can go on. Like a "seal of actuality" or some type of rating system. I dont know....its a very loose idea.
Like if you saw a story that had the "seal of actuality" you'd know its probably worth reading, or at least taking in to consideration.
I've been wondering if there is a possibility of some other third party type "verification" thing that can go on. Like a "seal of actuality" or some type of rating system. I dont know....its a very loose idea.
Like if you saw a story that had the "seal of actuality" you'd know its probably worth reading, or at least taking in to consideration.
I've been wondering if there is a possibility of some other third party type "verification" thing that can go on. Like a "seal of actuality" or some type of rating system. I dont know....its a very loose idea.
Like if you saw a story that had the "seal of actuality" you'd know its probably worth reading, or at least taking in to consideration.
Probably won't work, and will likely embolden some of the crazier nuts. Because, like you guys said, there's people that think Snopes is liberal BS.
"Why are they trying to hide this news! The people must know! Ignore the warnings about this being fake news!"
They had the solution once. Actual live curation by actual human beings.
That's still what this is. The only part will be the trolls labeling everything as fake, but once a source is flagged a moderator will look at it to determine whether it's a fake site or an attack site.
I've been wondering if there is a possibility of some other third party type "verification" thing that can go on. Like a "seal of actuality" or some type of rating system. I dont know....its a very loose idea.
Like if you saw a story that had the "seal of actuality" you'd know its probably worth reading, or at least taking in to consideration.
Probably won't work, and will likely embolden some of the crazier nuts. Because, like you guys said, there's people that think Snopes is liberal BS.
"Why are they trying to hide this news! The people must know! Ignore the warnings about this being fake news!"
They had the solution once. Actual live curation by actual human beings.
That's still what this is. The only part will be the trolls labeling everything as fake, but once a source is flagged a moderator will look at it to determine whether it's a fake site or an attack site.
Which isn't the same as having actual editors making the decision to allow or disallow stories into the news feed.
I've been wondering if there is a possibility of some other third party type "verification" thing that can go on. Like a "seal of actuality" or some type of rating system. I dont know....its a very loose idea.
Like if you saw a story that had the "seal of actuality" you'd know its probably worth reading, or at least taking in to consideration.
Probably won't work, and will likely embolden some of the crazier nuts. Because, like you guys said, there's people that think Snopes is liberal BS.
"Why are they trying to hide this news! The people must know! Ignore the warnings about this being fake news!"
They had the solution once. Actual live curation by actual human beings.
That's still what this is. The only part will be the trolls labeling everything as fake, but once a source is flagged a moderator will look at it to determine whether it's a fake site or an attack site.
Which isn't the same as having actual editors making the decision to allow or disallow stories into the news feed.
I would assume once it's deemed a fake source, then it's banned from being linked in the future. Which would then make it into a game of domain whack-a-mole and a pain in the neck for the fake-news-spinners.
+1
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
I've been wondering if there is a possibility of some other third party type "verification" thing that can go on. Like a "seal of actuality" or some type of rating system. I dont know....its a very loose idea.
Like if you saw a story that had the "seal of actuality" you'd know its probably worth reading, or at least taking in to consideration.
Probably won't work, and will likely embolden some of the crazier nuts. Because, like you guys said, there's people that think Snopes is liberal BS.
"Why are they trying to hide this news! The people must know! Ignore the warnings about this being fake news!"
They had the solution once. Actual live curation by actual human beings.
That's still what this is. The only part will be the trolls labeling everything as fake, but once a source is flagged a moderator will look at it to determine whether it's a fake site or an attack site.
Which isn't the same as having actual editors making the decision to allow or disallow stories into the news feed.
I would assume once it's deemed a fake source, then it's banned from being linked in the future. Which would then make it into a game of domain whack-a-mole and a pain in the neck for the fake-news-spinners.
It looks like there will be a warning page that Congress up when you link one that tells you it's fake, and it's flagged that way in feeds.
