arkrud wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeed/status/799350731065044992

The problem is, who is going to help us decide what is fake? Oh, wait, I know, the government? Corporations? Isn't that what got us into our current mess?

To be honest, the purest source of information by far this election, which is what brought up all this fake news talk, are the Wiki Leaks emails, right from the Horses mouth.
And many of the emails can be verified with DKIM headers. (Don't ask me to explain that!)

If a pre-election poll showed Trump to have a 1% chance of winning, is that Fake?
When there is an interview about Clinton and an interviewee gets cut off right when they bring up Wikileaks, is that Fake?
If the NY Times makes an apology regarding wanting to be less biased, does that mean some of what they shared was Fake news? http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-trump/
If you were told reading Wikileaks was illegal, is that Fake news?
All of those things and many more, happened on mainstream. Basically, they are bleeding and need to try to bring their programming audience back, so we better get the president involved and make up a law.

The Standard will never go both ways, Fake news is a word like Terrorism, it is the enemy who gets the label, even if you do the same thing as them.

“Until they became conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Don't quote Orwell, he was very left wing- he would be disgusted at who you support

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Orwell was one the biggest anti-communist and anti-socialist to the extend his books were banned in socialist countries and people who read them were considered the enemies of the state.
Truth is simple, accepting it is hard.
But even not accepted truth remained truth.
Power corrupt and absolute power corrupt absolutely.
Checks and balances in US political system, seniority of the rights of the human being over the rights of government, and free market economy with all flaws they have are the guaranty against tyranny, dictatorship, and ensure gradual progress.
Any system will produce winners and losers, some people will not be treated fairly.
But it is the price to pay for bigger and more important things.

It is wrong to say he was anti-socialist. Orwell was definitely a socialist. He was anti-Soviet, anti-Stalinist, anti-authoritarian, anti-totalitarian, and anti-fascist. He would be more of a democratic socialist with a sympathy towards socialist anarchism, considering his Spanish Civil War experiences in Catalonia. Anti-communist is probably fair though, considering again the Spanish Civil War.

You make the classic 1st/2nd world mistake of equating socialism with communism or Sovietism or Stalinism. I don't think Orwell would have even considered the USSR true socialism.

DrAlphaeus wrote:

arkrud wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeed/status/799350731065044992

The problem is, who is going to help us decide what is fake? Oh, wait, I know, the government? Corporations? Isn't that what got us into our current mess?

To be honest, the purest source of information by far this election, which is what brought up all this fake news talk, are the Wiki Leaks emails, right from the Horses mouth.
And many of the emails can be verified with DKIM headers. (Don't ask me to explain that!)

If a pre-election poll showed Trump to have a 1% chance of winning, is that Fake?
When there is an interview about Clinton and an interviewee gets cut off right when they bring up Wikileaks, is that Fake?
If the NY Times makes an apology regarding wanting to be less biased, does that mean some of what they shared was Fake news? http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-trump/
If you were told reading Wikileaks was illegal, is that Fake news?
All of those things and many more, happened on mainstream. Basically, they are bleeding and need to try to bring their programming audience back, so we better get the president involved and make up a law.

The Standard will never go both ways, Fake news is a word like Terrorism, it is the enemy who gets the label, even if you do the same thing as them.

“Until they became conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Don't quote Orwell, he was very left wing- he would be disgusted at who you support

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Orwell was one the biggest anti-communist and anti-socialist to the extend his books were banned in socialist countries and people who read them were considered the enemies of the state.
Truth is simple, accepting it is hard.
But even not accepted truth remained truth.
Power corrupt and absolute power corrupt absolutely.
Checks and balances in US political system, seniority of the rights of the human being over the rights of government, and free market economy with all flaws they have are the guaranty against tyranny, dictatorship, and ensure gradual progress.
Any system will produce winners and losers, some people will not be treated fairly.
But it is the price to pay for bigger and more important things.

It is wrong to say he was anti-socialist. Orwell was definitely a socialist. He was anti-Soviet, anti-Stalinist, anti-authoritarian, anti-totalitarian, and anti-fascist. He would be more of a democratic socialist with a sympathy towards socialist anarchism, considering his Spanish Civil War experiences in Catalonia. Anti-communist is probably fair though, considering again the Spanish Civil War.