I can't decide whether I'm more afraid of things like Pizzagate continually becoming more mainstream or of companies like Facebook and Twitter becoming the arbiters of truth and falsehood.
I'm also uncomfortable when I hear entities like CNN refer to "fake news." Because they're the "real" news? I guess CNN is generally more real than Pizzagate, but that's a pretty low bar; it's not as though the corporate media doesn't willfully mislead much of the time.
At this point I just try to look for the grains of truth hidden in the mound of bullshit, mostly regardless of the source. Unfortunately I don't think every citizen is willing to put a lot of effort into critical reading.
I can't decide whether I'm more afraid of things like Pizzagate continually becoming more mainstream or of companies like Facebook and Twitter becoming the arbiters of truth and falsehood.
I'm also uncomfortable when I hear entities like CNN refer to "fake news." Because they're the "real" news? I guess CNN is generally more real than Pizzagate, but that's a pretty low bar; it's not as though the corporate media doesn't willfully mislead much of the time.
At this point I just try to look for the grains of truth hidden in the mound of bullshit, mostly regardless of the source. Unfortunately I don't think every citizen is willing to put a lot of effort into critical reading.
Saying "I guess CNN is generally more real than Pizzagate" is a bit much. I mean, CNN is shit but they aren't anything close to Pizzagate shit.
Facebook is awful, but not the root of the problem. It just enables basic human flaws and speeds up their effects.
I mean, I guess, but now we're at "the problem is that humans are human," and it's hard to have a constructive solution to that.
There is no solution, at least not a permanent one. There are workarounds, people can and do change. There is nothing anyone can directly do to change the minds of True Believers, but consider how people become OK (or at least less antagonistic) towards homosexuality when they find out their son/daughter/brother/best friend is gay. Sometimes it just takes chance and circumstance for someone to come around. Just because I can't help someone does not mean they are beyond help.
My position right now is that some people are just not worth the time and effort to be shown the light. It's more productive to ignore True Believers and go after less hard headed targets. Frankly I no longer care if Trumpites are made to understand and I don't think they are deserving of that effort. The future will continue to happen whether they want it or not. There isn't an easy way to go through it, but they have chosen the absolute worst way to do it, and they are going to fuck over a whole lot of innocents because of it. I'm done with them. They deserve a place to live and food to eat and healthcare and the freedom to do what they want with their life. As for the value to society of their beliefs and opinions, they can get fucked.
EDIT: This thread is laughably off topic. I don't think it matters because there isn't much to Pizzagate. It's a quite small pile of greasy dog shit that somehow stinks up the entire fucking house.
I can't decide whether I'm more afraid of things like Pizzagate continually becoming more mainstream or of companies like Facebook and Twitter becoming the arbiters of truth and falsehood.
I'm also uncomfortable when I hear entities like CNN refer to "fake news." Because they're the "real" news? I guess CNN is generally more real than Pizzagate, but that's a pretty low bar; it's not as though the corporate media doesn't willfully mislead much of the time.
At this point I just try to look for the grains of truth hidden in the mound of bullshit, mostly regardless of the source. Unfortunately I don't think every citizen is willing to put a lot of effort into critical reading.
I'm not so sure its a "willing" thing. Most people just dont have the time to do careful research. They reply mostly on friends they trust to give them an opinion. Which is why the facebook terribad news is so powerfully effective at polarizing people.
The difference between reporting on real facts poorly and just making up nonsense seems to be lost on more and more folks lately
The right are trying to muddy the waters by calling every left wing biased story (even if true) "fake news."
Unfortunately some on the left are playing their game, and calling every right wing news outlet "fake."
I don't think many people understood that the "fake news" stories weren't just annoying and biased but literally made up off the top of the writer's head.
The difference between reporting on real facts poorly and just making up nonsense seems to be lost on more and more folks lately
The right are trying to muddy the waters by calling every left wing biased story (even if true) "fake news."
Unfortunately some on the left are playing their game, and calling every right wing news outlet "fake."
I don't think many people understood that the "fake news" stories weren't just annoying and biased but literally made up off the top of the writer's head.
I mentally split news up into those three categories:
News without overt editorial slant (i.e., factual)
News with overt editorial slant (i.e., generally factual, but potentially extremely misleading)
Fake news (stuff that's about as real as the Onion)
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
I can't decide whether I'm more afraid of things like Pizzagate continually becoming more mainstream or of companies like Facebook and Twitter becoming the arbiters of truth and falsehood.
I can't decide whether I'm more afraid of things like Pizzagate continually becoming more mainstream or of companies like Facebook and Twitter becoming the arbiters of truth and falsehood.
This goes more or less without saying.
ehh... bad things have happened in the past when media organizations have decided to shape reality to meet their beliefs.
sill geese believing sillier than normal things is arguably worth the trade off to prevent that sort of thing.
I can't decide whether I'm more afraid of things like Pizzagate continually becoming more mainstream or of companies like Facebook and Twitter becoming the arbiters of truth and falsehood.
This goes more or less without saying.
ehh... bad things have happened in the past when media organizations have decided to shape reality to meet their beliefs.
sill geese believing sillier than normal things is arguably worth the trade off to prevent that sort of thing.
The difference between reporting on real facts poorly and just making up nonsense seems to be lost on more and more folks lately
And unfortunately, fake news won't stop real facts ABOUT fake news either, because they can and will just use the "people are saying" thing. "Top democrats host pedophile ring," vs "'Top democrats host pedophile ring' some claim."
I can't decide whether I'm more afraid of things like Pizzagate continually becoming more mainstream or of companies like Facebook and Twitter becoming the arbiters of truth and falsehood.
I'm also uncomfortable when I hear entities like CNN refer to "fake news." Because they're the "real" news? I guess CNN is generally more real than Pizzagate, but that's a pretty low bar; it's not as though the corporate media doesn't willfully mislead much of the time.
At this point I just try to look for the grains of truth hidden in the mound of bullshit, mostly regardless of the source. Unfortunately I don't think every citizen is willing to put a lot of effort into critical reading.
Saying "I guess CNN is generally more real than Pizzagate" is a bit much. I mean, CNN is shit but they aren't anything close to Pizzagate shit.
Yeah, I don't mean to equivocate them. Pizzagate reminds me of schizophrenia. Not even meant as a diss, I've seen the "diagrams" used to explain the theory, and the level of paranoia and symbolic connections drawn between things honestly seems semi-psychotic.
Maybe Facebook just shouldn't allow you to post outbound links? If people can't be trusted to not link to dangerous bullshit, don't let them link anything.
Maybe Facebook just shouldn't allow you to post outbound links? If people can't be trusted to not link to dangerous bullshit, don't let them link anything.
Goodbye to all the corporations that use Facebook accounts to advertise shit to Facebook users.
I saw a sponsored fake news post. It was almost like adding insult to injury as far as any shred of credibility Facebook might have had. Like they're literally getting paid to promote that post. I wish I had taken a screenshot.
I think we've finally entered the era where Facebook is the new Myspace. A site filled with trash and social media profiles of everyone and everything under the sun, but mostly trash.
I saw a sponsored fake news post. It was almost like adding insult to injury as far as any shred of credibility Facebook might have had. Like they're literally getting paid to promote that post. I wish I had taken a screenshot.
I think we've finally entered the era where Facebook is the new Myspace. A site filled with trash and social media profiles of everyone and everything under the sun, but mostly trash.
The underlying problem is that stupid people are more likely to click on ads than non-stupid people. So the people who pay for ads are going to be the ones who use that to their advantage.
I saw a sponsored fake news post. It was almost like adding insult to injury as far as any shred of credibility Facebook might have had. Like they're literally getting paid to promote that post. I wish I had taken a screenshot.