You make the classic 1st/2nd world mistake of equating socialism with communism or Sovietism or Stalinism. I don't think Orwell would have even considered the USSR true socialism.

People who never experience live in USSR have an impression that this was some Evil Empire.
In fact millions of people in USSR truly try to build socialist society. It was not conspiracy of the few but movement of millions.
At some point they realized that the things which is in their way is human nature itself and they decided to build "new human being" who will be able to endorse and successfully function in socialist society.
Obviously this failed miserably as human nature cannot be changed without distorting the humanity itself.
What they created instead was society in which everyone pretended to be this "new human being" but was functioning as normal human does in his own self-interest and interest of his family/tribe. Obviously eventually all real productive economy and socio-cultural life went underground and society run out of wealth and resources and collapsed.
This scenario repeating itself over and over again is other countries with more or less horrific consequences.
But other people keep trying the same thing that never worked over and over again. The true definition of human madness.

earthmansurfer wrote:

arkrud wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeed/status/799350731065044992

The problem is, who is going to help us decide what is fake? Oh, wait, I know, the government? Corporations? Isn't that what got us into our current mess?

To be honest, the purest source of information by far this election, which is what brought up all this fake news talk, are the Wiki Leaks emails, right from the Horses mouth.
And many of the emails can be verified with DKIM headers. (Don't ask me to explain that!)

If a pre-election poll showed Trump to have a 1% chance of winning, is that Fake?
When there is an interview about Clinton and an interviewee gets cut off right when they bring up Wikileaks, is that Fake?
If the NY Times makes an apology regarding wanting to be less biased, does that mean some of what they shared was Fake news? http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-trump/
If you were told reading Wikileaks was illegal, is that Fake news?
All of those things and many more, happened on mainstream. Basically, they are bleeding and need to try to bring their programming audience back, so we better get the president involved and make up a law.

The Standard will never go both ways, Fake news is a word like Terrorism, it is the enemy who gets the label, even if you do the same thing as them.

“Until they became conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Don't quote Orwell, he was very left wing- he would be disgusted at who you support

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Orwell was one the biggest anti-communist and anti-socialist to the extend his books were banned in socialist countries and people who read them were considered the enemies of the state.
Truth is simple, accepting it is hard.
But even not accepted truth remained truth.
Power corrupt and absolute power corrupt absolutely.
Checks and balances in US political system, seniority of the rights of the human being over the rights of government, and free market economy with all flaws they have are the guaranty against tyranny, dictatorship, and ensure gradual progress.
Any system will produce winners and losers, some people will not be treated fairly.
But it is the price to pay for bigger and more important things.

I enjoyed that read. I really know nothing about Orwell but I'm going to watch 1984 again. (Last thing I need, eh?)
Enjoy the ride...

From Orwell himself:

Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.

http://www.biographyonline.net/socialism-george-orwell/

Cold war folk erased the whole concept of democratic socialism, which is why a lot of people seem oblivious to the concept and just think socialism was the USSR

Unfortunately, many in America equate Socialism with Soviet Communism. They are unaware that Socialist ideals have nothing to do with Stalin’s policies. Orwell saw Stalin and Hitler has pursuing essentially the same aim of creating a totalitarian state. Orwell wrote against totalitarianism and passionately for a democratic and fair Socialist society in Britain.

arkrud wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

arkrud wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeed/status/799350731065044992

The problem is, who is going to help us decide what is fake? Oh, wait, I know, the government? Corporations? Isn't that what got us into our current mess?

To be honest, the purest source of information by far this election, which is what brought up all this fake news talk, are the Wiki Leaks emails, right from the Horses mouth.
And many of the emails can be verified with DKIM headers. (Don't ask me to explain that!)

If a pre-election poll showed Trump to have a 1% chance of winning, is that Fake?
When there is an interview about Clinton and an interviewee gets cut off right when they bring up Wikileaks, is that Fake?
If the NY Times makes an apology regarding wanting to be less biased, does that mean some of what they shared was Fake news? http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-trump/
If you were told reading Wikileaks was illegal, is that Fake news?
All of those things and many more, happened on mainstream. Basically, they are bleeding and need to try to bring their programming audience back, so we better get the president involved and make up a law.