I think we've finally entered the era where Facebook is the new Myspace. A site filled with trash and social media profiles of everyone and everything under the sun, but mostly trash.
The underlying problem is that stupid people are more likely to click on ads than non-stupid people. So the people who pay for ads are going to be the ones who use that to their advantage.
Clumsy people are even more likely to click on ads. I've clicked on hundreds of ads by accident and maybe 5-10 on purpose.
Maybe Facebook just shouldn't allow you to post outbound links? If people can't be trusted to not link to dangerous bullshit, don't let them link anything.
Goodbye to all the corporations that use Facebook accounts to advertise shit to Facebook users.
You vet ability to send outbound links. Users known to link fake news (as the original linkers, not to punish those who might just reshare it). If you get caught as the point of origin for foxnews123.co, then you lose your ability to post outbound links, which can be appealed if you can vouch for extenuating circumstances.
So...I've actually been to this pizzeria, a couple of times actually. It's kind of your atypical avant garde foodie-bs that you find in DC. Upscale overpriced comfort food with a downscale atmosphere. Not exactly your normal "take your kids after the tball" pizzeria.
For this reason, I've been reading a lot of the pizzagate forums and it's super interesting. Not in a "of wow that's a good question" kind of way but more in a "wow, why does this person's mind work like that." It's almost hard to describe their "evidence" and the investigative "connections" they form.
skip this if you aren't interested in discussing the lunacy of their ideas
Things like: Cosmic Ping Pong is one of the sponsors an art auction that one year had as an honorary guest, the Colombian Ambassador, who founded a law firm that the brother of individual investigated as a suspect in the murder of a 7 year old in Colombia worked at.
...That's it. This is posted as a "direct link" between pizzagate and a Colombian child murder and has 56 replies on their forum discussing it.
Slightly risque art is proof. Child writing that the "love cheese pizza" in crayon is proof. A restaurant owner talking about food is proof.
Also, there was a comparison between this and the Satanic Panic and I want to affirm that there is a strong belief in the connection between the child pedophilia aspect and satanic worship. There's basically 2 aspects that drive the cycle: They believe that the circle of powerful insiders enforce discipline and complacency within its membership by child rape. Basically believing that all powerful people (especially in government) only got to be in their position by participating and wont speak up because their own participation would be used to destroy them. But for the individuals at the very top, the whole shebang is really just a sacrifice to the Devil ala some warhammeresque Khorne kinda thing.
There is a strong psychological desire to search for connections in patterns that fuels conspiratorial belief. We can't stop these people from believing this stuff, we can only attempt to limit their impact and reach.
There are actual pedophile conspiracies in high places, but they don't tend to work like that. They just rely on good old fashioned threats and coverups. No need for elaborate pizza dungeons. There's probably kids being abused by politicians in DC right now, and relying on their connections and power to cover it up. Remember how fast that woman who accused Trump of raping her when a child vanished when Trump's people put pressure on her? That's how it works.
There are actual pedophile conspiracies in high places, but they don't tend to work like that. They just rely on good old fashioned threats and coverups. No need for elaborate pizza dungeons. There's probably kids being abused by politicians in DC right now, and relying on their connections and power to cover it up. Remember how fast that woman who accused Trump of raping her when a child vanished when Trump's people put pressure on her? That's how it works.
See: USA Gymnastics, British soccer, the British government in the 80s...
Yes, this kind of stuff distracts from the investigation of real pedophilia networks. Sort of like the limelight given to the internet detectives that muddled the Boston Marathon Bombing investigation when they got some within the.media to chase their bad leads.
There are actual pedophile conspiracies in high places, but they don't tend to work like that. They just rely on good old fashioned threats and coverups. No need for elaborate pizza dungeons. There's probably kids being abused by politicians in DC right now, and relying on their connections and power to cover it up. Remember how fast that woman who accused Trump of raping her when a child vanished when Trump's people put pressure on her? That's how it works.