The Standard will never go both ways, Fake news is a word like Terrorism, it is the enemy who gets the label, even if you do the same thing as them.

“Until they became conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Don't quote Orwell, he was very left wing- he would be disgusted at who you support

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Orwell was one the biggest anti-communist and anti-socialist to the extend his books were banned in socialist countries and people who read them were considered the enemies of the state.
Truth is simple, accepting it is hard.
But even not accepted truth remained truth.
Power corrupt and absolute power corrupt absolutely.
Checks and balances in US political system, seniority of the rights of the human being over the rights of government, and free market economy with all flaws they have are the guaranty against tyranny, dictatorship, and ensure gradual progress.
Any system will produce winners and losers, some people will not be treated fairly.
But it is the price to pay for bigger and more important things.

It is wrong to say he was anti-socialist. Orwell was definitely a socialist. He was anti-Soviet, anti-Stalinist, anti-authoritarian, anti-totalitarian, and anti-fascist. He would be more of a democratic socialist with a sympathy towards socialist anarchism, considering his Spanish Civil War experiences in Catalonia. Anti-communist is probably fair though, considering again the Spanish Civil War.

You make the classic 1st/2nd world mistake of equating socialism with communism or Sovietism or Stalinism. I don't think Orwell would have even considered the USSR true socialism.

People who never experience live in USSR have an impression that this was some Evil Empire.
In fact millions of people in USSR truly try to build socialist society. It was not conspiracy of the few but movement of millions.
At some point they realized that the things which is in their way is human nature itself and they decided to build "new human being" who will be able to endorse and successfully function in socialist society.
Obviously this failed miserably as human nature cannot be changed without distorting the humanity itself.
What they created instead was society in which everyone pretended to be this "new human being" but was functioning as normal human does in his own self-interest and interest of his family/tribe. Obviously eventually all real productive economy and socio-cultural life went underground and society run out of wealth and resources and collapsed.
This scenario repeating itself over and over again is other countries with more or less horrific consequences.
But other people keep trying the same thing that never worked over and over again. The true definition of human madness.

I know you have your opinion on human nature... and your experiences in the USSR, which I don't think of as an Evil Empire, at least not any more evil than any empire, ours included.

You just lump all flavors of socialism together. Understandable with your experience but just because you lived in the USSR doesn't mean you are the authority on socialism. You seem to lump Stalin and Bernie Sanders in the same bucket. I don't agree.

I bring up Spanish civil war. Anarchists and communist used to all fly the red flag. However one group was authoritarian and one anti-authoritarian. And meanwhile in Western Europe there are democratic socialist and Christian socialist parties...

You generalize out of your experience, as is your right. But we should be clear with definitions and facts. Orwell wasn't an anti-socialist.

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:EMS, re: what is fake news. It's an interesting point. Is horse race journalism fake news? Is poll watching and projections of the percentage chance of winning fake news? I kinda think it is. I been complaining about that stuff for months. Note I didn't put Huffington Post in my list. I don't really respect it as a news organization. There is news and there is opinion. And the prediction stuff we now see was as accurate as a horoscope. Deeply flawed but based on "facts" (current polling data) but arguably news.

But if you read though those Buzzfeed articles I posted — ironic because Buzzfeed is a clickbait pioneer — you'll see that they are talking about straight up hoax news. Sort of what we saw with that Hannity/ForexLive/NASDAQ reported BS story about Michelle Obama deleting Hillary Clinton from her Twitter. There was no factual basis. Does killing fake news kill parody/satire sites? Lots of questions I don't have answers to.

Correct the Record just seems like another type of astroturfing a/k/a "fake grassroots". Seems like an organic groundswell but really is just big money pretending it is. Been happening on the right for a while. So naturally the left is trying to get in on it. Not visiting Reddit and turning off comments with a browser extension would pretty much erase their influence though, right? Is CTR news or opinion?

Re - the polls, I would only call them fake if we could actually prove there was collusion (regarding results) between the polling companies and the e.g. DNC (in this case). I'm not sure if that is easily possible. I don'T know how much transparency is involved. But this seems like something that would just make it better for all parties involved (except those that cheat.)

Clearly MSM gets more right than wrong, but there is the leaning that they all do. I guess a sign of the times and a bi-product of capitalism. Can we really have fair news when corporations own the news? That sounds crazy. Do we know why the Washington Post was so against Trump? Bezos (CEO of Amazon) owns them - what Benefits Amazon? There is this constant conflict of interests between people, companies, governments, etc. and so "FAKE NEWS" is a very relative thing.

Just because something is true, doesn't mean it isn't "fake", right? It can still be (and usually is) leaning towards the group (companies) promoting it and what benefits them or the institutions, governments, etc. behind them. (I'm not done with looking into Buzzfeed so can't comment.)

CTR is really dangerous precedence. But then again, as you allude to (I think), it is just more of the same.

If Trump is really going to try to change things, we are in for one hell of a ride. And I care less about Trump per se than what he can accomplish. Sure, keep an eye on him if you want, but if he really tries to make America great again, what do the globalists say? This agenda that has been moving forward for years now, do they step aside and let this movement go where it will? Judging by the last week or so, looks like that is not going to be the case.

Oh, I don't think you answered my question though! lol, those things I mentioned, are they fake news? It appears quite clear to me that they are. And I'm not trying to say two wrongs make a right, or fight fire with fire, but I get the feeling that we are a part of a larger system, call it what you will (collective conscious in part), and she is self correcting now.

Ok I was wishy washy but bolded some things that answered you above. I will take your points on WashPost... I've been reading on them and yea.. problematic journalism I grant you. But I am drawing distinction between bad journalism and fake news I guess, if that makes sense. Read those Buzzfeed account about the Macedonian click farms. Outright fiction peddled to gullible Fox News fans for clicks. That's what I think the fake news label is about, but I concede it is convenient labeling that obscures problems the MSM has with itself. Because telling gullible liberal NY Times readers their horse is in the lead is probably doing a similar thing.

What was said before about individuals taking responsibility for information consumed was spot on. I just think things spiralled out of control with bad information. If you think back to the 1950's (not that I was alive then) and consider, people were generally trusting of the media. (at least relative to now. And I haven't seen stats on that, but I kind of assume the 50's were the last bastion and then the rebellion of the 60's came.) Now - no matter which way you lean it is pretty clear the media is biased. It was back in the 50's too, the Edward Bernay's "PR" movement was in full affect. People just didn't know it. It was a lot of work checking sources, now it is a click away quite often.

I read some of that Buzzfeed article and just the thought is scary. It is too easy to not be going on at a certain level. Today information is more important than ever. Public perception is too important for those who know, to lose control of imo. (But just a part of the picture of course.)

Today, we have more choices, with the internet being a huge one, it is rather everything in one if it chooses. So, controlling information will be business as usual imo. In a way, they can probable file it under National Security. After all, Homeland Security helped us by taking down sports streaming websites. lol (I give you that those sites spread malware, but from who?)

Building software/websites that help us to verify information, to connect things, they will come with more transparency. Slightly related, the tech in use now, for example Blockchains (What Bitcoin is essentially the first app on a blochain - one of money, tracking ownership essentially) will add a level of record tracking which can't realistically be changed and is available no where else, not decentralized anyway. Any information that has value can be "indexed" or "stored" there. It is apolitical, neutral, not owned by a government per se. By its very nature this technology is anti-corruptive, at least how it is now. ALL larger banks have looked into it btw, but of course they want to take parts of it, make it mutable, lol. Sounds like a slow Database to me...