See: USA Gymnastics, British soccer, the British government in the 80s...
I'm starting to wonder how I survived '80s Britain as a child without being abused, it seems like it was an absolute plague back then. Sports, the media, pop music, the government...
I had to double check to make sure that was from an actual TV station (it's a CBS affiliate in Atlanta).
I guess Tom DeLay and all those other people that still supported Hastert are pedophiles, too. Didn't see anything shocking on the mentioned instagram other than a few crass jokes, all archived by "Reddit-isn't-free-speechy-enough" Voat.
Posts
Yea crap. You're probably right. I hadnt considered that.
I'm still somehow stuck in the "facts and truth matter" age. I have to get past that.
Here's where it failed: It was basically an upvote/downvote war between debunkers and conspiracy theorists. One side was basically just downvoting when they came accross stuff, the other was sending tweets to their followers that a psyop was in progress, but they could all install the mod right now and upvote repeatedly from different browsers or using proxies and TRUTH WILL WIN!
Ask, and ye shall receive.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/15/13960062/facebook-fact-check-partnerships-fake-news
Probably won't work, and will likely embolden some of the crazier nuts. Because, like you guys said, there's people that think Snopes is liberal BS.
"Why are they trying to hide this news! The people must know! Ignore the warnings about this being fake news!"
They had the solution once. Actual live curation by actual human beings.
That's still what this is. The only part will be the trolls labeling everything as fake, but once a source is flagged a moderator will look at it to determine whether it's a fake site or an attack site.
Which isn't the same as having actual editors making the decision to allow or disallow stories into the news feed.
I would assume once it's deemed a fake source, then it's banned from being linked in the future. Which would then make it into a game of domain whack-a-mole and a pain in the neck for the fake-news-spinners.
It looks like there will be a warning page that Congress up when you link one that tells you it's fake, and it's flagged that way in feeds.
I'm also uncomfortable when I hear entities like CNN refer to "fake news." Because they're the "real" news? I guess CNN is generally more real than Pizzagate, but that's a pretty low bar; it's not as though the corporate media doesn't willfully mislead much of the time.
At this point I just try to look for the grains of truth hidden in the mound of bullshit, mostly regardless of the source. Unfortunately I don't think every citizen is willing to put a lot of effort into critical reading.
Saying "I guess CNN is generally more real than Pizzagate" is a bit much. I mean, CNN is shit but they aren't anything close to Pizzagate shit.
There is no news in the truth, and no truth in the news.
Truth doesnt grab eyeballs, but controversy does.
MWO: Adamski
There is no solution, at least not a permanent one. There are workarounds, people can and do change. There is nothing anyone can directly do to change the minds of True Believers, but consider how people become OK (or at least less antagonistic) towards homosexuality when they find out their son/daughter/brother/best friend is gay. Sometimes it just takes chance and circumstance for someone to come around. Just because I can't help someone does not mean they are beyond help.
My position right now is that some people are just not worth the time and effort to be shown the light. It's more productive to ignore True Believers and go after less hard headed targets. Frankly I no longer care if Trumpites are made to understand and I don't think they are deserving of that effort. The future will continue to happen whether they want it or not. There isn't an easy way to go through it, but they have chosen the absolute worst way to do it, and they are going to fuck over a whole lot of innocents because of it. I'm done with them. They deserve a place to live and food to eat and healthcare and the freedom to do what they want with their life. As for the value to society of their beliefs and opinions, they can get fucked.
EDIT: This thread is laughably off topic. I don't think it matters because there isn't much to Pizzagate. It's a quite small pile of greasy dog shit that somehow stinks up the entire fucking house.
I'm not so sure its a "willing" thing. Most people just dont have the time to do careful research. They reply mostly on friends they trust to give them an opinion. Which is why the facebook terribad news is so powerfully effective at polarizing people.