Anyway, back to the point, FAKE NEWS. To be honest, I think we are witnessing the very early days of Napster. They took it down and allowed Torrent to spring up. That spread information. Now, they are going to raise standards for news. Well, what happens if that comes back to bite them just like Napster did? It is a beautiful analogy. Now that Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and such are censoring, Social Media 2.0 is on the way and parts are already here. A Twitter/Reddit like board in Gab, looks interesting https://gab.ai/ and is just one of quite a few promising new social media platforms coming out - platforms that are more difficult to censor. And some decentralized reddit like sites are on the way. Still early days, but onec TPTB lose control of media, the world can connect, communicate and probably live in peace and prosperity. The internet is where it is at. Look at how the internet changed this last presidential race? I mean is it no coincidence that you have the current president speaking out about this "Fake News" problem?

I just see this organic process is going on and it can't be steered 100%, barring a huge war, natural disaster or the like, we win. And the before mentioned would just delay that.

I think we have more than a chance to make it. I think it is a done deal.

smackeddog wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

arkrud wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeed/status/799350731065044992

The problem is, who is going to help us decide what is fake? Oh, wait, I know, the government? Corporations? Isn't that what got us into our current mess?

To be honest, the purest source of information by far this election, which is what brought up all this fake news talk, are the Wiki Leaks emails, right from the Horses mouth.
And many of the emails can be verified with DKIM headers. (Don't ask me to explain that!)

If a pre-election poll showed Trump to have a 1% chance of winning, is that Fake?
When there is an interview about Clinton and an interviewee gets cut off right when they bring up Wikileaks, is that Fake?
If the NY Times makes an apology regarding wanting to be less biased, does that mean some of what they shared was Fake news? http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-trump/
If you were told reading Wikileaks was illegal, is that Fake news?
All of those things and many more, happened on mainstream. Basically, they are bleeding and need to try to bring their programming audience back, so we better get the president involved and make up a law.

The Standard will never go both ways, Fake news is a word like Terrorism, it is the enemy who gets the label, even if you do the same thing as them.

“Until they became conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Don't quote Orwell, he was very left wing- he would be disgusted at who you support

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Orwell was one the biggest anti-communist and anti-socialist to the extend his books were banned in socialist countries and people who read them were considered the enemies of the state.
Truth is simple, accepting it is hard.
But even not accepted truth remained truth.
Power corrupt and absolute power corrupt absolutely.
Checks and balances in US political system, seniority of the rights of the human being over the rights of government, and free market economy with all flaws they have are the guaranty against tyranny, dictatorship, and ensure gradual progress.
Any system will produce winners and losers, some people will not be treated fairly.
But it is the price to pay for bigger and more important things.

I enjoyed that read. I really know nothing about Orwell but I'm going to watch 1984 again. (Last thing I need, eh?)
Enjoy the ride...

From Orwell himself:

Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.

http://www.biographyonline.net/socialism-george-orwell/

Cold war folk erased the whole concept of democratic socialism, which is why a lot of people seem oblivious to the concept and just think socialism was the USSR

Unfortunately, many in America equate Socialism with Soviet Communism. They are unaware that Socialist ideals have nothing to do with Stalin’s policies. Orwell saw Stalin and Hitler has pursuing essentially the same aim of creating a totalitarian state. Orwell wrote against totalitarianism and passionately for a democratic and fair Socialist society in Britain.

Thanks for the link, I'll check more out about him.

Being here in Germany I get to experience some very large social care aspects. The medical system is socialized. As we briefly discussed before, we can't really compare them to one another as America has much higher costs but at least I see this can work. Quite a few people here ask me why Americans are so against Socialized medicine (that is their perception). I told them it is a hard concept for a capitalistic state to grasp. Not sure that is right, but it what I feel. People get hung up on names and words. "Do you do drugs?" That one words groups some pretty safe things with stuff that will kill you quickly if you are unlucky. And in a similar way, we have an ugly word in "socialism", or even worse "Communism". Funny, they don't sound bad to me, unless I think of their failed implimentations, same for capitalism. lol

smackeddog wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Just like the vote Trump and co will shock again

Just sit back and listen to the inane obtuse ideas coming out of the mouths of the people not comprehending what this is all about. Trump is about nationalism Trump will rebuild infrastructure create millions of good paying jobs lower taxes while we see GDP growth rise up to 3.5-4.5% we will begin to lower our deficit and there will be many with cake on their faces but atleast they'll have a job!

In your postings in the past you've revealed you are homophobic, racist and that you put your hands round your wife's throat when youve argued ('just to show her you cared' or some such crap was your justification) so I'm not surprised you're excited about Trump's reign.

Mr Ad Hominem with a little guilt by association thrown in, nice example there of attacking the messenger and ignoring the message. Why do you want to attack him as a person? Is what he says sort of true? Yeah, it is. It is pretty clear that what Briggs said is Trumps plan. The guy has a better idea on how to fix this country and in part a lot of respectable people got behind him. You are witnessing it and will continue to. Give him a chance.

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:EMS, re: what is fake news. It's an interesting point. Is horse race journalism fake news? Is poll watching and projections of the percentage chance of winning fake news? I kinda think it is. I been complaining about that stuff for months. Note I didn't put Huffington Post in my list. I don't really respect it as a news organization. There is news and there is opinion. And the prediction stuff we now see was as accurate as a horoscope. Deeply flawed but based on "facts" (current polling data) but arguably news.

But if you read though those Buzzfeed articles I posted — ironic because Buzzfeed is a clickbait pioneer — you'll see that they are talking about straight up hoax news. Sort of what we saw with that Hannity/ForexLive/NASDAQ reported BS story about Michelle Obama deleting Hillary Clinton from her Twitter. There was no factual basis. Does killing fake news kill parody/satire sites? Lots of questions I don't have answers to.

Correct the Record just seems like another type of astroturfing a/k/a "fake grassroots". Seems like an organic groundswell but really is just big money pretending it is. Been happening on the right for a while. So naturally the left is trying to get in on it. Not visiting Reddit and turning off comments with a browser extension would pretty much erase their influence though, right? Is CTR news or opinion?

Re - the polls, I would only call them fake if we could actually prove there was collusion (regarding results) between the polling companies and the e.g. DNC (in this case). I'm not sure if that is easily possible. I don'T know how much transparency is involved. But this seems like something that would just make it better for all parties involved (except those that cheat.)

Clearly MSM gets more right than wrong, but there is the leaning that they all do. I guess a sign of the times and a bi-product of capitalism. Can we really have fair news when corporations own the news? That sounds crazy. Do we know why the Washington Post was so against Trump? Bezos (CEO of Amazon) owns them - what Benefits Amazon? There is this constant conflict of interests between people, companies, governments, etc. and so "FAKE NEWS" is a very relative thing.

Just because something is true, doesn't mean it isn't "fake", right? It can still be (and usually is) leaning towards the group (companies) promoting it and what benefits them or the institutions, governments, etc. behind them. (I'm not done with looking into Buzzfeed so can't comment.)

CTR is really dangerous precedence. But then again, as you allude to (I think), it is just more of the same.

If Trump is really going to try to change things, we are in for one hell of a ride. And I care less about Trump per se than what he can accomplish. Sure, keep an eye on him if you want, but if he really tries to make America great again, what do the globalists say? This agenda that has been moving forward for years now, do they step aside and let this movement go where it will? Judging by the last week or so, looks like that is not going to be the case.

Oh, I don't think you answered my question though! lol, those things I mentioned, are they fake news? It appears quite clear to me that they are. And I'm not trying to say two wrongs make a right, or fight fire with fire, but I get the feeling that we are a part of a larger system, call it what you will (collective conscious in part), and she is self correcting now.

Ok I was wishy washy but bolded some things that answered you above. I will take your points on WashPost... I've been reading on them and yea.. problematic journalism I grant you. But I am drawing distinction between bad journalism and fake news I guess, if that makes sense. Read those Buzzfeed account about the Macedonian click farms. Outright fiction peddled to gullible Fox News fans for clicks. That's what I think the fake news label is about, but I concede it is convenient labeling that obscures problems the MSM has with itself. Because telling gullible liberal NY Times readers their horse is in the lead is probably doing a similar thing.

What was said before about individuals taking responsibility for information consumed was spot on. I just think things spiralled out of control with bad information. If you think back to the 1950's (not that I was alive then) and consider, people were generally trusting of the media. (at least relative to now. And I haven't seen stats on that, but I kind of assume the 50's were the last bastion and then the rebellion of the 60's came.) Now - no matter which way you lean it is pretty clear the media is biased. It was back in the 50's too, the Edward Bernay's "PR" movement was in full affect. People just didn't know it. It was a lot of work checking sources, now it is a click away quite often.