The right are trying to muddy the waters by calling every left wing biased story (even if true) "fake news."
Unfortunately some on the left are playing their game, and calling every right wing news outlet "fake."
I don't think many people understood that the "fake news" stories weren't just annoying and biased but literally made up off the top of the writer's head.
Yeah. There's a clear, distinct line between a biased editorial slant (Fox saying that Americans are ready to move on from Russia hacking) and "made shit up" (Pizzagate, FBI Agent Suspected in Hillary E-mail Leaks Found Dead). I generally disagree with Fox's interpretations of facts, but I don't often dispute the underlying reality. I also recognize that there's certainly some words at the end of the spectrum that might be technically true but which aren't true in a meaningful sense (Breitbart articles on global warming come to mind - rather than link to one directly, here's the Weather Network calling out their goosepoop).
I mentally split news up into those three categories:
News without overt editorial slant (i.e., factual)
News with overt editorial slant (i.e., generally factual, but potentially extremely misleading)
Fake news (stuff that's about as real as the Onion)
sill geese believing sillier than normal things is arguably worth the trade off to prevent that sort of thing.
And unfortunately, fake news won't stop real facts ABOUT fake news either, because they can and will just use the "people are saying" thing. "Top democrats host pedophile ring," vs "'Top democrats host pedophile ring' some claim."
Did you ever meet the mother who very obviously murdered her son and blamed it on mean ol satanist D&D? We had two of those where I grew up.
Goodbye to all the corporations that use Facebook accounts to advertise shit to Facebook users.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I think we've finally entered the era where Facebook is the new Myspace. A site filled with trash and social media profiles of everyone and everything under the sun, but mostly trash.
The underlying problem is that stupid people are more likely to click on ads than non-stupid people. So the people who pay for ads are going to be the ones who use that to their advantage.
Clumsy people are even more likely to click on ads. I've clicked on hundreds of ads by accident and maybe 5-10 on purpose.
You vet ability to send outbound links. Users known to link fake news (as the original linkers, not to punish those who might just reshare it). If you get caught as the point of origin for foxnews123.co, then you lose your ability to post outbound links, which can be appealed if you can vouch for extenuating circumstances.
For this reason, I've been reading a lot of the pizzagate forums and it's super interesting. Not in a "of wow that's a good question" kind of way but more in a "wow, why does this person's mind work like that." It's almost hard to describe their "evidence" and the investigative "connections" they form.
skip this if you aren't interested in discussing the lunacy of their ideas
...That's it. This is posted as a "direct link" between pizzagate and a Colombian child murder and has 56 replies on their forum discussing it.
Slightly risque art is proof. Child writing that the "love cheese pizza" in crayon is proof. A restaurant owner talking about food is proof.
Also, there was a comparison between this and the Satanic Panic and I want to affirm that there is a strong belief in the connection between the child pedophilia aspect and satanic worship. There's basically 2 aspects that drive the cycle: They believe that the circle of powerful insiders enforce discipline and complacency within its membership by child rape. Basically believing that all powerful people (especially in government) only got to be in their position by participating and wont speak up because their own participation would be used to destroy them. But for the individuals at the very top, the whole shebang is really just a sacrifice to the Devil ala some warhammeresque Khorne kinda thing.
There is a strong psychological desire to search for connections in patterns that fuels conspiratorial belief. We can't stop these people from believing this stuff, we can only attempt to limit their impact and reach.
See: USA Gymnastics, British soccer, the British government in the 80s...
I'm starting to wonder how I survived '80s Britain as a child without being abused, it seems like it was an absolute plague back then. Sports, the media, pop music, the government...
Well.
Here we go.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
I guess Tom DeLay and all those other people that still supported Hastert are pedophiles, too. Didn't see anything shocking on the mentioned instagram other than a few crass jokes, all archived by "Reddit-isn't-free-speechy-enough" Voat.
Way to feed the beast.
I mean, yeah, I knew better, but I still hoped.