I read some of that Buzzfeed article and just the thought is scary. It is too easy to not be going on at a certain level. Today information is more important than ever. Public perception is too important for those who know, to lose control of imo. (But just a part of the picture of course.)

Today, we have more choices, with the internet being a huge one, it is rather everything in one if it chooses. So, controlling information will be business as usual imo. In a way, they can probable file it under National Security. After all, Homeland Security helped us by taking down sports streaming websites. lol (I give you that those sites spread malware, but from who?)

Building software/websites that help us to verify information, to connect things, they will come with more transparency. Slightly related, the tech in use now, for example Blockchains (What Bitcoin is essentially the first app on a blochain - one of money, tracking ownership essentially) will add a level of record tracking which can't realistically be changed and is available no where else, not decentralized anyway. Any information that has value can be "indexed" or "stored" there. It is apolitical, neutral, not owned by a government per se. By its very nature this technology is anti-corruptive, at least how it is now. ALL larger banks have looked into it btw, but of course they want to take parts of it, make it mutable, lol. Sounds like a slow Database to me...

Anyway, back to the point, FAKE NEWS. To be honest, I think we are witnessing the very early days of Napster. They took it down and allowed Torrent to spring up. That spread information. Now, they are going to raise standards for news. Well, what happens if that comes back to bite them just like Napster did? It is a beautiful analogy. Now that Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and such are censoring, Social Media 2.0 is on the way and parts are already here. A Twitter/Reddit like board in Gab, looks interesting https://gab.ai/ and is just one of quite a few promising new social media platforms coming out - platforms that are more difficult to censor. And some decentralized reddit like sites are on the way. Still early days, but onec TPTB lose control of media, the world can connect, communicate and probably live in peace and prosperity. The internet is where it is at. Look at how the internet changed this last presidential race? I mean is it no coincidence that you have the current president speaking out about this "Fake News" problem?

I just see this organic process is going on and it can't be steered 100%, barring a huge war, natural disaster or the like, we win. And the before mentioned would just delay that.

I think we have more than a chance to make it. I think it is a done deal.

Interesting perspective, I will look up some of the stuff you reference... I really need to understand this promise of the blockchsin.

But let me return to my original role in this thread as #1 Obama defender lol:

the guy who spread baseless misinformation about Obama's place of birth is succeeding him into office, possibly helped by a flurry of Facebook and Twitter garbage posing as news to pad the pockets of apolitical AdSense scammers.

You can see how that might hit close to home, no?

smackeddog wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Just like the vote Trump and co will shock again

Just sit back and listen to the inane obtuse ideas coming out of the mouths of the people not comprehending what this is all about. Trump is about nationalism Trump will rebuild infrastructure create millions of good paying jobs lower taxes while we see GDP growth rise up to 3.5-4.5% we will begin to lower our deficit and there will be many with cake on their faces but atleast they'll have a job!

In your postings in the past you've revealed you are homophobic, racist and that you put your hands round your wife's throat when youve argued ('just to show her you cared' or some such crap was your justification) so I'm not surprised you're excited about Trump's reign.

Mr Ad Hominem with a little guilt by association thrown in, nice example there of attacking the messenger and ignoring the message. Why do you want to attack him as a person? Is what he says sort of true? Yeah, it is. It is pretty clear that what Briggs said is Trumps plan. The guy has a better idea on how to fix this country and in part a lot of respectable people got behind him. You are witnessing it and will continue to. Give him a chance.

Answer me this, what are your honest views on LGBT rights, racism and misogyny? Im genuinely curious

First, answer my point above instead of getting me to answer you. That is fair. You attacked him. I'm not sure about what he said and there was no context given. But instead of talking about his points on Trump, you attacked his person. And I'm curious why. If Briggs is such a bad guy I think I would have been seeing it a lot and I've been on this board for years. Mostly people would complain because he made too many new threads, never heard him name called like you just did (At least I don't remember that).